Victims' Families Want To Air New 9/11 Truth Ad

[Obamerican]

YouTube - ‪fires WTC7, CBS-Net Dub7 14.avi‬‏


YouTube - ‪CCTV/TVCC fire in Beijing (HD version)




YouTube - ‪Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!‬‏

Not a single one of your fires was in a building built like the WTC and NONE OF THEM were hit by commercial jets. Idiot.

 

[eots]

why do we always have to compare to buildings that were constructed differently?

why do you pretend you have any idea how all the buildings featured were constructed ?...why do you pretend anything in the design of wtc 7 contributed or made it more vulnerable to collapse ?

and you still want to go with relatively small while all you can see behind some windows is flame?
And this from the side of the building that wasn't damaged.

Unfortunately the other side of the building is conveniently hidden by massive clouds of smoke, you cannot even tell how much damage was done or how bad the fires are. But you know all this and dismiss it

I dont think smoke could obscure the fires seen in these buildings..so if you cant see fire through smoke it cant be that intense and yes compared to other building fires they are indeed contained to several floors and relativly small

 

[eots]

youtube - ‪fires wtc7, cbs-net dub7 14.avi‬‏


youtube - ‪cctv/tvcc fire in beijing (hd version)




youtube - ‪bad ass skyscraper fires and destruction!! Awesome!!‬‏

not a single one of your fires was in a building built like the wtc and none of them were hit by commercial jets. Idiot.

wtc 7 was not hit by a jet..other than igniting fires nist determined damage played no significant role in the collapse and the design of wtc 7 was never called into fault and you have no clue how all the buildings in these videos were constructed regardless

 

[Obamerican]

youtube - ‪fires wtc7, cbs-net dub7 14.avi‬‏


youtube - ‪cctv/tvcc fire in beijing (hd version)




youtube - ‪bad ass skyscraper fires and destruction!! Awesome!!‬‏

not a single one of your fires was in a building built like the wtc and none of them were hit by commercial jets. Idiot.

wtc 7 was not hit by a jet..other than igniting fires nist determined damage played no significant role in the collapse and the design of wtc 7 was never called into fault and you have no clue how all the buildings in these videos were constructed regardless

Which one of your videos has a building where the entire front was stripped off by the collapse of a 110 floor building?

 

[eots]

not a single one of your fires was in a building built like the wtc and none of them were hit by commercial jets. Idiot.

wtc 7 was not hit by a jet..other than igniting fires nist determined damage played no significant role in the collapse and the design of wtc 7 was never called into fault and you have no clue how all the buildings in these videos were constructed regardless

which one of your videos has a building where the entire front was stripped off by the collapse of a 110 floor building?

what part of... other than initiating fires, damage from falling debris played no significant role in the collapse... Do you not understand ??

 

[Patriot911]

If what you say is true...why are you here ?

What Ollie said. Why should I stand by and let schmucks like you use the deaths of 3000 Americans to spread your lies, deceit and discontent? I know it probably boggles your little mind that there are people with integrity out there that will stand up for what they believe in and without the paranoid delusions as seen from the conspiratard crowd.

I've also noticed you have failed time and time again to produce a single shred of evidence that would hold up in a court of law that the bull you spread is anything but bull. Why is that? Don't you think it makes you and your movement look like a bunch of fools when you can't back up your claims with actual evidence, especially when you claim to have so much of it? Here is a hint. Nod your head up and down. That's a good boy!

but you said EVERYONE laughs at me...no one believes it...we look like a bunch of fools...there is no evidence...so why the concern ?

You never know when some fool might actually buy the bullshit you're selling. And re-read my explanation above. Still holds very true.

 

[Patriot911]

YouTube - ‪fires WTC7, CBS-Net Dub7 14.avi‬‏


YouTube - ‪CCTV/TVCC fire in Beijing (HD version)




YouTube - ‪Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!‬‏

So once again eots fails miserably at producing a single shred of evidence that backs up his bullshit. Here's a hint. Your OPINION of what the building should have done does not constitute evidence in any way, shape or form. The complete lack of evidence that would be present if your bullshit were true and the evidence that backs up the official story exposes your bullshit for what it is. Now, if you could actually produce evidence that doesn't require everyone to believe your opinion is evidence, I'd love to see it.

