Truthers, how was this engine planted?

[CurveLight]

What exactly does that mean Curve? If you read Dr. Q's paper, you would realize that the ONLY thing he disagrees with is the way the collapse was caused/initiated.

NIST and Dr. Q come to the same conclusion. The towers collapsed due to structural failure. No explosives, no thermite, no DEW, no conspiracy.

Dr. Q says in his paper that he does not agree that it was the columns, but the floor trusses that failed. Or did you forget to read his paper and see what his conclusion was?

I dare you to comment on this. I am really curious as to why you consider Dr. Q's disagreement with NIST important as to the CAUSE of the collapse when BOTH come to the conclusion that the towers collapsed due to structural failure due to fires and heat.

Then again, you DO like to twist words and quote mine to prove your point while leaving out relevant items.

You are a dumfuk. I never said Dr Q made any claims about explosives. Try to pay attention.

"In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause..."

Do you understand what that says? He is saying NIST's report does not support its conclusion. Period. Even if he agrees it was structural failure that does not negate his assessment of their Report.

So all your pointing out is the fact Dr. Q disagrees with the fact that NIST thinks the collapse was caused by fires weakening columns and that Dr. Q believes that the collapse was caused by fires weakening the floor trusses?

Is that it?

You mean to tell me that you want a new investigation into the towers because you are concerned that the changes that may be made to structural design procedures, building codes, and fire codes may not be "correct" because they used the incorrect structural failure mechanism?

I'll ask you again.

What exactly, the way you think you understand it, is NIST's conclusion that Dr.Q disagrees with?

You are one reeeely stoopid bitch. Last time rocket scientist:

"In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause..."


My pointing that out stems from fizzdickhead lying and saying Dr. Q is only critical of the Report when clearly Dr Q is saying NIST has not found "definitive cause."

What is so staggering and intellectually overpowering about that simple point that has caused your panties to get so bunched up?

 

[Fizz]

"In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause..."


My pointing that out stems from fizzdickhead lying and saying Dr. Q is only critical of the Report when clearly Dr Q is saying NIST has not found "definitive cause."

What is so staggering and intellectually overpowering about that simple point that has caused your panties to get so bunched up?

what fucking part dont you understand?

please explain how the statements "only critical of the report" and "has not found definitive cause" are mutually exclusive.

 

[Gamolon]

Just like you ignored the fact Dr Q straight up says NIST's report does not support its conclusion.

What is NIST's conclusion that you are saying Dr. Q does not agree with?

 

[CurveLight]

"In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause..."


My pointing that out stems from fizzdickhead lying and saying Dr. Q is only critical of the Report when clearly Dr Q is saying NIST has not found "definitive cause."

What is so staggering and intellectually overpowering about that simple point that has caused your panties to get so bunched up?

what fucking part dont you understand?

please explain how the statements "only critical of the report" and "has not found definitive cause" are mutually exclusive.

You're too dishonest to admit the obvious which is why you stayed quiet when 420ish backed out of his op.

 

[Gamolon]

You are a dumfuk. I never said Dr Q made any claims about explosives. Try to pay attention.

"In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause..."

Do you understand what that says? He is saying NIST's report does not support its conclusion. Period. Even if he agrees it was structural failure that does not negate his assessment of their Report.

So all your pointing out is the fact Dr. Q disagrees with the fact that NIST thinks the collapse was caused by fires weakening columns and that Dr. Q believes that the collapse was caused by fires weakening the floor trusses?

Is that it?

You mean to tell me that you want a new investigation into the towers because you are concerned that the changes that may be made to structural design procedures, building codes, and fire codes may not be "correct" because they used the incorrect structural failure mechanism?

I'll ask you again.

What exactly, the way you think you understand it, is NIST's conclusion that Dr.Q disagrees with?

You are one reeeely stoopid bitch. Last time rocket scientist:

"In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause..."


My pointing that out stems from fizzdickhead lying and saying Dr. Q is only critical of the Report when clearly Dr Q is saying NIST has not found "definitive cause."

What is so staggering and intellectually overpowering about that simple point that has caused your panties to get so bunched up?

I get it now.

You agree with Dr. Q and NIST that the cause of the tower's collapse was caused by structural failures due to heat from fires, but you just don't know if it was the columns that failed (NIST's belief) or the floor truss connections that failed (Dr. Q's belief) and would like an independent investigation to clarify which is correct.

