Choose your "Facts" about what happened on 911

[eots]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln_wiaxiibg&feature=related

your man got there "a little bit after 5 o'clock" and he walked around the building? I thought they had established a safety perimeter, seems to me i remember hearing that. So how close could he have gotten to the building? And he didn't see a hole in the building bad enough to bring it down? Yet one of the fire chiefs said ten floors were scoped out 25% into the building? You need a better witness.

The claim 25 % was "scoped out" is in complete and total contradiction to the findings of NIST and if correct would complete invalidate the computer simulation and the NIST progressive collapse theory....nitwit

 

[DiveCon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln_wiaxiibg&feature=related

your man got there "a little bit after 5 o'clock" and he walked around the building? I thought they had established a safety perimeter, seems to me i remember hearing that. So how close could he have gotten to the building? And he didn't see a hole in the building bad enough to bring it down? Yet one of the fire chiefs said ten floors were scoped out 25% into the building? You need a better witness.

the claim 25 % was "scoped out" is in complete and rotal contradiction to the findings of nist and if correct would complete invalidate the computer simulation and the nist progressive collapse theory....nitwit

really?
where did NIST say that this was not true?

 

[SFC Ollie]

I believe i have always said that they got all the major points right. Besides that, I will believe a fire chief who was in the area all day before a guy who shows up less than 20 minutes before the building comes down. But hey, that's just me.

 

[eots]

i believe i have always said that they got all the major points right. Besides that, i will believe a fire chief who was in the area all day before a guy who shows up less than 20 minutes before the building comes down. But hey, that's just me.

well then there is little question you are a simple minded loon that has no clue what he is talking about ...you can not have it both ways if the one person claiming 25% was scoped out is correct then the nist report can not possible have all the major points right...and the computer simulation would be complete invalid..do you really not comprehend that fact ??

 

[SFC Ollie]

I don't live my life fantasizing about what happened on 9-11-01. I have read the official reports and i have seen most of the conspiracy videos. I can use common sense when a guy tells me he was in the area less than 20 minutes and when someone else tells a different story. I can tell when there were hundreds of people in a building before the planes hit and one of them claims there was an explosion that none of the others heard, that he was sorely mistaken.

I know that there were no controlled demolitions because of all these things. You can keep picking at stupid stuff that doesn't fit into your world for the rest of your life. The facts will remain that you are wrong.

 

[eots]

I don't live my life fantasizing about what happened on 9-11-01. I have read the official reports and i have seen most of the conspiracy videos. I can use common sense when a guy tells me he was in the area less than 20 minutes and when someone else tells a different story. I can tell when there were hundreds of people in a building before the planes hit and one of them claims there was an explosion that none of the others heard, that he was sorely mistaken.

I know that there were no controlled demolitions because of all these things. You can keep picking at stupid stuff that doesn't fit into your world for the rest of your life. The facts will remain that you are wrong.

Common sense requires you recognize that if you believe this fire chiefs observations then the NIST report got it all wrong

 

[DiveCon]

I don't live my life fantasizing about what happened on 9-11-01. I have read the official reports and i have seen most of the conspiracy videos. I can use common sense when a guy tells me he was in the area less than 20 minutes and when someone else tells a different story. I can tell when there were hundreds of people in a building before the planes hit and one of them claims there was an explosion that none of the others heard, that he was sorely mistaken.

I know that there were no controlled demolitions because of all these things. You can keep picking at stupid stuff that doesn't fit into your world for the rest of your life. The facts will remain that you are wrong.

Common sense requires you recognize that if you believe this fire chiefs observations then the NIST report got it all wrong

no, it doesn't
common sense says they got the major points right and its only in minute details they got things wrong

 

[eots]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYedTmaHt1A&feature=related[/ame]

 

[eots]

I don't live my life fantasizing about what happened on 9-11-01. I have read the official reports and i have seen most of the conspiracy videos. I can use common sense when a guy tells me he was in the area less than 20 minutes and when someone else tells a different story. I can tell when there were hundreds of people in a building before the planes hit and one of them claims there was an explosion that none of the others heard, that he was sorely mistaken.

I know that there were no controlled demolitions because of all these things. You can keep picking at stupid stuff that doesn't fit into your world for the rest of your life. The facts will remain that you are wrong.

Common sense requires you recognize that if you believe this fire chiefs observations then the NIST report got it all wrong

no, it doesn't
common sense says they got the major points right and its only in minute details they got things wrong

if damage played a significant role in the collapse and it was anything like Ollie's fire chief reports then they got a very major point completely wrong you ninny

 

[DiveCon]

Common sense requires you recognize that if you believe this fire chiefs observations then the NIST report got it all wrong

no, it doesn't
common sense says they got the major points right and its only in minute details they got things wrong

if damage played a significant role in the collapse and it was anything like Ollie's fire chief reports then they got a very major point completely wrong you ninny

no where does NIST make the claim there wasnt damage done to the building
they only say it didnt have a significant effect
the fire chief was there and saw the damage
the photos i've seen show there was that much damage
thew video shows that there was significant fire going on on several floors unabated
no where is NIST in conflict with what the fire chief said

and you have proven to be the "ninny" in this

 

[Rat in the Hat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYedTmaHt1A&feature=related

Who am I supposed to contact to get my money?

