Proof the cover story for 9/111 began immediately after the attacks

[eots]

this line is bullshit.:"UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.."

The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

NIST Releases Final WTC 7 Investigation Report

idiot...

 

[daws101]

according nist either scenario would of resulted in a progressive collapse...no testing for explosive residue was ever done

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...

right....if there had been residue (there always is) it's not hard to spot if you know what you're looking for.
if someone had found residue then it would have been tested to find out what type of explosive/accelerant was used....
the only idiots here are you and your pal MAX for not know that little fact.
btw it'S called SOP.

 

[daws101]

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.

blah blan blah..NIST CLEARLY SAYS THE LOSS OF COLUMN 79 UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN A PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE...THAT SIMPLE

yes it does but not the way you're trying to spin it..

 

[daws101]

this line is bullshit.:"UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.."

The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

NIST Releases Final WTC 7 Investigation Report

idiot...

not the way you're trying to spin it... no matter how many times you size up the font,it does not mean what you wish it to mean.

 

[eots]

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...

right....if there had been residue (there always is) it's not hard to spot if you know what you're looking for.
if someone had found residue then it would have been tested to find out what type of explosive/accelerant was used....
the only idiots here are you and your pal MAX for not know that little fact.
btw it'S called SOP.

now you pretended to be an expert on explosive/accelerants and make up a little story about how easy they are to spot with the eye in the destruction of wtc 7,,,you just made this up..what a joke,,and you failed to recognize that without question NIST said...

The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.


debwunker

 

[eots]

Anything these usmb debwunkers actually know about the nist report they learned from...me

 

[daws101]

what an idiot...

right....if there had been residue (there always is) it's not hard to spot if you know what you're looking for.
if someone had found residue then it would have been tested to find out what type of explosive/accelerant was used....
the only idiots here are you and your pal MAX for not know that little fact.
btw it'S called SOP.

now you pretended to be an expert on explosive/accelerants and make up a little story about how easy they are to spot with the eye in the destruction of wtc 7,,,you just made this up..what a joke,,and you failed to recognize that without question NIST said...

The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.not pretending anything you can't beat the logic. besides:


debwunker

not pretending anything you can't beat the logic. besides:

Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
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.

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.

Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails.

To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.

It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.

Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.

An emergency responder caught in the building between the 6th and 8th floors says he heard two loud booms. Isn't that evidence that there was an explosion?
The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building. If the two loud booms were due to explosions that were responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, the emergency responder-located somewhere between the 6th and 8th floors in WTC 7-would not have been able to survive the near immediate collapse and provide this witness account.



and this :The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events"-NIST
this is an extremely ambiguous statement for most people but for you it means some nefarious act committed by the government....you have no evidence to back up that claim..so every time you use it you are lying..

 

[daws101]

Anything these usmb debwunkers actually know about the nist report they learned from...me

wrong! what we learned was you do your best to intentionally misrepresent that document...

 

[eots]

right....if there had been residue (there always is) it's not hard to spot if you know what you're looking for.
if someone had found residue then it would have been tested to find out what type of explosive/accelerant was used....
the only idiots here are you and your pal MAX for not know that little fact.
btw it'S called SOP.

now you pretended to be an expert on explosive/accelerants and make up a little story about how easy they are to spot with the eye in the destruction of wtc 7,,,you just made this up..what a joke,,and you failed to recognize that without question NIST said...

The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.not pretending anything you can't beat the logic. besides:


debwunker

not pretending anything you can't beat the logic. besides:

There is no logic to your belief explosive/accelerant residue can easily been seen with the naked eye

Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
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 what way was it investigated...how...are you now claiming there where no explosions of any kind in the wtc 7

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.

because NIST makes this statement does not make it accurate..there are many types of explosives or accelerants..some of them all but silent..and there are in fact several reports of an explosion just before the collapse NIST ignored these reports then took the loudest type of explosive and the highest amount they could possible suggest was required and not factor In any sound damping..Rock concerts..shotgun blast ..it sounds like some kids grade school essay

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

but they said...The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events...how can they have it both ways ?

Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.

so because some guy at NIST thinks something is unlikely thats it... done just forget about it

Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails.

To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.

It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.

ITS IS UNLIKELY 19 ARABS COULD PULL OFF AN EVENT LIKE 911,,,SO WHATS HIS POINT

Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

SO AT LEAST THEY ADMIT..THEY DON'T KNOW

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.

