Do you believe the official 911 story?

[SAYIT]

do you support the NIST theory or not ?

11+ years after 9/11 the NIST report remains the most rational of all the theories. Hell, even you believe it when it serves your purpose (in bold relief, above).

Yeah we get it Sock. You believe the official 9/11 story. You've said that a thousand times using numerous Sock Puppet accounts. So why do you still come here? You lap up everything your beloved Big Brother feeds you. We get that. Got anything else to offer?

You've got me all wrong, Princess. I just find the silly CTBS you produce to be ... well ... silly.

 

[paulitician]

11+ years after 9/11 the NIST report remains the most rational of all the theories. Hell, even you believe it when it serves your purpose (in bold relief, above).

Yeah we get it Sock. You believe the official 9/11 story. You've said that a thousand times using numerous Sock Puppet accounts. So why do you still come here? You lap up everything your beloved Big Brother feeds you. We get that. Got anything else to offer?

You've got me all wrong, Princess. I just find the silly CTBS you produce to be ... well ... silly.

Well, we find you to be a deranged Sock Puppet troll. So there ya go.

 

[SAYIT]

We're discussing 9/11. Not just WTC 7. Try to keep up Gimp.

No, we're not, Princess. We've been doing 7 for the past couple of pages. Perhaps you should try to keep up.

The post is on 911. Not just WTC 7. Read the OP, ya ignoramus.

The discussion you and I are currently engaged in began with:

Quote: Originally Posted by paulitician
Building 7 was very likely a controlled demolition. They "Pulled It." Go look at which agencies the building housed. That will answer many questions. The official 9/11 story is a Fairy Tale...But not the good kind of Fairy Tale.

Try to keep up, Princess.

 

[SAYIT]

Yeah we get it Sock. You believe the official 9/11 story. You've said that a thousand times using numerous Sock Puppet accounts. So why do you still come here? You lap up everything your beloved Big Brother feeds you. We get that. Got anything else to offer?

You've got me all wrong, Princess. I just find the silly CTBS you produce to be ... well ... silly.

Well, we find you to be a deranged Sock Puppet troll. So there ya go.

"We," again? You speak for all those little vioces in your pinhead and you think I'm deranged? Woo.

 

[PredFan]

I don't believe that the NIST's report is 100% accurate but it is the closest thing to the truth we'll ever get.

 

[paulitician]

No, we're not, Princess. We've been doing 7 for the past couple of pages. Perhaps you should try to keep up.

The post is on 911. Not just WTC 7. Read the OP, ya ignoramus.

The discussion you and I are currently engaged in began with:

Quote: Originally Posted by paulitician
Building 7 was very likely a controlled demolition. They "Pulled It." Go look at which agencies the building housed. That will answer many questions. The official 9/11 story is a Fairy Tale...But not the good kind of Fairy Tale.

Try to keep up, Princess.

Gawd you Socks are so willfully ignorant. Did you even bother to read the OP? Obviously not.

 

[SAYIT]

only a single charge was required according to NIST

And now you believe the NIST report? I'm guessing it would have to have been a fucking large explosive (like a Hiroshima nuke) and if that building was so structurally vunerable why do you doubt the rest of the NIST report on 7's collapse?

according to NIST it would be.."as loud as a shot-gun blast or speakers at a rock concert...but hey what does NIST know,,,right ??

As always you post half-truths and outright febrications because the whole truth just doesn't support your conclusions:

Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7? This is from a 9/11 "truther" web site:

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building’s critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

Fire Fighters For 9-11 Truth » Blog Archive » Explosion Witnesses

In other words, everyone in the building and everyone in the hood would have heard it.
You're a liar, Princess, proven once again and we both know why.

 

[SAYIT]

The post is on 911. Not just WTC 7. Read the OP, ya ignoramus.

The discussion you and I are currently engaged in began with:

Quote: Originally Posted by paulitician
Building 7 was very likely a controlled demolition. They "Pulled It." Go look at which agencies the building housed. That will answer many questions. The official 9/11 story is a Fairy Tale...But not the good kind of Fairy Tale.

Try to keep up, Princess.