Those bastards haven't paid me yet.

 

[eots]

no, it doesn't
common sense says they got the major points right and its only in minute details they got things wrong

if damage played a significant role in the collapse and it was anything like Ollie's fire chief reports then they got a very major point completely wrong you ninny

no where does NIST make the claim there wasnt damage done to the building
they only say it didnt have a significant effectthe fire chief was there and saw the damage
the photos i've seen show there was that much damage
thew video shows that there was significant fire going on on several floors unabated
no where is NIST in conflict with what the fire chief said

and you have proven to be the "ninny" in this

NIST refutes damage to the extent Ollie claims and if you agree it was insignificant then why is it being used to bolster his belifes ?

 

[Mr. Jones]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln_WiAxiIbg&feature=related

Craig Bartmer's testimony can be directly refuted by watching the video of WTC 7 coming down. How can one man claim massive explosions and yet we hear NOTHING but the collapse? You still haven't addressed the video where you can't hear the supposed explosions. Direct video and audio recordings trump a witness when the recordings directly refute the statements of the witness.

I've seen videos released by NIST after the FOIA and there are more and more being found to have altered audio or deleted audio. Besides not having a video with audio does not disprove the CD theory. There's substantial evidence that clearly shows these buildings were helped along. From the time they took to collapse, to NIST finally being forced to admit free fall for 8 stories, to the molten metal under all 3 buildings. Nist also did not do a comprehensive investigation because it did not follow the NFPA standards. Specifically Extremism- N.F.P.A. 921- 19.4.8.2.6
Fire Fighters For 9-11 Truth Blog Archive Extremism- N.F.P.A. 921- 19.4.8.2.6

NIST has made it very clear that two of the reasons they refuse to test for explosive residue are because 1) no blast sounds were heard, and 2) that they must be necessary for an explosion.
Both reasons are bullshit that show they are fucking liars.

Or NFPA 921-18.1 Chapter 18 Explosions
National Fire Protection Association’s guidebook disagrees with their logic on point 2. It is very clearly stated in Chapter 18 - Explosions, 18.1 - General:
“…Although an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise, the noise itself is not an essential element in the definition of an explosion. The generation and violent escape of gases are the primary criteria of an explosion.”

 

[DiveCon]

if damage played a significant role in the collapse and it was anything like Ollie's fire chief reports then they got a very major point completely wrong you ninny

no where does NIST make the claim there wasnt damage done to the building
they only say it didnt have a significant effectthe fire chief was there and saw the damage
the photos i've seen show there was that much damage
thew video shows that there was significant fire going on on several floors unabated
no where is NIST in conflict with what the fire chief said

and you have proven to be the "ninny" in this

NIST refutes damage to the extent Ollie claims and if you agree it was insignificant then why is it being used to bolster his belifes ?

there are things i dont agree with the NIST on
the point of the damage being insignificant is one of them
however, that doesnt change the fact that it wasnt an explosive demo

 

[eots]

no where does NIST make the claim there wasnt damage done to the building
they only say it didnt have a significant effectthe fire chief was there and saw the damage
the photos i've seen show there was that much damage
thew video shows that there was significant fire going on on several floors unabated
no where is NIST in conflict with what the fire chief said

and you have proven to be the "ninny" in this

NIST refutes damage to the extent Ollie claims and if you agree it was insignificant then why is it being used to bolster his belifes ?

there are things i dont agree with the NIST on
the point of the damage being insignificant is one of them
however, that doesnt change the fact that it wasnt an explosive demo

So then the NIST failed to determine the correct cause and correct collapse scenario for of the collapse of wtc 7... according to you

 

[Mr. Jones]

You have a person's OPINION. When are you fucking dishonest people going to get through your little pea brains that OPINIONS ARE NOT EVIDENCE.

Then by that reasoning NIST and the whole damned governments investigation is just OPINION, as it is just a theory also, but one that can not stand up to scrutiny.

WTC 7 didn't fall into its own footprint and despite this liar's claims, the post office and Verizon buildings both suffered significant damage from the debris of WTC 7.

Bullshit-

Huge Amounts Of Smoke Came From WTC 5 & 6 NOT WTC 7

Look at these pics and scroll down towards the bottom and see the post office and the Fiterman Hall building yourself.

This asshole is trying to say there was only smoke coming from one corner of the south face. What.... he thinks no videos exist of the fires? No clear shots exist of the south face because of all the smoke coming from practically the entire building.

Bullshit again look at the pics in the link above asswipe.

I gave up listening to this now proven lying piece of shit at that point. Come on, eots. Can't you do any better than that?!?

