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.
you have no credible evidence that NIST failed at anything
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
explosions don't automatically mean explosives..also the first responders did not see all of the damage nor could they.
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
And there was so much "common" and every day work-a-day "normal" about 9/11/2001.
but the whole structure was failing! and your answer is twoofer Babel... it's like a line from a 70's disaster movie..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
A preliminary city investigation found that workers cut a structural beam supporting the remains of what had been a two-story warehouse on West 131st Street. The section crumpled, burying the men in a cascade of steel beams, bricks and reinforced concrete.
"Once they cut that structural beam, the site became unstable," Department of Buildings Commissioner Robert LiMandri said.
Willy Katende, who lives across the street from the site, said he was in his kitchen when heard a loud noise. "I saw bricks just falling on the workers," he said. "It sounded like a bomb. It came down so fast."
It sounded like a bomb.
It came down so fast.
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
And there was so much "common" and every day work-a-day "normal" about 9/11/2001.
buildings and building fires do not care about the events of 9/11..they are buildings and building fires and should respond the same to fire as they would on any other day
9 11 THE BIG CLUE EVERYONE MISSED - YouTube
Here is this disinformation agent automatically concluding before ANYBODY has even NIST,that the towers fell due to structural failure from the fires saying the intense heat caused it.
even though the films show the majority of the explosion took place outside the towers the fires are really intense.
Even though there was black smoke emitting from the towers proving the fires were oxygen starved and not serious at all just like the firefighters are recorded saying before they collapsed and there have been many cases over the years of towers such as the one in philadelphia where it was lit up like a torch unlike the twin towers, and did not collapse,these twin towers heat was so intense it caused strutural failure and for them to collapse.good one.
In somehow,immediately these newscasters had physic powers to declare that very day shortly after the attacks, that Osama Bin Laden was behind the attacks.
Best fairy tale ever created by the government and many blind sheep americans,many of them being here at this site as well,bought this fairy tale hook,line and sinker.
Boy our school systems are failing.either that or many people here in the states,slept through junior high school science classes.
These fires were not hot enough to melt a marshmellow,let along cause structural failure.
good one.it would have been great comedy material for a comedy routine if it wasnt such a tragedy.
Oh and disinfo agents,yes I know I said 9/111 in the thread instead of 9/11,yes I just realised that, but I cant change the title,only a mod can.
no it does not, stop making shit up!the NIST report essentially says a kid with a pack of matches could cause a 47 story steel framed building to collapse in this manner...this makes no sense
wtc 7 collapse - YouTube
and there was so much "common" and every day work-a-day "normal" about 9/11/2001.
buildings and building fires do not care about the events of 9/11..they are buildings and building fires and should respond the same to fire as they would on any other day
physics does not care about the events of 9/11/2001 except that those events resulted in physical manifestations in the real world, like the collapse of massive towers causing a gaping hole in bldg 7 which was then also subjected to the effects of fires.
support structures deprived of proper support -- and gravity acts accordingly.
No kooky conspiracy shit required.
All of your kooky conspiracy shit is founded upon utterly irrational and baseless presuppositions.
Physics and logic alone inform us that there is nothing to support your idiot rambling nonsense.
no it does not, stop making shit up!the NIST report essentially says a kid with a pack of matches could cause a 47 story steel framed building to collapse in this manner...this makes no sense
wtc 7 collapse - YouTube
if you follow your line of lunacy, that "kid" would have to start multiple large scale fires,disable most of the sprinkler system do structural damage to the building etc..
it's almost a silly as a team of saboteurs breaking in and carrying 100 pound bags of thermite or 60 gallons of paintable thermite, setting the thermite months or years in advance..
then setting sound dampened explosive charges as plan B.
THEN WAITING HOURS WHILE THE BUILDING BURNED TO SET THEM OFF.
ONLY TO HAVE THESE SOUND DAMPENED EXPLOSIVES FAIL (THEY WERE HEARD) AND EXPOSE THEIR NEFARIOUS PLAN...
it's almost a silly as a team of saboteurs breaking in and carrying 100 pound bags of thermite or 60 gallons of paintable thermite, setting the thermite months or years in advance..
then setting sound dampened explosive charges as plan B.