SO THEY ADMIT THEY COULD OF BEEN CONCLUSIVE
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOM_U5UM6Q]THERMITE CUTTING STEEL - VALIDATED - EXPERIMENTALLY DEMONSTRATED - YouTube[/ame]

An emergency responder caught in the building between the 6th and 8th floors says he heard two loud booms. Isn't that evidence that there was an explosion? The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building. If the two loud booms were due to explosions that were responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, the emergency responder-located somewhere between the 6th and 8th floors in WTC 7-would not have been able to survive the near immediate collapse and provide this witness account.

MORE NIST BULLSHIT SPIN DOCTORING

and this :The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events"-NIST
this is an extremely ambiguous statement

IT IS A DIRECT AND SIMPLE QUOTE FROM THE FINAL NIST WTC7 REPORT

 

[x0Maximilian0x]

Still no response to the below information from the full time O.J. Simpson defense attorneys attempting to defend the "official story" through wits end...

Interesting how the story was put out so fast...before any tower even collapsed and only 33 minutes after the second tower got hit was an elaborate story being aired on who's responsible...

Well it certainly brings to question if the "official story" for 9/11 was prewitten before the attacks...

If nothing else it sure looks bad for the investigation into who was responsible for 9/11 being completed so fast... let alone the investigation on who was responsible having to make its way to the media with an elaborate story written...

The story being out so fast is incriminating enough let alone if you think about...was the investigation done before the attacks even happened...I think the answer is quite clear.

Another interesting fact is the first guy who promoted the story was Jerome Hauer who just happened to be...

*Bio Warfare expert...which brings to mind the anthrax attacks right after 9/11 targeting Senate and Media

*Drug Company Director...which brings to mind the fact that the White House staff was taking the medication for anthrax before the first anthrax attack even occured...(fact if you are not too lazy to check for yourself)

*Commissioner for Office of Emergency Management...which brings to mind how it was being reinforced as a sky bunker just before 9/11 on the 23rd floor of World Tade Center 7, Building 7...with its floors, walls, windows all being reinforced making it some type of tree fort within sight of the World Trade Center twin towers...

*Bush Administration Insider...last but not least

 

[x0Maximilian0x]

Still no response to the below information from the full time O.J. Simpson defense attorneys attempting to defend the "official story" through wits end...

Interesting how the story was put out so fast...before any tower even collapsed and only 33 minutes after the second tower got hit was an elaborate story being aired on who's responsible...

Well it certainly brings to question if the "official story" for 9/11 was prewitten before the attacks...

If nothing else it sure looks bad for the investigation into who was responsible for 9/11 being completed so fast... let alone the investigation on who was responsible having to make its way to the media with an elaborate story written...

The story being out so fast is incriminating enough let alone if you think about...was the investigation done before the attacks even happened...I think the answer is quite clear.

Another interesting fact is the first guy who promoted the story was Jerome Hauer who just happened to be....

*Bio Warfare expert...which brings to mind the anthrax attacks right after 9/11 targeting Senate and Media

*Drug Company Director...which brings to mind the fact that the White House staff was taking the medication for anthrax before the first anthrax attack even occured...(fact if you are not too lazy to check for yourself)

*Commissioner for Office of Emergency Management...which brings to mind how it was being reinforced as a sky bunker just before 9/11 on the 23rd floor of World Tade Center 7, Building 7...with its floors, walls, windows all being reinforced making it some type of tree fort within sight of the World Trade Center twin towers...

*Bush Administration Insider...last but not least

 

[Liability]

Still no response to the below information from the full time O.J. Simpson defense attorneys attempting to defend the "official story" through wits end...

Interesting how the story was put out so fast...before any tower even collapsed and only 33 minutes after the second tower got hit was an elaborate story being aired on who's responsible...

Well it certainly brings to question if the "official story" for 9/11 was prewitten before the attacks...

If nothing else it sure looks bad for the investigation into who was responsible for 9/11 being completed so fast... let alone the investigation on who was responsible having to make its way to the media with an elaborate story written...

The story being out so fast is incriminating enough let alone if you think about...was the investigation done before the attacks even happened...I think the answer is quite clear.

Another interesting fact is the first guy who promoted the story was Jerome Hauer who just happened to be....