By the pics in the link I posted it is you that looks like the lying POS.

 

[Mr. Jones]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTcGA07eJ50


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlAkF7E2nCs

So was it controlled demolition, secondary explosions, or super thermite? You just can't have all three.

Why not? We all know those buildings did not come collapsing down at or near free fall and pulverized without some assistance from something other then jetfuel. I can't believe after all the ass kicking NIST and the official fantasy gets, you people are still denying the possibility of CD!
And you still haven't explained the molten metal that burned for 3 months..that refused to go out..with shitloads of water aaaannd thousands of gallons of Pyrocool. Perhaps you adhere to the theory of massive coal deposits and cow shit like the other retard in the other thread? TOO funny!

 

[DiveCon]

NIST refutes damage to the extent Ollie claims and if you agree it was insignificant then why is it being used to bolster his belifes ?

there are things i dont agree with the NIST on
the point of the damage being insignificant is one of them
however, that doesnt change the fact that it wasnt an explosive demo

So then the NIST failed to determine the correct cause and correct collapse scenario for of the collapse of wtc 7... according to you

so?

 

[Mr. Jones]

You made the statement first why don't you provide the proof ..why should i take the time to post the link ..you would just call the person a fucktard and then throw up your next smoke screen...you have just made all kinds of statements and not backed a single one with a link

Back when Firefightersfor911truth first came out and published their members, there wasn't a single FDNY member among them. Most of them are from Seattle. Now, if you have evidence one of their members is from the FDNY and was there on 9/11, I would be happy to retract my statement. As it is, there is no evidence there is any FDNY firefighters who were at ground zero on 9/11 among their members.

BTW, rarely is a person evidence. You throw out a lot of stupid fucks who give their OPINION of what is going on, but opinions are not evidence.

So what links would you like to see?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-WZpXiEKAo]WTC 7 Collapse[/ame]

Listen closely. You can hear the collapse. You can't hear the massive explosions you truthtards like to pretend were going off to cut all the columns simultaniously to produce the free fall acceleration. Now go on ignoring it like a good little truthtard.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWiCxz5ki80]Miracle in stairwell B[/ame]

Listen to their stories. These are people not giving opinion, but telling what they actually experienced. Now go ahead and ignore these people who clearly refute the claims of controlled demolition in a way nobody else ever can.

So there you have two pieces of incontrovertible evidence there was no controlled demolition.

Now let's see your evidence. Go ahead. Produce it.

The firefighter in your video actually says he heard the floors hitting each other! Boom Boom Boom! we know that pancake theory has been thrown in the trash heap of non sense, even by NIST!
Suppose he's wrong, how does he know it was really the floors? We don't do we, I mean he actually didn't see it did he?
That is of course his opinion, but you always discount opinions as evidence. It's all over your posts. You can't have it both ways idiot. We are supposed to believe that your witnesses are somehow more credible then others because they are your witnesses that adhere to your ass kissing OCTASSes theory. You're a fucking joke get lost.

 

[Patriot911]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln_WiAxiIbg&feature=related

Craig Bartmer's testimony can be directly refuted by watching the video of WTC 7 coming down. How can one man claim massive explosions and yet we hear NOTHING but the collapse? You still haven't addressed the video where you can't hear the supposed explosions. Direct video and audio recordings trump a witness when the recordings directly refute the statements of the witness.

I've seen videos released by NIST after the FOIA and there are more and more being found to have altered audio or deleted audio. Besides not having a video with audio does not disprove the CD theory. There's substantial evidence that clearly shows these buildings were helped along. From the time they took to collapse, to NIST finally being forced to admit free fall for 8 stories, to the molten metal under all 3 buildings. Nist also did not do a comprehensive investigation because it did not follow the NFPA standards. Specifically Extremism- N.F.P.A. 921- 19.4.8.2.6

That video wasn't released by the NIST. That was from the media. And you can tell there were no explosions by the reactions of the people to the noise. If there were explosions, people would have been startled. It is a natural reaction to a loud, sharp noise like an explosion. Instead all you hear is the rumble from the collapse. The people don't jump, they just look in the direction to figure out what the sound is. This, too, is a fact you will run away from.

NIST has made it very clear that two of the reasons they refuse to test for explosive residue are because 1) no blast sounds were heard, and 2) that they must be necessary for an explosion.
Both reasons are bullshit that show they are fucking liars.

Really? Last time I saw, explosives cause massive explosions that can be heard for MILES. Yet we don't even hear a pop.

Or NFPA 921-18.1 Chapter 18 Explosions
National Fire Protection Association’s guidebook disagrees with their logic on point 2. It is very clearly stated in Chapter 18 - Explosions, 18.1 - General:
“…Although an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise, the noise itself is not an essential element in the definition of an explosion. The generation and violent escape of gases are the primary criteria of an explosion.”

Yet there was no violent escape of gasses either. You didn't see windows shooting out from the pressure or any other signs of collapse.