STILL WRONGno it does not, stop making shit up!the NIST report essentially says a kid with a pack of matches could cause a 47 story steel framed building to collapse in this manner...this makes no sense
wtc 7 collapse - YouTube
if you follow your line of lunacy, that "kid" would have to start multiple large scale fires,disable most of the sprinkler system do structural damage to the building etc..
it's almost a silly as a team of saboteurs breaking in and carrying 100 pound bags of thermite or 60 gallons of paintable thermite, setting the thermite months or years in advance..
then setting sound dampened explosive charges as plan B.
THEN WAITING HOURS WHILE THE BUILDING BURNED TO SET THEM OFF.
ONLY TO HAVE THESE SOUND DAMPENED EXPLOSIVES FAIL (THEY WERE HEARD) AND EXPOSE THEIR NEFARIOUS PLAN...
no he would simple need to start a fire in the area of column 79
STILL WRONGno it does not, stop making shit up!
if you follow your line of lunacy, that "kid" would have to start multiple large scale fires,disable most of the sprinkler system do structural damage to the building etc..
it's almost a silly as a team of saboteurs breaking in and carrying 100 pound bags of thermite or 60 gallons of paintable thermite, setting the thermite months or years in advance..
then setting sound dampened explosive charges as plan B.
THEN WAITING HOURS WHILE THE BUILDING BURNED TO SET THEM OFF.
ONLY TO HAVE THESE SOUND DAMPENED EXPLOSIVES FAIL (THEY WERE HEARD) AND EXPOSE THEIR NEFARIOUS PLAN...
no he would simple need to start a fire in the area of column 79
he would have to make sure that the fire would be hot enugh and burn long enough to weaken 79 to the point of falure.
again you're intentionally misrepresenting the report...
STILL WRONGno he would simple need to start a fire in the area of column 79
he would have to make sure that the fire would be hot enugh and burn long enough to weaken 79 to the point of falure.
again you're intentionally misrepresenting the report...
So are you saying on 9/11 at wtc 7 someone made sure that the fire would be hot enough and burn long enough to weaken 79 to the point of failure.??
in your assclowneness you fail to see how this video debunks it's self.it's almost a silly as a team of saboteurs breaking in and carrying 100 pound bags of thermite or 60 gallons of paintable thermite, setting the thermite months or years in advance..
then setting sound dampened explosive charges as plan B.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOM_U5UM6Q&feature=player_embedded]THERMITE CUTTING STEEL - VALIDATED - EXPERIMENTALLY DEMONSTRATED - YouTube[/ame]
no, but you wish I was, stop assuming facts not in evidenceSTILL WRONGno he would simple need to start a fire in the area of column 79
he would have to make sure that the fire would be hot enugh and burn long enough to weaken 79 to the point of falure.
again you're intentionally misrepresenting the report...
So are you saying on 9/11 at wtc 7 someone made sure that the fire would be hot enough and burn long enough to weaken 79 to the point of failure.??
buildings and building fires do not care about the events of 9/11..they are buildings and building fires and should respond the same to fire as they would on any other day
physics does not care about the events of 9/11/2001 except that those events resulted in physical manifestations in the real world, like the collapse of massive towers causing a gaping hole in bldg 7 which was then also subjected to the effects of fires.
support structures deprived of proper support -- and gravity acts accordingly.
No kooky conspiracy shit required.
All of your kooky conspiracy shit is founded upon utterly irrational and baseless presuppositions.
Physics and logic alone inform us that there is nothing to support your idiot rambling nonsense.
NIST determined your gaping hole was not a factor and even without any structural damage similar fires would have resulted in a collapse
So, your theory is that Building 7 couldnt possibly have fallen due to being on fire ALL DAY? Even though the FDNY was expecting it to fall at any time.:
We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110081.PDF
Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110447.PDF
When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)
Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade www.thememoryhole.org / server maintenance page 48.
There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, well head back to the command post.
 Capt. Chris Boyle http://tinyurl.com/e7bzp
They were saying building Seven was going to collapse, so we regrouped and went back to our rig. We waited for building Seven to come down. Firefighter James Wallace http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110409.PDF
Now that is just a small fraction of the quotes by fireman that I have found. Here is a link to the full accounts of the FDNY.