*Bio Warfare expert...which brings to mind the anthrax attacks right after 9/11 targeting Senate and Media

*Drug Company Director...which brings to mind the fact that the White House staff was taking the medication for anthrax before the first anthrax attack even occured...(fact if you are not too lazy to check for yourself)

*Commissioner for Office of Emergency Management...which brings to mind how it was being reinforced as a sky bunker just before 9/11 on the 23rd floor of World Tade Center 7, Building 7...with its floors, walls, windows all being reinforced making it some type of tree fort within sight of the World Trade Center twin towers...

*Bush Administration Insider...last but not least

Ladies and gentlemen:

He may be rambling and incoherent and babbling, but at least he's verbose.

 

[daws101]

now you pretended to be an expert on explosive/accelerants and make up a little story about how easy they are to spot with the eye in the destruction of wtc 7,,,you just made this up..what a joke,,and you failed to recognize that without question NIST said...

The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.not pretending anything you can't beat the logic. besides:


debwunker

There is no logic to your belief explosive/accelerant residue can easily been seen with the naked eye




in what way was it investigated...how...are you now claiming there where no explosions of any kind in the wtc 7




because NIST makes this statement does not make it accurate..there are many types of explosives or accelerants..some of them all but silent..and there are in fact several reports of an explosion just before the collapse NIST ignored these reports then took the loudest type of explosive and the highest amount they could possible suggest was required and not factor In any sound damping..Rock concerts..shotgun blast ..it sounds like some kids grade school essay



but they said...The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events...how can they have it both ways ?



so because some guy at NIST thinks something is unlikely thats it... done just forget about it





ITS IS UNLIKELY 19 ARABS COULD PULL OFF AN EVENT LIKE 911,,,SO WHATS HIS POINT



SO AT LEAST THEY ADMIT..THEY DON'T KNOW




SO THEY ADMIT THEY COULD OF BEEN CONCLUSIVE
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOM_U5UM6Q]THERMITE CUTTING STEEL - VALIDATED - EXPERIMENTALLY DEMONSTRATED - YouTube[/ame]



MORE NIST BULLSHIT SPIN DOCTORING

and this :The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events"-NIST
this is an extremely ambiguous statement

IT IS A DIRECT AND SIMPLE QUOTE FROM THE FINAL NIST WTC7 REPORT

love it when you rationalize....you have no proof to validate you claims.

1."There is no logic to your belief explosive/accelerant residue can easily been seen with the naked eye"- eots so NOW you agree that IF as I SAID :"right....if there had been residue (there always is) it's not hard to spot if you know what you're looking for."THAT NO ONE FOUND ANY ACCELERANTS OR EXPLOSIVES ?
BUT YOUR ANSWER WAS :"now you pretended to be an expert on explosive/accelerants and make up a little story about how easy they are to spot with the eye in the destruction of wtc 7,"EOTS ....it can't be both.

2. in what way was it investigated...how...are you now claiming there where no explosions of any kind in the wtc 7- eots ...asked and answered.


3.because NIST makes this statement does not make it accurate..there are many types of explosives or accelerants..some of them all but silent..and there are in fact several reports of an explosion just before the collapse NIST ignored these reports then took the loudest type of explosive and the highest amount they could possible suggest was required and not factor In any sound damping..Rock concerts..shotgun blast ..it sounds like some kids grade school essay... can you prove it's inaccurate...?


4. there are many types of explosives or accelerants..some of them all but silent.--eots
if the above statement is true then this should also be true:"
1."There is no logic to your belief explosive/accelerant residue can easily been seen with the naked eye"- eots... since none were found ,logic would dictate that none were used.
once again if explosions were heard then that would mean that the sounding dampening, you rave about was ineffective it also kills the thermite fairy tale.

5. they said...The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events...how can they have it both ways ?eots...once again your "reading in" something that's not there.
what makes it having it both ways?

6.ITS IS UNLIKELY 19 ARABS COULD PULL OFF AN EVENT LIKE 911,,,SO WHATS HIS POINT
it's easy if you don't cherry pick like you've done through this whole post:

 

[daws101]

now you pretended to be an expert on explosive/accelerants and make up a little story about how easy they are to spot with the eye in the destruction of wtc 7,,,you just made this up..what a joke,,and you failed to recognize that without question NIST said...