Gawd you Socks are so willfully ignorant. Did you even bother to read the OP? Obviously not.

Once more for the monumentally stupid:

The discussion you and I are currently engaged in began with:

Quote: Originally Posted by paulitician
Building 7 was very likely a controlled demolition. They "Pulled It." Go look at which agencies the building housed. That will answer many questions. The official 9/11 story is a Fairy Tale...But not the good kind of Fairy Tale.

Now try to keep up, Princess.

 

[paulitician]

The discussion you and I are currently engaged in began with:

Quote: Originally Posted by paulitician
Building 7 was very likely a controlled demolition. They "Pulled It." Go look at which agencies the building housed. That will answer many questions. The official 9/11 story is a Fairy Tale...But not the good kind of Fairy Tale.

Try to keep up, Princess.

Gawd you Socks are so willfully ignorant. Did you even bother to read the OP? Obviously not.

Once more for the monumentally stupid:

The discussion you and I are currently engaged in began with:

Quote: Originally Posted by paulitician
Building 7 was very likely a controlled demolition. They "Pulled It." Go look at which agencies the building housed. That will answer many questions. The official 9/11 story is a Fairy Tale...But not the good kind of Fairy Tale.

Now try to keep up, Princess.

Seriously, get some help. You're losin it. Try actually reading OPs for a change. That might help with your ignoramus problem. Good luck.

 

[eots]

And now you believe the NIST report? I'm guessing it would have to have been a fucking large explosive (like a Hiroshima nuke) and if that building was so structurally vunerable why do you doubt the rest of the NIST report on 7's collapse?

according to NIST it would be.."as loud as a shot-gun blast or speakers at a rock concert...but hey what does NIST know,,,right ??

As always you post half-truths and outright febrications because the whole truth just doesn't support your conclusions:

Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7? This is from a 9/11 "truther" web site:

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building’s critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

Fire Fighters For 9-11 Truth » Blog Archive » Explosion Witnesses

In other words, everyone in the building and everyone in the hood would have heard it.
You're a liar, Princess, proven once again and we both know why.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

 

[eots]

and no testing for explosive residue was done...NIST can say it investigated fully that does not make it so

 

[SAYIT]

according to NIST it would be.."as loud as a shot-gun blast or speakers at a rock concert...but hey what does NIST know,,,right ??

As always you post half-truths and outright febrications because the whole truth just doesn't support your conclusions:

Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7? This is from a 9/11 "truther" web site:

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building’s critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

Fire Fighters For 9-11 Truth » Blog Archive » Explosion Witnesses

In other words, everyone in the building and everyone in the hood would have heard it.
You're a liar, Princess, proven once again and we both know why.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert. .

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

Interesting.
In you original post you claimed "according to NIST it would be...as loud as a shot-gun blast or speakers at a rock concert." Having had your lie exposed you now post "This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert."
So why did you feel it necessary to lie in the first post? Can it be that the truth just doesn't support your CT silliness and you took a chance that no one would check your "facts?" Unfortunately you are typical of the 9/11 CT Movement and your "cause's" worst enemy ... a lying slug.

 

[Freewill]

and no testing for explosive residue was done...NIST can say it investigated fully that does not make it so

And no testing was done for a martian death ray, and they say they had an investigation.

 

[SAYIT]

and no testing for explosive residue was done...NIST can say it investigated fully that does not make it so

As one who just hours ago posted an altered NIST response to a question, your credibilty and POV are of no value, Princess. You're a fraud.

 

[PredFan]

The NIST report never tested for evidence that Chuck Norris didn't roundhouse kick both buildings either. What a sham!

 

[eots]

and no testing for explosive residue was done...NIST can say it investigated fully that does not make it so

As one who just hours ago posted an altered NIST response to a question, your credibilty and POV are of no value, Princess. You're a fraud.

lol.. it was your post that was altered dip-shit mine came directly from NIST
Your edited version came from some other site..fuck what a joke you are

 

[eots]

and no testing for explosive residue was done...NIST can say it investigated fully that does not make it so

And no testing was done for a martian death ray, and they say they had an investigation.

