National Geographic on 9/11

[slackjawed]

saftb



(step away from the bong)

They have been explained. You are still ignoring the question so thank you for proving your insincerity.

CR = Commission Report. Wow. That was fucking tough.

Wait wait wait wait wait! You say the towers falling isn't investigated, I said it was addressed in the fact that the crashes and the ensuing fires are cited as the cause of collapse, and you still maintain the point is not addressed?

You realize that none of that follows along the path of logic, right?

That show on National geographic was right to point out the futility of arguing with the truthers. They won't accept anything that goes against the narrative they are intent on presenting. It has become a matter of faith with the truthers, much like fanatical religious people.

That is the reason many really do think that the truthers, or some of them, are actually working with the terrorists. They seem to have the same religious zeal that al quiada nutcase followers have been infected with, and might just be part of them.

 

[Fizz]

That show on National geographic was right to point out the futility of arguing with the truthers.

it may be futile but it sure is funny!!

 

[slackjawed]

That show on National geographic was right to point out the futility of arguing with the truthers.

it may be futile but it sure is funny!!

I will admit to enjoying troofer baiting.........

it's a lot like fly fishing

 

[CurveLight]

saftb



(step away from the bong)

They have been explained. You are still ignoring the question so thank you for proving your insincerity.

CR = Commission Report. Wow. That was fucking tough.

Wait wait wait wait wait! You say the towers falling isn't investigated, I said it was addressed in the fact that the crashes and the ensuing fires are cited as the cause of collapse, and you still maintain the point is not addressed?

You realize that none of that follows along the path of logic, right?

That show on National geographic was right to point out the futility of arguing with the truthers. They won't accept anything that goes against the narrative they are intent on presenting. It has become a matter of faith with the truthers, much like fanatical religious people.

That is the reason many really do think that the truthers, or some of them, are actually working with the terrorists. They seem to have the same religious zeal that al quiada nutcase followers have been infected with, and might just be part of them.

I said there was not an investigation on the towers because you can't start an investigation with a conclusion. NIST did not do an investigation. It did a Building Performance Report. It assumed the planes brought the buildings down and wrote its report based on that conclusion. You're such an idiot. How many more times do you need it explained?

 

[Fizz]

I said there was not an investigation on the towers because you can't start an investigation with a conclusion. NIST did not do an investigation. It did a Building Performance Report. It assumed the planes brought the buildings down and wrote its report based on that conclusion. You're such an idiot. How many more times do you need it explained?

so according to you any investigation can not start with a conclusion. therefore, if a body is found, any investigation into how or why the body got there would be invalid because they already have drawn the conclusion there is a body.

do i have that right?

 

[eots]

official story believers won't accept anything that goes against the narrative they are intent on presenting. It has become a matter of faith with the offcial conspiracy believers, much like fanatical religious people.

That is the reason many really do think that the liars or some of them, are actually working with the terrorists. They seem to have the same religious zeal that al quiada nut case followers have been infected with, and might just be part of them...true story

 

[eots]

I said there was not an investigation on the towers because you can't start an investigation with a conclusion. NIST did not do an investigation. It did a Building Performance Report. It assumed the planes brought the buildings down and wrote its report based on that conclusion. You're such an idiot. How many more times do you need it explained?

so according to you any investigation can not start with a conclusion. therefore, if a body is found, any investigation into how or why the body got there would be invalid because they already have drawn the conclusion there is a body.

do i have that right?

no as usual you have it wrong..if you find a dead body and you see a wound on the body you can not conclude that the wound is the cause of death

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u3JSEqNtlg]YouTube - Immortal Technique Cause Of Death Lyrics[/ame]

 

[Fizz]

official story believers won't accept anything that goes against the narrative they are intent on presenting. It has become a matter of faith with the offcial conspiracy believers, much like fanatical religious people.

That is the reason many really do think that the liars or some of them, are actually working with the terrorists. They seem to have the same religious zeal that al quiada nut case followers have been infected with, and might just be part of them...true story

as soon as you provide physical evidence for a scenario that proves the official theory wrong then we can discuss how fanatical the believers of the official story are.

until then they are not only believing in the preponderance of evidence..... they are believing in all the evidence.