The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.not pretending anything you can't beat the logic. besides:


debwunker

There is no logic to your belief explosive/accelerant residue can easily been seen with the naked eye




in what way was it investigated...how...are you now claiming there where no explosions of any kind in the wtc 7




because NIST makes this statement does not make it accurate..there are many types of explosives or accelerants..some of them all but silent..and there are in fact several reports of an explosion just before the collapse NIST ignored these reports then took the loudest type of explosive and the highest amount they could possible suggest was required and not factor In any sound damping..Rock concerts..shotgun blast ..it sounds like some kids grade school essay



but they said...The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events...how can they have it both ways ?



so because some guy at NIST thinks something is unlikely thats it... done just forget about it





ITS IS UNLIKELY 19 ARABS COULD PULL OFF AN EVENT LIKE 911,,,SO WHATS HIS POINT



SO AT LEAST THEY ADMIT..THEY DON'T KNOW




SO THEY ADMIT THEY COULD OF BEEN CONCLUSIVE
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOM_U5UM6Q]THERMITE CUTTING STEEL - VALIDATED - EXPERIMENTALLY DEMONSTRATED - YouTube[/ame]



MORE NIST BULLSHIT SPIN DOCTORING

and this :The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events"-NIST
this is an extremely ambiguous statement

IT IS A DIRECT AND SIMPLE QUOTE FROM THE FINAL NIST WTC7 REPORT

"SO AT LEAST THEY ADMIT..THEY DON'T KNOW"eots

no, that's not what they said: Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely. ALSO: Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7. THEY DON'T STATE OR INFER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY THAT" THEY DO NOT KNOW.."
THEY USE THE WORD BELIEVEa : to consider to be true or honest <believe the reports)
TALK ABOUT SPIN!

2."SO THEY ADMIT THEY COULD OF BEEN CONCLUSIVE"--EOTS

Wrong again! are you really that thick?:Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.
what they are saying is that the same metal compounds and sulfur found in thermite /thermate are ALSO IN GYPSUM MAKING IT ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL THEM APART (GYPSUM and thermite) so the results were not conclusiveefinition of CONCLUSIVE
1: of, relating to, or being a conclusion
2: putting an end to debate or question especially by reason of irrefutability
inconclusive in·con·clu·sive adj \&#716;in-k&#601;n-&#712;klü-siv, -ziv\
Definition of INCONCLUSIVE
: leading to no conclusion or definite result <inconclusive evidence> <an inconclusive argument>
&#8212; in·con·clu·sive·ly adverb
&#8212; in·con·clu·sive·ness noun
See inconclusive defined for English-language learners »
See inconclusive defined for kids »
Examples of INCONCLUSIVE
The results of the test were inconclusive.
they in no way state, infer that the findings were conclusive

3.MORE NIST BULLSHIT SPIN DOCTORING-eots
that should read EOT'S attempts to spin doctor the NIST report and fails


4.IT IS A DIRECT AND SIMPLE QUOTE FROM THE FINAL NIST WTC7 REPORT
eots

asked and answered.
__________________

 

[eots]

There is no logic to your belief explosive/accelerant residue can easily been seen with the naked eye




in what way was it investigated...how...are you now claiming there where no explosions of any kind in the wtc 7




because NIST makes this statement does not make it accurate..there are many types of explosives or accelerants..some of them all but silent..and there are in fact several reports of an explosion just before the collapse NIST ignored these reports then took the loudest type of explosive and the highest amount they could possible suggest was required and not factor In any sound damping..Rock concerts..shotgun blast ..it sounds like some kids grade school essay



but they said...The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events...how can they have it both ways ?



so because some guy at NIST thinks something is unlikely thats it... done just forget about it





ITS IS UNLIKELY 19 ARABS COULD PULL OFF AN EVENT LIKE 911,,,SO WHATS HIS POINT



SO AT LEAST THEY ADMIT..THEY DON'T KNOW




SO THEY ADMIT THEY COULD OF BEEN CONCLUSIVE
THERMITE CUTTING STEEL - VALIDATED - EXPERIMENTALLY DEMONSTRATED - YouTube



MORE NIST BULLSHIT SPIN DOCTORING



IT IS A DIRECT AND SIMPLE QUOTE FROM THE FINAL NIST WTC7 REPORT

"SO AT LEAST THEY ADMIT..THEY DON'T KNOW"eots

no, that's not what they said: Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely. ALSO: Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7. THEY DON'T STATE OR INFER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY THAT" THEY DO NOT KNOW.."
THEY USE THE WORD BELIEVEa : to consider to be true or honest <believe the reports)
TALK ABOUT SPIN!