Is that right?

 

[Gamolon]

eots,

I'll ask you the same thing.

Do you agree with Dr. Q and NIST that the cause of the tower's collapse was caused by structural failures due to heat from fires, but you just don't know if it was the columns that failed (NIST's belief) or the floor truss connections that failed (Dr. Q's belief) and would like an independent investigation to clarify which is correct?

 

[Fizz]

what fucking part dont you understand?

please explain how the statements "only critical of the report" and "has not found definitive cause" are mutually exclusive.

You're too dishonest to admit the obvious which is why you stayed quiet when 420ish backed out of his op.

actually, i usually just skip over your posts because you never have anything useful to say. sorry i didnt give you the immediate attention you so obviously crave.

i see you cant answer a simple question.

...again.

 

[CurveLight]

Just like you ignored the fact Dr Q straight up says NIST's report does not support its conclusion.

What is NIST's conclusion that you are saying Dr. Q does not agree with?

Still trying to deflect like a bitch eh? Do you not know what Dr. Q has said? I'll try to help but since I'm not trained in helping the seriously mentally handicapped fuks like yourself I don't know how much can be done....except pointing to what Dr Q stated:

"I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,"

And...


"I found that throughout your whole investigation it was very difficult to get a clear answer. And when anyone went to your advisory panel meetings or hearings, where they were given five minutes to make a statement; they could never ask any questions. And with all the commentary that I put in, and I spent many hours writing things, and it would bore people if I regurgitated all of that here, I never received one formal reply."


And....

"It says that the core columns, uninsulated due
to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; they softened in the heat of the fire and shortened and that led to the collapse. They pulled in the external columns and it caused it to buckle. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place."

And...


"In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding."


What else do you want to try and deflect and whine about bitch?

 

[CurveLight]

what fucking part dont you understand?

please explain how the statements "only critical of the report" and "has not found definitive cause" are mutually exclusive.

You're too dishonest to admit the obvious which is why you stayed quiet when 420ish backed out of his op.

actually, i usually just skip over your posts because you never have anything useful to say. sorry i didnt give you the immediate attention you so obviously crave.

i see you cant answer a simple question.

...again.

Thank you for lying again you useless ****.

 

[Fizz]

You're too dishonest to admit the obvious which is why you stayed quiet when 420ish backed out of his op.

actually, i usually just skip over your posts because you never have anything useful to say. sorry i didnt give you the immediate attention you so obviously crave.

i see you cant answer a simple question.

...again.

Thank you for lying again you useless ****.

point out the lie please.

otherwise, you are just pulling shit out of your ass with no basis in fact.

exactly like your twoofer buddy cristophera.

 

[Gamolon]

Just like you ignored the fact Dr Q straight up says NIST's report does not support its conclusion.

What is NIST's conclusion that you are saying Dr. Q does not agree with?

Still trying to deflect like a bitch eh? Do you not know what Dr. Q has said? I'll try to help but since I'm not trained in helping the seriously mentally handicapped fuks like yourself I don't know how much can be done....except pointing to what Dr Q stated:

"I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,"

And...


"I found that throughout your whole investigation it was very difficult to get a clear answer. And when anyone went to your advisory panel meetings or hearings, where they were given five minutes to make a statement; they could never ask any questions. And with all the commentary that I put in, and I spent many hours writing things, and it would bore people if I regurgitated all of that here, I never received one formal reply."


And....

"It says that the core columns, uninsulated due
to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; they softened in the heat of the fire and shortened and that led to the collapse. They pulled in the external columns and it caused it to buckle. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place."

And...


"In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding."


What else do you want to try and deflect and whine about bitch?

You agree with Dr. Q and NIST that the cause of the tower's collapse was caused by structural failures due to heat from fires, but you just don't know if it was the columns that failed (NIST's belief) or the floor truss connections that failed (Dr. Q's belief) and would like an independent investigation to clarify which is correct.

Is that right?

 

[420ish]

when 420ish backed out of his op.

I didn't back out. I'm just patiently waiting for you truthers to answer my simple question. Stop with the cat and mouse game and answer the question.

 

[CurveLight]

actually, i usually just skip over your posts because you never have anything useful to say. sorry i didnt give you the immediate attention you so obviously crave.

i see you cant answer a simple question.