FDNY accounts are here: About.com: http://216.185.112.5/presenter.jhtml?identifier=45352l
Sounds to me like the FDNY was fully expecting it to come down. They were literally waiting for it to come down so they could continue their rescue efforts. They had been pulled back because by all estimates, that building was in danger of collapse. Are you claiming that all these men knew that the building was going to be brought down by some means other than the damage that they all witnessed?
Its easy to sit here now, 10 years later, watching a video of the north side of that building as it falls and saying that looks like a controlled demolition. The problem with that are all the actual people, mainly firefighters, which were ACTUALLY THERE. They know what they saw and they know what a building in danger looks like. They reacted by getting away from it. These are men that know how to deal with fire and what it does to a building if it is not fought.
I realize you didnt make this claim YET, but please dont claim that the FDNY has been silenced in some way that would be ridiculous. If these men felt that the events of that day were caused by something other than two aircraft collisions killing many of their brothers ..do you think they are going to keep silent!? Firefighters are not timid men.
Are you claiming that ALL these firefighters are mistaken? That they dont know what a building in danger of falling looks like .BUT YOU DO!?
Can you find an organization of FDNY firefighters that are demanding that the case be reopened? NO. Why? Because they know what happened ..they lived it!
As for the buildings next to the towers, WTC4,5 &6, they were undoubtedly severely damaged. But you do realize that these buildings were 6 to 8 stories tall. Far different dynamics in those short of buildings compared to a skyscraper when they are damaged and on fire. In fact, there was fear the WTC 5 WAS going to collapse during the same time the firefighters were expecting WTC7 to collapse. Read the following reports. WTC4,5 & 6 did suffer varying levels of partial collapse. Many pictures in these reports show large steel supports that have failed or begun to fail due to the fires. Something that you apparently think cant happen.
http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/ETD/Available/etd-042907-214619/unrestricted/LaMalva.pdf
http://mceer.buffalo.edu/publications/wtc/02-SP02Screen.pdf
As for the comment on the Jew Larry Silverstein owning the property, that just makes you ignorant! Please explain why him being Jewish as anything to do with what you are claiming. As for the owning of the property, that is incorrect also. He is the lease holder to the property owned by the Port Authority of New York.
Also, Silverstein was not the sole lease holder. He was partnered up with Westfield America for the bid on the WTC complex. So he has in no way, shape or form the unilateral power to do whatever he wants with that property.
Now that the "crux" of your argument lay in waste, what else you got!?
So................no response?
all you have done in your ramblings is prove as always you only see what you want to see and prove you are one wacky coincidence theorist.
oh and dont defer to a webwunker like saying silverstein did not profit,its a well known fact he did as did Cheney and Bush.you keep hurting your credibility as well in being a weird coincidence theorist in that the only three blds that collapsed that day were owed by Silverstein and again,the other buildings next door did not.
oh and the rest of your drivel is irrelevent as well because like I said,NIST was caught lying and Eots video proved that they never had a serious investigation.Its obvious you are not watching any of these videos he posts so your proving in spades your in denial and only see what you want to see so no sense in going any further with you on this.
do this,go back to junior high school and ask them to let you sit on some science classes and ask them to stress to talk about the laws of physics and come back here in a few years from now and pm me and THEN we'll talk again.not till then though.and more imporantly,when your ready to stop being afraid of the truth as well and want to be objective instead of only seeing what you WANT to see,we'll talk again.not till then though.
So, I asked you to pick a point for us to discuss. You made a claim, I showed you why your claim is wrong and all you can do is make the SAME CLAIM again. So, maybe YOU need to go back to Junior High and look up the definition of DEBATE.You are a chickenshit coward,you wont even try and address my points I brought up because you know you cant counter them.Like all Bush dupes,you have no debating skills whatsoever,you make b.s claims these points have been debunked without proving your b.s you sprout off,without addressing them.No surprise,you Bush dupes always go off on these rants and make up lies when you know you are defeated.You would be laughed out of a debating hall in five minutes with your debating skills and lose because of your failure to try and counter these facts.lol
