Choose your "Facts" about what happened on 911

[DiveCon]

as usual candyfag,you prove like divecunt does,how pathetic your life is and what an attention seeker you are by talking to yourself.how pathetic. enough for the day.like i said,some of us candytroll arent paid to troll like you guys are.some of us have real HONEST jobs.

You're the one on public assistance; not me.
You're the one having to peel internet off the public library; not me.
Your'e the one continuously posting on AWE.com where nobody goes anymore; not me.

Fuck you and the horse you likely fucked this morning.

correction: the horse that shat him out

 

[eots]

[candycorn;
You're the one on public assistance; not me.You're the one having to peel internet off the public library; not me.

You try to elevate yourself by fantasizing that the other person is on assistance and at the library using the Internet... how pathetic are you ?

Your'e the one continuously posting on AWE.com where nobody goes anymore; not me.

Nobody ? there is a message board but nobody post there ?.. but you go there and read all of 9/11s post ? ...wtf is wrong with you ?

Fuck you and the horse you likely fucked this morning

Now your imaginings go to beastiality ? wow are you creepy

 

[eots]

as usual candyfag,you prove like divecunt does,how pathetic your life is and what an attention seeker you are by talking to yourself.how pathetic. enough for the day.like i said,some of us candytroll arent paid to troll like you guys are.some of us have real HONEST jobs.

You're the one on public assistance; not me.
You're the one having to peel internet off the public library; not me.
Your'e the one continuously posting on AWE.com where nobody goes anymore; not me.

Fuck you and the horse you likely fucked this morning.

correction: the horse that shat him out

What kind of homo says shat ??

 

[DiveCon]

You're the one on public assistance; not me.
You're the one having to peel internet off the public library; not me.
Your'e the one continuously posting on AWE.com where nobody goes anymore; not me.

Fuck you and the horse you likely fucked this morning.

correction: the horse that shat him out

What kind of homo says shat ??

you
clearly you are not familiar with the English language

 

[SFC Ollie]

Another one wanting to make a fool of themselves on this thread?

 

[eots]

correction: the horse that shat him out

What kind of homo says shat ??

you
clearly you are not familiar with the English language

Ii didnt say it was not a word homo..

 

[eots]

Another one wanting to make a fool of themselves on this thread?

did you mumble something old man ?

 

[DiveCon]

What kind of homo says shat ??

you
clearly you are not familiar with the English language

Ii didnt say it was not a word homo..

seems like you have some homophobia, better have that looked at next time you see your shrink

 

[SFC Ollie]

No, I believe I'm normally rather well spoken. Unless of course you have a problem reading.

 

[eots]

you
clearly you are not familiar with the English language

Ii didnt say it was not a word homo..

seems like you have some homophobia, better have that looked at next time you see your shrink

Its a generic term ..all gays don't uses homo words like shat and not all those that use homo words are gay

 

[Obamerican]

Ii didnt say it was not a word homo..

seems like you have some homophobia, better have that looked at next time you see your shrink

Its a generic term ..all gays don't uses homo words like shat and not all those that use homo words are gay

SFC Ollie has a MUCH better grasp of the English language. And you should really kick 9/11 Inside Job off your team. He's a fucking idiot.

 

[DiveCon]

seems like you have some homophobia, better have that looked at next time you see your shrink

Its a generic term ..all gays don't uses homo words like shat and not all those that use homo words are gay

SFC Ollie has a MUCH better grasp of the English language. And you should really kick 9/11 Inside Job off your team. He's a fucking idiot.

they cant afford to
every team needs cheerleaders

 

[PhysicsExist]

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 | Stand with the 911 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ?

 

[DiveCon]

PE spams again

 

[Rat in the Hat]

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 | Stand with the 911 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ?

 

[SFC Ollie]

 

[PhysicsExist]

Building 7 was a 47-story skyscraper that was part of the World Trade Center complex. It would have been the tallest high-rise in 33 states. It collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, 2001. It was not hit by an airplane and suffered minimal damage compared to other buildings much closer to the Twin Towers.

Video compilation of Building 7‘s destruction (no sound):
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWorDrTC0Qg&feature=player_embedded[/ame]
BUILDING 7 IN RELATION TO THE REST OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER COMPLEX:

The Origin of “BuildingWhat?”

More than eight years after the tragedy of September 11, 2001, New York Supreme Court Justice Edward H. Lehner was hearing arguments in a courtroom less than a mile from Ground Zero about a ballot initiative to launch a new investigation of the 9/11 attacks. When the lawyer for the plaintiffs sponsoring the initiative explained that the 9/11 Commission report left many unanswered questions, including “Why did Building 7 come down,” the Judge replied quizzically, “Building what?”

Like Judge Lehner, millions of people do not know or remember only vaguely that a third tower called World Trade Center Building 7 also collapsed on September 11, 2001. In any other situation, the complete, free fall collapse of a 47-story skyscraper would be played over and over on the news. It would be discussed for years to come and building design codes would be completely rewritten. So, why does no one know about Building 7? And why did Building 7 come down?

The answers to these questions have far-reaching implications for our society. The goal of the “BuildingWhat?” campaign is to raise awareness of Building 7 so that together we can begin to address these questions.

In its July 2008 Draft Report for Public Comment, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initially claimed that Building 7 collapsed 40% slower than free fall acceleration.

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall? NIST’s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object “has no structural components below it.”[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives. If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.

Mr. Chandler summarizes the meaning of these observations, saying:

“The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.”

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related[/ame]

Anyone care to address these facts?

 

[DiveCon]

and PE spams again

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Building 7 was a 47-story skyscraper that was part of the World Trade Center complex. It would have been the tallest high-rise in 33 states. It collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, 2001. It was not hit by an airplane and suffered minimal damage compared to other buildings much closer to the Twin Towers.

Video compilation of Building 7‘s destruction (no sound):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWorDrTC0Qg&feature=player_embedded
BUILDING 7 IN RELATION TO THE REST OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER COMPLEX:

The Origin of “BuildingWhat?”

More than eight years after the tragedy of September 11, 2001, New York Supreme Court Justice Edward H. Lehner was hearing arguments in a courtroom less than a mile from Ground Zero about a ballot initiative to launch a new investigation of the 9/11 attacks. When the lawyer for the plaintiffs sponsoring the initiative explained that the 9/11 Commission report left many unanswered questions, including “Why did Building 7 come down,” the Judge replied quizzically, “Building what?”

Like Judge Lehner, millions of people do not know or remember only vaguely that a third tower called World Trade Center Building 7 also collapsed on September 11, 2001. In any other situation, the complete, free fall collapse of a 47-story skyscraper would be played over and over on the news. It would be discussed for years to come and building design codes would be completely rewritten. So, why does no one know about Building 7? And why did Building 7 come down?

The answers to these questions have far-reaching implications for our society. The goal of the “BuildingWhat?” campaign is to raise awareness of Building 7 so that together we can begin to address these questions.

In its July 2008 Draft Report for Public Comment, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initially claimed that Building 7 collapsed 40% slower than free fall acceleration.

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall? NIST’s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object “has no structural components below it.”[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives. If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.

Mr. Chandler summarizes the meaning of these observations, saying:

“The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.”

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related[/ame]

Anyone care to address these facts?

 

[Fizz]

anybody find any explosive demolitions yet?


i didnt think so...