 

[eots]

what evidence do you have that proves the failure of a single column (79) would initiate the completely progress collapse of the wtc 7 in secs ?

 

[Patriot911]

what evidence do you have that proves the failure of a single column (79) would initiate the completely progress collapse of the wtc 7 in secs ?

Read the NIST report on the collapse. It explains everything in great detail including how they came to their conclusions and what evidence they had that led them to their conclusions. It is obvious there was some kind of failure in the vertical columns as evidenced by the collapse of the penthouse and the observable internal collapse occuring inside WTC 7 before the external collapse started.

Yes, I know you deny the video evidence and what it represents. It doesn't change the facts nor does it change the fact there is observable evidence that backs up the NIST theory.

Could the NIST theory be wrong? Absolutely. But it fits all available evidence. Your bullshit doesn't even come close. If new evidence surfaces that disproves the NIST report, then I am sure the NIST report will be revisited to see if there are other impacts to building design methodologies.

BTW, your evasion of the truth of you not having any real evidence to support your bullshit isn't going unnoticed. Diversions aren't going to save you from the truth that you have no real evidence.

 

[eots]

what evidence do you have that proves the failure of a single column (79) would initiate the completely progress collapse of the wtc 7 in secs ?

Read the NIST report on the collapse. It explains everything in great detail including how they came to their conclusions and what evidence they had that led them to their conclusions. It is obvious there was some kind of failure in the vertical columns as evidenced by the collapse of the penthouse and the observable internal collapse occuring inside WTC 7 before the external collapse started.

Yes, I know you deny the video evidence and what it represents. It doesn't change the facts nor does it change the fact there is observable evidence that backs up the NIST theory.

Could the NIST theory be wrong? Absolutely. But it fits all available evidence. Your bullshit doesn't even come close. If new evidence surfaces that disproves the NIST report, then I am sure the NIST report will be revisited to see if there are other impacts to building design methodologies.

BTW, your evasion of the truth of you not having any real evidence to support your bullshit isn't going unnoticed. Diversions aren't going to save you from the truth that you have no real evidence.

So what you are saying is you can not point to one shred of real evidence
and you concede that NIST absolutely could of failed to correctly determine the cause of the collapse..

 

[Patriot911]

So what you are saying is you can not point to one shred of real evidence.

Wrong as I clearly stated. The fact you wish to ignore the hard evidence is not my problem and I even predicted you would do so. Sucks to be you.

and you concede that NIST absolutely could of failed to correctly determine the cause of the collapse..

And you could absolutely be a decent person. The evidence proves otherwise and unless other evidence is presented that contradicts the overwhelming evidence you're anything BUT a decent person, I will continue believing you're nothing but scum.

Same thing with the NIST. COULD they be wrong? Yes. Now it is up to you to present the evidence your bullshit is true and the NIST is wrong. Go ahead. How many times do you have to be asked for the evidence before you either admit you're full of shit or present the evidence you claim to have?

 

[SFC Ollie]

What Eots is telling us is that the NIST report is wrong except when it's right.

 

[eots]

What Eots is telling us is that the NIST report is wrong except when it's right.

No that would actually be your logic Ollie....I am telling you if you support the official story you need to support the findings...not blend the with poular mechanics..and debwunker sites as you see fit and contradict the report you claim to support

 

[SFC Ollie]

Lord forbid if anyone thinks that the official reports are correct on all their main points and that you might think they didn't give enough credence to one minor part. Or that you think there might be some unanswered questions. Because if that's what you think well then Bush or Cheney must have done it..........

 

[eots]

Lord forbid if anyone thinks that the official reports are correct on all their main points and that you might think they didn't give enough credence to one minor part. Or that you think there might be some unanswered questions. Because if that's what you think well then Bush or Cheney must have done it..........

on all what main points Ollie...please be specific

 

[SFC Ollie]

Eots we have covered this a hundred times.