 

[Fizz]

I said there was not an investigation on the towers because you can't start an investigation with a conclusion. NIST did not do an investigation. It did a Building Performance Report. It assumed the planes brought the buildings down and wrote its report based on that conclusion. You're such an idiot. How many more times do you need it explained?

so according to you any investigation can not start with a conclusion. therefore, if a body is found, any investigation into how or why the body got there would be invalid because they already have drawn the conclusion there is a body.

do i have that right?

no as usual you have it wrong..if you find a dead body and you see a wound on the body you can not conclude that the wound is the cause of death

are you really that moronic? if an investigation into a body with a wound is done the cause of death can not be from the wound? you want to re-think that?

 

[CurveLight]

I said there was not an investigation on the towers because you can't start an investigation with a conclusion. NIST did not do an investigation. It did a Building Performance Report. It assumed the planes brought the buildings down and wrote its report based on that conclusion. You're such an idiot. How many more times do you need it explained?

so according to you any investigation can not start with a conclusion. therefore, if a body is found, any investigation into how or why the body got there would be invalid because they already have drawn the conclusion there is a body.

do i have that right?

No. You do not have it right. Your analogy just proved my point. The "body" represents the collapsed towers. If they investigated how the body got there and why, that would be an investigation. For 9E, they saw the "body" (collapsed towers) and immediately formed a conclusion on how the towers collapsed (how the body got there and why). They made their conclusion before any investigation could start. Thank you for revealing your stupidity again. Acknowledging the collapsed towers, just like seeing a dead, is not drawing a conclusion on how or why it happened.

 

[CurveLight]

so according to you any investigation can not start with a conclusion. therefore, if a body is found, any investigation into how or why the body got there would be invalid because they already have drawn the conclusion there is a body.

do i have that right?

no as usual you have it wrong..if you find a dead body and you see a wound on the body you can not conclude that the wound is the cause of death

are you really that moronic? if an investigation into a body with a wound is done the cause of death can not be from the wound? you want to re-think that?

A wound does not have to be the cause of death you dumbfuck. A dead body could have a wound in the arm but the person could have been strangled to death. Assuming a visible wound is automatically the cause of death is idiotic....but then again....coming from you I understand because you prove your stupidity on a regular basis.

Just like when you tried to claim the poll cited by NG "could" have been talking about competency when I've already posted the evidence ALL of the questions were conspiracy questions so no, competency was not in question for that poll. But you ignored your fuck up like you ignore all of them. Now dance bitch, dance.

 

[CurveLight]

official story believers won't accept anything that goes against the narrative they are intent on presenting. It has become a matter of faith with the offcial conspiracy believers, much like fanatical religious people.

That is the reason many really do think that the liars or some of them, are actually working with the terrorists. They seem to have the same religious zeal that al quiada nut case followers have been infected with, and might just be part of them...true story

as soon as you provide physical evidence for a scenario that proves the official theory wrong then we can discuss how fanatical the believers of the official story are.

until then they are not only believing in the preponderance of evidence..... they are believing in all the evidence.

That's a false dilemma you dumb fuck.

 

[Fizz]

I said there was not an investigation on the towers because you can't start an investigation with a conclusion. NIST did not do an investigation. It did a Building Performance Report. It assumed the planes brought the buildings down and wrote its report based on that conclusion. You're such an idiot. How many more times do you need it explained?

so according to you any investigation can not start with a conclusion. therefore, if a body is found, any investigation into how or why the body got there would be invalid because they already have drawn the conclusion there is a body.

do i have that right?

No. You do not have it right. Your analogy just proved my point. The "body" represents the collapsed towers. If they investigated how the body got there and why, that would be an investigation. For 9E, they saw the "body" (collapsed towers) and immediately formed a conclusion on how the towers collapsed (how the body got there and why). They made their conclusion before any investigation could start. Thank you for revealing your stupidity again. Acknowledging the collapsed towers, just like seeing a dead, is not drawing a conclusion on how or why it happened.

gee.... you think the TWO FUCKING AIRPLANES FLYING INTO THE BUILDINGS might be a big fucking clue as to why they collpased?

and then you are surprised that the investigation reaches the same conclusion?

my god you twoofers are a bunch of dumb fucking morons....