2."SO THEY ADMIT THEY COULD OF BEEN CONCLUSIVE"--EOTS

Wrong again! are you really that thick?:Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.
what they are saying is that the same metal compounds and sulfur found in thermite /thermate are ALSO IN GYPSUM MAKING IT ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL THEM APART (GYPSUM and thermite) so the results were not conclusiveefinition of CONCLUSIVE
1: of, relating to, or being a conclusion
2: putting an end to debate or question especially by reason of irrefutability
inconclusive in·con·clu·sive adj \&#716;in-k&#601;n-&#712;klü-siv, -ziv\
Definition of INCONCLUSIVE
: leading to no conclusion or definite result <inconclusive evidence> <an inconclusive argument>
— in·con·clu·sive·ly adverb
— in·con·clu·sive·ness noun
See inconclusive defined for English-language learners »
See inconclusive defined for kids »
Examples of INCONCLUSIVE
The results of the test were inconclusive.
they in no way state, infer that the findings were conclusive

3.MORE NIST BULLSHIT SPIN DOCTORING-eots
that should read EOT'S attempts to spin doctor the NIST report and fails


4.IT IS A DIRECT AND SIMPLE QUOTE FROM THE FINAL NIST WTC7 REPORT
eots

asked and answered.
__________________

you are too funny...give em enough rope...lol

 

[daws101]

"SO AT LEAST THEY ADMIT..THEY DON'T KNOW"eots

no, that's not what they said: Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely. ALSO: Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7. THEY DON'T STATE OR INFER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY THAT" THEY DO NOT KNOW.."
THEY USE THE WORD BELIEVEa : to consider to be true or honest <believe the reports)
TALK ABOUT SPIN!

2."SO THEY ADMIT THEY COULD OF BEEN CONCLUSIVE"--EOTS

Wrong again! are you really that thick?:Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.
what they are saying is that the same metal compounds and sulfur found in thermite /thermate are ALSO IN GYPSUM MAKING IT ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL THEM APART (GYPSUM and thermite) so the results were not conclusiveefinition of CONCLUSIVE
1: of, relating to, or being a conclusion
2: putting an end to debate or question especially by reason of irrefutability
inconclusive in·con·clu·sive adj \&#716;in-k&#601;n-&#712;klü-siv, -ziv\
Definition of INCONCLUSIVE
: leading to no conclusion or definite result <inconclusive evidence> <an inconclusive argument>
&#8212; in·con·clu·sive·ly adverb
&#8212; in·con·clu·sive·ness noun
See inconclusive defined for English-language learners »
See inconclusive defined for kids »
Examples of INCONCLUSIVE
The results of the test were inconclusive.
they in no way state, infer that the findings were conclusive

3.MORE NIST BULLSHIT SPIN DOCTORING-eots
that should read EOT'S attempts to spin doctor the NIST report and fails


4.IT IS A DIRECT AND SIMPLE QUOTE FROM THE FINAL NIST WTC7 REPORT
eots

asked and answered.
__________________

you are too funny...give em enough rope...lol

I knew you'd dodge ..proving once again your incredible ignorance.
what funny is you sizing up the fonts ,.like a jilted girlfriend!:LOL:

btw justs for laughs tell me how I hanged myself?

 

[eots]

NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns


words matter...NIST used the words believes... instead of knows or has conclusvely proven for a reason it took 8 yesrs to produce this document they chose their words carefully and purposefully


NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to
sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.

not impossible...not conclusively disproven...but unlikely...which just happens to be the same word NIST uses for describing the risk of a fie initiated progressive collapse also reffering to it as an "extremely rare event"..and having a "low probability of occurrence"


testing for thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive.

this statement does not exclude that testing could possibly be conclusive pos or neg
if it was intended to exclude this possibility the words ..not necessarily...would not of been utilized

 

[candycorn]

Still no response to the below information from the full time O.J. Simpson defense attorneys attempting to defend the "official story" through wits end...

Interesting how the story was put out so fast...before any tower even collapsed and only 33 minutes after the second tower got hit was an elaborate story being aired on who's responsible...

Well it certainly brings to question if the "official story" for 9/11 was prewitten before the attacks...