NIST does not claim to have investigated death rays nipple-head..it did however claim it investigated explosives yet did zero forensic testing for explosives or Incendiaries

 

[eots]

As always you post half-truths and outright febrications because the whole truth just doesn't support your conclusions:

Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7? This is from a 9/11 "truther" web site:

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building’s critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

Fire Fighters For 9-11 Truth » Blog Archive » Explosion Witnesses

In other words, everyone in the building and everyone in the hood would have heard it.
You're a liar, Princess, proven once again and we both know why.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert. .

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

Interesting.
In you original post you claimed "according to NIST it would be...as loud as a shot-gun blast or speakers at a rock concert." Having had your lie exposed you now post "This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert."
So why did you feel it necessary to lie in the first post? Can it be that the truth just doesn't support your CT silliness and you took a chance that no one would check your "facts?" Unfortunately you are typical of the 9/11 CT Movement and your "cause's" worst enemy ... a lying slug.

I posted it from memory thats why there was no link..your cut and paste however was altered..leaving out the rock concert part...why ? Scumbag so you could lie ???..you also posted a link to NIST when your altered cut and paste was not from NIST...and none of this is science I have heard many a shot gun blast that was not that incredible loud i have heard rock concerts that where deafining.no real scientific investigation would use such inane terms

 

[SAYIT]

and no testing for explosive residue was done...NIST can say it investigated fully that does not make it so

As one who just hours ago posted an altered NIST response to a question, your credibilty and POV are of no value, Princess. You're a fraud.

lol.. it was your post that was altered dip-shit mine came directly from NIST
Your edited version came from some other site..fuck what a joke you are

There ya go! Right out of the CT hand book! When caught in a lie, lie some more. Of course, the reality of your lying is recorded:

Quote: SAYIT
And now you believe the NIST report? I'm guessing it would have to have been a fucking large explosive (like a Hiroshima nuke) and if that building was so structurally vunerable why do you doubt the rest of the NIST report on 7's collapse?

Quote: eots
according to NIST it would be.."as loud as a shot-gun blast or speakers at a rock concert...but hey what does NIST know,,,right ??

Nowhere near the actual NIST answer and without a link ... how convenient!

I gave you the 9/11 CT version with a link which was word for word the same as the NIST version. I'd give you credit for showing your face after getting caught red-handed, Princess, but I find no redeeming value to a lying CT skank. Sorry.

 

[wihosa]

As usual, this topic has degenerated into name calling. The righties, so afraid that the truth is that there was a conspiracy simply call names at people who are not afraid to look at the obvious.

When something happens for the first time and remains unexplained those with an open mind want proof. Assertions are not proof. NIST has offered no science for its assertion that fire caused a modern steel framed high rise to collapse at near free fall speeds.

There seems to be a basic misunderstanding of how such buildings are engineered. I do have a basic knowledge having installed a few structural steel elements (beams and columns). First know that in structural engineering there is the safety factor which in high rise buildings is a factor of four. In other words if the math dictates for instance that a beam should have a load bearing capacity of say 40 pounds per square foot then the design beam will have to have a load bearing capacity of 160 psf. The point is that these building are over engineered by a factor of four.

Secondly, all steel framed buildings have the steel structural elements coated in fire proof insulation calculated to withstand a complete conflagration of all potential furnishings and any combustible construction elements.

Finally, building seven is the only such building to ever have collapsed supposedly due to a moderate office fire. Yes moderate. Do a google search, you will find,any examples of similar buildings that were more involved in fire and burned longer yet had no total collapse. Just use your own eyes (look at the video of building seven, its obviously controlled demo)and common sense. If all it took to bring down a building was a fire, why are controlled demolition companies in business? If one wanted to bring down a building, just light it on fire!

I can't figure out who or how, I don't have the facts, but I'm not afraid to listen to licensed architects and structural engineers. If you have the courage of your conviction then Go to the AE911 site.

It's time for a real investigation by a real prosecutor with real subpoena power.if you name calling nay sayers are right you will have the proof. If real science is provided that shows that for the first time ever a fire caused the complete collapse of a modern steel framed high rise I will be prove wrong.

I'm not afraid how about you?