...again.

Thank you for lying again you useless ****.

point out the lie please.

otherwise, you are just pulling shit out of your ass with no basis in fact.

exactly like your twoofer buddy cristophera.

Thass easy you useless bitch. I've clearly stated I've never studied flight 93 and when I do I will form an opinion. But you, like 420cuntish want to lie and say I didn't answer about what happened. The problem is you bitches are so co-dependent you can't grasp the concept of research prior to conclusion.

 

[420ish]

Thass easy you useless bitch. I've clearly stated I've never studied flight 93 and when I do I will form an opinion. But you, like 420cuntish want to lie and say I didn't answer about what happened. The problem is you bitches are so co-dependent you can't grasp the concept of research prior to conclusion.

You are calling me a **** because I asked a simple question you truthers can't answer?

 

[CurveLight]

when 420ish backed out of his op.

I didn't back out. I'm just patiently waiting for you truthers to answer my simple question. Stop with the cat and mouse game and answer the question.

Your op question asks how an engine was planted. I pointed out your op link does not provide any evidence of an engine and you weaseled by saying you never "technically" claimed it was an engine from flight 93 you lying diklik. You're so much like fizzbitch that 420cuntish looks like one of his sock puppets.

 

[Fizz]

Thass easy you useless bitch. I've clearly stated I've never studied flight 93 and when I do I will form an opinion. But you, like 420cuntish want to lie and say I didn't answer about what happened. The problem is you bitches are so co-dependent you can't grasp the concept of research prior to conclusion.

so you admit you didnt answer the question because you have yet to form an opinion and then accuse me of lying when i say you didnt answer the question.

you really are fucked up.

 

[420ish]

when 420ish backed out of his op.

I didn't back out. I'm just patiently waiting for you truthers to answer my simple question. Stop with the cat and mouse game and answer the question.

Your op question asks how an engine was planted. I pointed out your op link does not provide any evidence of an engine and you weaseled by saying you never "technically" claimed it was an engine from flight 93 you lying diklik. You're so much like fizzbitch that 420cuntish looks like one of his sock puppets.

Then I changed it especially for you to how did that "airplane part" (even though I should you an article that said it was an engine) to make it easier for you, but you still can't answer it.

For the sake of argument, who cares what plane that piece came from. How was it planted there?

 

[CurveLight]

Thass easy you useless bitch. I've clearly stated I've never studied flight 93 and when I do I will form an opinion. But you, like 420cuntish want to lie and say I didn't answer about what happened. The problem is you bitches are so co-dependent you can't grasp the concept of research prior to conclusion.

You are calling me a **** because I asked a simple question you truthers can't answer?

You're a **** because you're a dishonest shitbag.

You back out of your op when I point out you provide no evidence of an engine from flight 93.

You ask me how it got planted even though I've never claimed it was planted.

You accuse me of not answering "what happened at shanksville" after I clearly said I will form an opinion after I studied it.

Keep embarrassing yourself you useless bitch because you have a whole fraternity just like you in fizzbitch, gamcock, candyass, and a few others.

 

[CurveLight]

i didn't back out. I'm just patiently waiting for you truthers to answer my simple question. Stop with the cat and mouse game and answer the question.

your op question asks how an engine was planted. I pointed out your op link does not provide any evidence of an engine and you weaseled by saying you never "technically" claimed it was an engine from flight 93 you lying diklik. You're so much like fizzbitch that 420cuntish looks like one of his sock puppets.

then i changed it especially for you to how did that "airplane part" (even though i should you an article that said it was an engine) to make it easier for you, but you still can't answer it.

For the sake of argument, who cares what plane that piece came from. How was it planted there?

for the tenth time you dumfuk:

I never said anything was planted there.

 

[Fizz]

your op question asks how an engine was planted. I pointed out your op link does not provide any evidence of an engine and you weaseled by saying you never "technically" claimed it was an engine from flight 93 you lying diklik. You're so much like fizzbitch that 420cuntish looks like one of his sock puppets.

then i changed it especially for you to how did that "airplane part" (even though i should you an article that said it was an engine) to make it easier for you, but you still can't answer it.

For the sake of argument, who cares what plane that piece came from. How was it planted there?

for the tenth time you dumfuk:

I never said anything was planted there.

he never said you did, jackass!!