If nothing else it sure looks bad for the investigation into who was responsible for 9/11 being completed so fast... let alone the investigation on who was responsible having to make its way to the media with an elaborate story written...

The story being out so fast is incriminating enough let alone if you think about...was the investigation done before the attacks even happened...I think the answer is quite clear.

Another interesting fact is the first guy who promoted the story was Jerome Hauer who just happened to be....

*Bio Warfare expert...which brings to mind the anthrax attacks right after 9/11 targeting Senate and Media

*Drug Company Director...which brings to mind the fact that the White House staff was taking the medication for anthrax before the first anthrax attack even occured...(fact if you are not too lazy to check for yourself)

*Commissioner for Office of Emergency Management...which brings to mind how it was being reinforced as a sky bunker just before 9/11 on the 23rd floor of World Tade Center 7, Building 7...with its floors, walls, windows all being reinforced making it some type of tree fort within sight of the World Trade Center twin towers...

*Bush Administration Insider...last but not least

Nobody cares:

Austin Powers: Daddy wasn&#39;t there music video - YouTube​

 

[daws101]

NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns


words matter...NIST used the words believes... instead of knows or has conclusvely proven for a reason it took 8 yesrs to produce this document they chose their words carefully and purposefully


NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to
sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.

not impossible...not conclusively disproven...but unlikely...which just happens to be the same word NIST uses for describing the risk of a fie initiated progressive collapse also reffering to it as an "extremely rare event"..and having a "low probability of occurrence"


testing for thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive.

this statement does not exclude that testing could possibly be conclusive pos or neg
if it was intended to exclude this possibility the words ..not necessarily...would not of been utilized

another bullshit rationalization as explained before, they did chose carefully and as always you've chosen to misinterpret them:
1,believes, you've chosen to make it mean: they don't really have answer.
but in reality they used believes to mean this:to consider to be true or honest <believe the reports)

2.unlikely... another word you chosen to misrepresent
it was highly unlikely that fires started the collapse it was also unlikely that a jet liner would crash into the wtc and the wtc would in turn crash into wtc7 but it happened.
your attempt to use it as a way to slip in your unprovable false theory would be sad if it weren't so fucking laughable.
3.conclusive wrong again I guess I have to repeat myself as you are slow on the uptake:Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.
what they are saying is that the same metal compounds and sulfur found in thermite /thermate are ALSO IN GYPSUM MAKING IT ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL THEM APART (GYPSUM and thermite) so the results were not conclusive.

btw where did you get that article it's obvious you didn't write yourself
and you left out the link

 

[eots]

NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns


words matter...NIST used the words believes... instead of knows or has conclusvely proven for a reason it took 8 yesrs to produce this document they chose their words carefully and purposefully


NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to
sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.

not impossible...not conclusively disproven...but unlikely...which just happens to be the same word NIST uses for describing the risk of a fie initiated progressive collapse also reffering to it as an "extremely rare event"..and having a "low probability of occurrence"


testing for thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive.

this statement does not exclude that testing could possibly be conclusive pos or neg
if it was intended to exclude this possibility the words ..not necessarily...would not of been utilized

another bullshit rationalization as explained before, they did chose carefully and as always you've chosen to misinterpret them:
1,believes, you've chosen to make it mean: they don't really have answer.
but in reality they used believes to mean this:to consider to be true or honest <believe the reports)

con·sid·er/k&#601;n&#712;sid&#601;r/
Verb:
Think carefully about (something), typically before making a decision: "each application is considered".
Think about and be drawn toward (a course of action).
Synonyms:
think - regard - deem - ponder - deliberate - reckon

2.unlikely... another word you chosen to misrepresent
it was highly unlikely that fires started the collapse it was also unlikely that a jet liner would crash into the wtc and the wtc would in turn crash into wtc7 but it happened.
your attempt to use it as a way to slip in your unprovable false theory would be sad if it weren't so fucking laughable.

NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to
sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.

3.conclusive wrong again I guess I have to repeat myself as you are slow on the uptake:Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.
what they are saying is that the same metal compounds and sulfur found in thermite /thermate are ALSO IN GYPSUM MAKING IT ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL THEM APART (GYPSUM and thermite) so the results were not conclusive.

Almost means there is only a little bit of a ways to go to complete something or to reach a certain point. or little short of being; very nearly

btw where did you get that article it's obvious you didn't write yourself
and you left out the link

of course I wrote this myself wtf are you talking about