 

[eots]

so according to you any investigation can not start with a conclusion. therefore, if a body is found, any investigation into how or why the body got there would be invalid because they already have drawn the conclusion there is a body.

do i have that right?

no as usual you have it wrong..if you find a dead body and you see a wound on the body you can not conclude that the wound is the cause of death

are you really that moronic? if an investigation into a body with a wound is done the cause of death can not be from the wound? you want to re-think that?

in the case of wtc 7..a body with a wound was found..that wound would in all other cases be non-fatal..but that did not fit with the story so they went on a 8 year investigation to try and prove in this rare instants an extraordinary event took place making a non-fatal wound fatal

This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building, the agency stated as it released for public comment its WTC investigation report and 13 recommendations for improving building and fire safety.Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event,” The investigation team considered the possibility of other factors playing a role in the collapse of WTC 7, including the possible use of explosives, fires fed by the fuel supply tanks in and under the building, and damage from the falling debris of WTC 1.

The team said that the smallest blast event capable of crippling the critical column would have produced a “sound level of 130 to 140 decibels at a distance of half a mile,” yet no noise this loud was reported by witnesses or recorded on videos.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q]YouTube - Barry Jennings' account of WTC 7 explosions[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfiLbXMa64&feature=related]YouTube - Michael Hess, WTC7 explosion witness[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXD3bAbZCow]YouTube - 9/11 NYC Firefighters Controlled Demolition[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw&feature=related]YouTube - WTC 7 Explosion on Audio (heard by firemen)[/ame]



As for fuel fires, the team found that they could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to fail a critical column, and/or would have produced “large amounts of visible smoke” from Floors 5 and 6, which was not observed.

Finally, the report notes that “while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7.”

NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08/21/08

 

[Terral]

Fizz:

gee.... you think the TWO FUCKING AIRPLANES FLYING INTO THE BUILDINGS might be a big fucking clue as to why they collpased?

and then you are surprised that the investigation reaches the same conclusion?

my god you twoofers are a bunch of dumb fucking morons....

There is an obvious problem with your Govt Cover Story thinking:

1. WTC-7 (my Topic) imploded just like WTC-1 and WTC-2 and was struck by no Jetliner ...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo]Do The Math ...[/ame]

Accept my "Challenge" (Do it you coward!) and start 'your' Topic showing us how building fires took down three skyscrapers on 9/11 ...

GL,

Terral

 

[CurveLight]

so according to you any investigation can not start with a conclusion. therefore, if a body is found, any investigation into how or why the body got there would be invalid because they already have drawn the conclusion there is a body.

do i have that right?

No. You do not have it right. Your analogy just proved my point. The "body" represents the collapsed towers. If they investigated how the body got there and why, that would be an investigation. For 9E, they saw the "body" (collapsed towers) and immediately formed a conclusion on how the towers collapsed (how the body got there and why). They made their conclusion before any investigation could start. Thank you for revealing your stupidity again. Acknowledging the collapsed towers, just like seeing a dead, is not drawing a conclusion on how or why it happened.

gee.... you think the TWO FUCKING AIRPLANES FLYING INTO THE BUILDINGS might be a big fucking clue as to why they collpased?

and then you are surprised that the investigation reaches the same conclusion?

my god you twoofers are a bunch of dumb fucking morons....

There was no investigation into why they collapsed. You can't admit that but you want to call others stupid?

 

[Fizz]

secondary explosions happen at fires all the time.

so how do you make the leap from a can of glade exploding on someones burning desk or an electrical tranformer exploding to "there were controlled demolitions planted in the buildings"??

 

[CurveLight]

secondary explosions happen at fires all the time.

so how do you make the leap from a can of glade exploding on someones burning desk or an electrical tranformer exploding to "there were controlled demolitions planted in the buildings"??

What post is this supposed to be a response?

 

[Liability]

secondary explosions happen at fires all the time.

so how do you make the leap from a can of glade exploding on someones burning desk or an electrical tranformer exploding to "there were controlled demolitions planted in the buildings"??

What post is this supposed to be a response?

You remain a thoroughly transparent fraud, bent tight.

 

[CurveLight]

secondary explosions happen at fires all the time.

so how do you make the leap from a can of glade exploding on someones burning desk or an electrical tranformer exploding to "there were controlled demolitions planted in the buildings"??

What post is this supposed to be a response?

You remain a thoroughly transparent fraud, bent tight.

Rotfl! Who the fuck cares what you think you ignorant bitch? You can't debate 9E with any recognition of being informed or sincere.