given the fact that the last two videos you posted have false titles to them, why should i give this one a watch?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
given the fact that the last two videos you posted have false titles to them, why should i give this one a watch?
you telling me that diesel fuel wouldnt make that kind of smoke?
you forget that that building had several tanks for emergency genorators
a 60k gal one just for the city
also the structure had been severly damaged by the tower that fell into it
and the way it was built over the power sub station also contributed to it
On August 21, 2008, NIST released its draft report on the causes of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, beginning a period for public comments.[33] In its investigation, NIST utilized ANSYS to model events leading up to collapse initiation and LS-DYNA models to simulate the global response to the initiating events.[45] NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the twin towers. But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, including on floor 13, where a critical interior column buckled. With the buckling of that column, adjacent columns also failed along with the floor structure above. This triggered a vertical progression of floor failures to the roof. The collapse then progressed east-to-west across the structure, and ultimately the entire structure collapsed. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse
#1) the parts of that building that were of similar construction to WTC7 DID totally collapse
#2) the fires you see on ONE SIDE of WTC7 were not the total picture, those fires only were showing because the mirrored glass was knocked out
you DONT see the fires where the glass was still intact
if you look at the other side you can see the building was FULLY engaged
as to the NIST saying the structural damage and Diesel fuel were not major factors, then i agree with you they are NUTS
because adding to what they called the major factor of NO WATER to fight the fire sure made it a lot bigger deal
i posted some videos and you claimed to have watched#1) the parts of that building that were of similar construction to WTC7 DID totally collapse
#2) the fires you see on ONE SIDE of WTC7 were not the total picture, those fires only were showing because the mirrored glass was knocked out
you DONT see the fires where the glass was still intact
if you look at the other side you can see the building was FULLY engaged
as to the NIST saying the structural damage and Diesel fuel were not major factors, then i agree with you they are NUTS
because adding to what they called the major factor of NO WATER to fight the fire sure made it a lot bigger deal
Do you have pictures showing those fires? I haven't seen a pic of 7 yet that showed a fully engulfed building.
And what about the AA77 hijacker Hani Hanjour? His flight instructor said he could barely control a Cessna. How did he make such expert maneuvers in a commercial airliner, most notably managing to keep the plane completely above the ground by a matter of a few feet approaching impact, without so much as a scrape to the grass much less stalling the plane out?
I have to say dude, I just have a real hard time understanding that one. When you have seasoned military pilots questioning the possibility of that, it has to at least make you wonder.
more lies
#1) the parts of that building that were of similar construction to WTC7 DID totally collapse
#2) the fires you see on ONE SIDE of WTC7 were not the total picture, those fires only were showing because the mirrored glass was knocked out
you DONT see the fires where the glass was still intact
if you look at the other side you can see the building was FULLY engaged
as to the NIST saying the structural damage and Diesel fuel were not major factors, then i agree with you they are NUTS
because adding to what they called the major factor of NO WATER to fight the fire sure made it a lot bigger deal
Do you have pictures showing those fires? I haven't seen a pic of 7 yet that showed a fully engulfed building.
And what about the AA77 hijacker Hani Hanjour? His flight instructor said he could barely control a Cessna. How did he make such expert maneuvers in a commercial airliner, most notably managing to keep the plane completely above the ground by a matter of a few feet approaching impact, without so much as a scrape to the grass much less stalling the plane out?
I have to say dude, I just have a real hard time understanding that one. When you have seasoned military pilots questioning the possibility of that, it has to at least make you wonder.
i postewd some videos and you claimed to have watched
more lies
they found a "suspicious device" and that has already been debunked as an early false report
just like they ALWAYS have in the media when they dont know what the fuck they are talking about
ROFLMAOmore lies
they found a "suspicious device" and that has already been debunked as an early false report
just like they ALWAYS have in the media when they dont know what the fuck they are talking about
you mean it was later covered up and ignored...
yes they do exist, i posted video of itDo you have pictures showing those fires? I haven't seen a pic of 7 yet that showed a fully engulfed building.
And what about the AA77 hijacker Hani Hanjour? His flight instructor said he could barely control a Cessna. How did he make such expert maneuvers in a commercial airliner, most notably managing to keep the plane completely above the ground by a matter of a few feet approaching impact, without so much as a scrape to the grass much less stalling the plane out?
I have to say dude, I just have a real hard time understanding that one. When you have seasoned military pilots questioning the possibility of that, it has to at least make you wonder.
i postewd some videos and you claimed to have watched
don't pretend you posted pictures of wtc 7 engulfed in flames because no such thing exist
i posted some videos and you claimed to have watched#1) the parts of that building that were of similar construction to WTC7 DID totally collapse
#2) the fires you see on ONE SIDE of WTC7 were not the total picture, those fires only were showing because the mirrored glass was knocked out
you DONT see the fires where the glass was still intact
if you look at the other side you can see the building was FULLY engaged
as to the NIST saying the structural damage and Diesel fuel were not major factors, then i agree with you they are NUTS
because adding to what they called the major factor of NO WATER to fight the fire sure made it a lot bigger deal
Do you have pictures showing those fires? I haven't seen a pic of 7 yet that showed a fully engulfed building.
And what about the AA77 hijacker Hani Hanjour? His flight instructor said he could barely control a Cessna. How did he make such expert maneuvers in a commercial airliner, most notably managing to keep the plane completely above the ground by a matter of a few feet approaching impact, without so much as a scrape to the grass much less stalling the plane out?
I have to say dude, I just have a real hard time understanding that one. When you have seasoned military pilots questioning the possibility of that, it has to at least make you wonder.
ROFLMAOmore lies
they found a "suspicious device" and that has already been debunked as an early false report
just like they ALWAYS have in the media when they dont know what the fuck they are talking about
you mean it was later covered up and ignored...
yes, and the super dome was a killing field
just keep showing what a fucking moron you are
wow, you really are a moron
early reports dude, early reports
you are the one that cant deal with the issue
really?wow, you really are a moron
early reports dude, early reports
you are the one that cant deal with the issue
but in this instance we can confirm through police statements and records the facts surrounding this event...if the files where still not deemed classified...the fact evidence was seized and arrest made are not in dispute by the authority's....
seen that report before
really?
and the records of those arrests and the explosive device?
and please, not from a troofer site