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.
It's pretty funny that 9/11 Rimjob keeps reading the posts of all the folks he has on ignore.
The ORBS make him do it.
your inane and irrelevant pictures only prove you have lost the intellectual debate..and that would be clear to anyone other than your fellow agents and debwunkers
your inane and irrelevant pictures only prove you have lost the intellectual debate..and that would be clear to anyone other than your fellow agents and debwunkers
id-eots thinks I posted a picture.
id-eots thinks I posted a picture.
This represents the totality of liarabilitys ability to address the facts of the failed NIST investigation and report
your inane and irrelevant pictures only prove you have lost the intellectual debate..and that would be clear to anyone other than your fellow agents and debwunkers
your inane and irrelevant pictures only prove you have lost the intellectual debate..and that would be clear to anyone other than your fellow agents and debwunkers
I'm not going to bother to debate you anymore. Your movement is irrelevant, as proved by the failure to present your wondrous petition to Congress, and the fact that your fearless leaders are leaving to pursue other revenue streams.
All that's left is to mock the few stragglers that are still denizens of The Land of Woo.
So that's what I'm going to do.
more desperation ,,Originally Posted by 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)
Originally Posted by daws101
this line is bullshit.:"UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.."
Originally Posted by eots
The investigation team concluded that the columns failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.
NIST Releases Final WTC 7 Investigation Report
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFpbZ-aLDLY]NIST Report on WTC7 debunked and exposed! - YouTube[/ame]
your inane and irrelevant pictures only prove you have lost the intellectual debate..and that would be clear to anyone other than your fellow agents and debwunkers
I'm not going to bother to debate you anymore. Your movement is irrelevant, as proved by the failure to present your wondrous petition to Congress, and the fact that your fearless leaders are leaving to pursue other revenue streams.
All that's left is to mock the few stragglers that are still denizens of The Land of Woo.
So that's what I'm going to do.
TRANSLATION-.."I can not debate you so I will just fling shit like a monkey in defeat".
lol.....you lose !.. moron in a hat
Hey, id-eots:
Have your leader, IQof7forever, tell us all MORE about
ORBS!
explosions don't automatically mean explosives..also the first responders did not see all of the damage nor could they.Now that the "crux" of your argument lay in waste, what else you got!?
your debwunker cut and paste was answered...these reportsso................no response?
mostly say we were informed by some nameless they ...that the building would come down...ignore all conflicting testimony and continually contradict the nist report by citing the hole as major factor in the collapse when nist says it was not
now that the "crux" of your argument lay in waste, what else you got!?
I got another debwunker that does not even know what the nist report on wtc 7 claims and ignores the of all first responders that speak of explosions and that they saw no reason that building would come down
Avery has even backed away from the stance that it was a missile and not a plane that hit the Pentagon. "It's easy to come to conclusions when a) you don't have a lot of information at your disposal and b) you haven't had a chance to actually talk to people who were there," Avery says.
***
What does Avery think of 9/11 conspiracy theories now? He thinks that while orchestrating the attacks was beyond the scope of the Bush administration, there was "considerable foreknowledge" within the government so that it should have been able to prevent them
Avery has even backed away from the stance that it was a missile and not a plane that hit the Pentagon. "It's easy to come to conclusions when a) you don't have a lot of information at your disposal and b) you haven't had a chance to actually talk to people who were there," Avery says.
***
What does Avery think of 9/11 conspiracy theories now? He thinks that while orchestrating the attacks was beyond the scope of the Bush administration, there was "considerable foreknowledge" within the government so that it should have been able to prevent them
9/11 conspiracism: How the Iraq war contributed to its rise. - Slate Magazine
Avery has even backed away from the stance that it was a missile and not a plane that hit the Pentagon. "It's easy to come to conclusions when a) you don't have a lot of information at your disposal and b) you haven't had a chance to actually talk to people who were there," Avery says.
***
What does Avery think of 9/11 conspiracy theories now? He thinks that while orchestrating the attacks was beyond the scope of the Bush administration, there was "considerable foreknowledge" within the government so that it should have been able to prevent them
9/11 conspiracism: How the Iraq war contributed to its rise. - Slate Magazine
I have little interest in the subject ,I am still looking for a factual investigation and a reasonable explanation on the issues surrounding prior knowledge and for the collapses and especially in the case of wtc 7
Avery has even backed away from the stance that it was a missile and not a plane that hit the Pentagon. "It's easy to come to conclusions when a) you don't have a lot of information at your disposal and b) you haven't had a chance to actually talk to people who were there," Avery says.
***
What does Avery think of 9/11 conspiracy theories now? He thinks that while orchestrating the attacks was beyond the scope of the Bush administration, there was "considerable foreknowledge" within the government so that it should have been able to prevent them
9/11 conspiracism: How the Iraq war contributed to its rise. - Slate Magazine
I have little interest in the subject ,I am still looking for a factual investigation and a reasonable explanation on the issues surrounding prior knowledge and for the collapses and especially in the case of wtc 7
once again eot's claims an imaginary victory...It's pretty funny that 9/11 Rimjob keeps reading the posts of all the folks he has on ignore.
The ORBS make him do it.
your inane and irrelevant pictures only prove you have lost the intellectual debate..and that would be clear to anyone other than your fellow agents and debwunkers
once again eot's claims an imaginary victory...It's pretty funny that 9/11 Rimjob keeps reading the posts of all the folks he has on ignore.
The ORBS make him do it.
your inane and irrelevant pictures only prove you have lost the intellectual debate..and that would be clear to anyone other than your fellow agents and debwunkers
explosions don't automatically mean explosives..also the first responders did not see all of the damage nor could they.Now that the "crux" of your argument lay in waste, what else you got!?
your debwunker cut and paste was answered...these reports
mostly say we were informed by some nameless they ...that the building would come down...ignore all conflicting testimony and continually contradict the nist report by citing the hole as major factor in the collapse when nist says it was not
now that the "crux" of your argument lay in waste, what else you got!?
I got another debwunker that does not even know what the nist report on wtc 7 claims and ignores the of all first responders that speak of explosions and that they saw no reason that building would come down
so their testimony does not fit the evidence!
explosions don't automatically mean explosives..also the first responders did not see all of the damage nor could they.your debwunker cut and paste was answered...these reports
mostly say we were informed by some nameless they ...that the building would come down...ignore all conflicting testimony and continually contradict the nist report by citing the hole as major factor in the collapse when nist says it was not
I got another debwunker that does not even know what the nist report on wtc 7 claims and ignores the of all first responders that speak of explosions and that they saw no reason that building would come down
so their testimony does not fit the evidence!
saying a building is dangerous for firefighters to be in because there could be a collapse commonly means parts of the structure falling ,roof or walls ,floors falling within the structure ..not the complete collapse and destruction of a 47 story building being reduced to a pile of ruble and dust in seconds
explosions don't automatically mean explosives..also the first responders did not see all of the damage nor could they.your debwunker cut and paste was answered...these reports
mostly say we were informed by some nameless they ...that the building would come down...ignore all conflicting testimony and continually contradict the nist report by citing the hole as major factor in the collapse when nist says it was not
I got another debwunker that does not even know what the nist report on wtc 7 claims and ignores the of all first responders that speak of explosions and that they saw no reason that building would come down
so their testimony does not fit the evidence!
saying a building is dangerous for firefighters to be in because there could be a collapse commonly means parts of the structure falling ,roof or walls ,floors falling within the structure ..not the complete collapse and destruction of a 47 story building being reduced to a pile of ruble and dust in seconds
