eots
no fly list
- Jan 6, 2007
- 28,995
- 2,107
in 11 years you've not come up with better onebecause according to The NIST theory...it would
wow I have been...debwunked with ol 11 yrs line...way to dodge the facts
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.
in 11 years you've not come up with better onebecause according to The NIST theory...it would
in 11 years you've not come up with better onebecause according to The NIST theory...it would
wow I have been...debwunked with ol 11 yrs line...way to dodge the facts
no you are! Since there was no kid and no single explosion(to be more accurate no evidence of the use of explosives) that you are illiterate or making false claims or both....yes really
so you are claiming what... A kid with a pack of matches or one single explosion could not have caused the collapse
how can I dodge what you don't have?in 11 years you've not come up with better onebecause according to The NIST theory...it would
wow I have been...debwunked with ol 11 yrs line...way to dodge the facts
in 11 years you've not come up with better one
wow i have been...debwunked with ol 11 yrs line...way to dodge the facts
wow. Id-eots just used the non-word "debwunked" in an utterly unoriginal and non-persuasive line yet again.
how can I dodge what you don't have?in 11 years you've not come up with better one
wow I have been...debwunked with ol 11 yrs line...way to dodge the facts
you've presented no facts just specious speculation and a steaming plie of bullshit.
your answer is a dodge....and not even original...
yes I know that the report goes in to great detail about it. your point?no you are! Since there was no kid and no single explosion(to be more accurate no evidence of the use of explosives) that you are illiterate or making false claims or both....so you are claiming what... A kid with a pack of matches or one single explosion could not have caused the collapse
according nist either scenario would of resulted in a progressive collapse...no testing for explosive residue was ever done
wow i have been...debwunked with ol 11 yrs line...way to dodge the facts
wow. Id-eots just used the non-word "debwunked" in an utterly unoriginal and non-persuasive line yet again.
I coined the term debwunker fucker ...it means someone like you that tries to debunk facts by using insults and strawmen only
no you are..but again you're attempting to spin it into something else and failing.how can I dodge what you don't have?wow I have been...debwunked with ol 11 yrs line...way to dodge the facts
you've presented no facts just specious speculation and a steaming plie of bullshit.
your answer is a dodge....and not even original...
are you now claiming NIST did not say,,, similar fires under any circumstance or the failure of column 79 would of initiated the progressive collapse sequence
yes I know that the report goes in to great detail about it. your point?no you are! Since there was no kid and no single explosion(to be more accurate no evidence of the use of explosives) that you are illiterate or making false claims or both....
according nist either scenario would of resulted in a progressive collapse...no testing for explosive residue was ever done
no tests for explosives were done because there was no evidence of there use...no det cord or receivers no explosive residue, no blast wave, no audio or video.
why waste time and money chasing nothing....
english please ?!or are you claiming NIST for explosives or accelerants
yes I know that the report goes in to great detail about it. your point?no you are! Since there was no kid and no single explosion(to be more accurate no evidence of the use of explosives) that you are illiterate or making false claims or both....
according nist either scenario would of resulted in a progressive collapse...no testing for explosive residue was ever done
no tests for explosives were done because there was no evidence of there use...no det cord or receivers no explosive residue, no blast wave, no audio or video.
why waste time and money chasing nothing....
english please ?!
yes I know that the report goes in to great detail about it. your point?according nist either scenario would of resulted in a progressive collapse...no testing for explosive residue was ever done
no tests for explosives were done because there was no evidence of there use...no det cord or receivers no explosive residue, no blast wave, no audio or video.
why waste time and money chasing nothing....
what an idiot...
The building was not compromised.by damage...the NIST claim is the failure of column 79...UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE...would of resulted in initiation of the NIST collapse scenario ...(for example an a single explosion...or a kid with a pack of matches could cause the complete collapse of a 47 story steel framed building)
yes I know that the report goes in to great detail about it. your point?
no tests for explosives were done because there was no evidence of there use...no det cord or receivers no explosive residue, no blast wave, no audio or video.
why waste time and money chasing nothing....
what an idiot...
Finally. You admit what you are.
A good first step id-eots.
The building was not compromised.by damage...the NIST claim is the failure of column 79...UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE...would of resulted in initiation of the NIST collapse scenario ...(for example an a single explosion...or a kid with a pack of matches could cause the complete collapse of a 47 story steel framed building)
this line is bullshit.:"UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.."
what was actually said Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of the WTC towers?
Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building.