It was an A Q plot carried out by 19 Hijackers. UBL was the leader of A Q.

4 planes were hijacked, two hit the WTC towers one hit the pentagon and one crashed into the ground in Shanksville PA

There was no pre knowledge by anyone in the US government.

There were no pre planted explosives.

All of WTC buildings were destroyed along with a few others.

That's most of the main points. Which column fell when, and where did it land is of little consequence.

Unless you have some proof of explosives or of government planning you got nothing, and in nearly 10 years, you got nothing...... But Alex Jones is a lot richer....

 

[eots]

Eots we have covered this a hundred times.

It was an A Q plot carried out by 19 Hijackers. UBL was the leader of A Q.

4 planes were hijacked, two hit the WTC towers one hit the pentagon and one crashed into the ground in Shanksville PA

There was no pre knowledge by anyone in the US government.

There were no pre planted explosives.

All of WTC buildings were destroyed along with a few others.

That's most of the main points. Which column fell when, and where did it land is of little consequence.

Unless you have some proof of explosives or of government planning you got nothing, and in nearly 10 years, you got nothing...... But Alex Jones is a lot richer....

you a terrible confused Ollie the NIST report has nothing to do with has nothing to do with the points you listed ..the NIST report was to determine the cause of the collapses and you disagree with its most fundamental conclusions...that damage did not play a significant role in the collapse and the same fires ignited by any means would of resulted in initiation of the collapse sequence

 

[Mr. Jones]

what evidence do you have that proves the failure of a single column (79) would initiate the completely progress collapse of the wtc 7 in secs ?

He has nothing but the dubious guesses and theories of the NIST, who is an agency of the government. He uses what credible experts in many relevant fields have thoroughly exposed as being flawed, yet because it is NIST and the government the appeal to their authority is somehow beyond reproach

NIST's models depend on stripping of insulation and fire temperatures of 1000° C.
But, there is no actual physical evidence for NIST's proposed
Structural damage, Stripping of fire–proofing material, Fire temperatures, or Sagging of floors.
During the public comment period, August 2008, Shyam Sunder said free fall could not occur because of resistance by the structure itself. David Chandler showed free fall did occur for a distance of about 105 feet, or a time of about 2.5 seconds.
NIST admitted to free fall in the final report, but did not examine the implications.

There are many problems with NIST's theory that suggest fraud. See David Ray Griffin's "The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7," Olive Branch Press, 2010.

NIST's Theory for WTC7 is almost pure speculation. There is no direct evidence for high temperature fires, expansion of girders, or failure of columns due to fire.

NIST: "… we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

 

[SFC Ollie]

what evidence do you have that proves the failure of a single column (79) would initiate the completely progress collapse of the wtc 7 in secs ?

He has nothing but the dubious guesses and theories of the NIST, who is an agency of the government. He uses what credible experts in many relevant fields have thoroughly exposed as being flawed, yet because it is NIST and the government the appeal to their authority is somehow beyond reproach

NIST's models depend on stripping of insulation and fire temperatures of 1000° C.
But, there is no actual physical evidence for NIST's proposed
Structural damage, Stripping of fire–proofing material, Fire temperatures, or Sagging of floors.
During the public comment period, August 2008, Shyam Sunder said free fall could not occur because of resistance by the structure itself. David Chandler showed free fall did occur for a distance of about 105 feet, or a time of about 2.5 seconds.
NIST admitted to free fall in the final report, but did not examine the implications.

There are many problems with NIST's theory that suggest fraud. See David Ray Griffin's "The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7," Olive Branch Press, 2010.

NIST's Theory for WTC7 is almost pure speculation. There is no direct evidence for high temperature fires, expansion of girders, or failure of columns due to fire.

NIST: "… we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

Here we go again, There is a difference between a building and a part or section of a building. Why is this so difficult to understand?

 

[eots]

what evidence do you have that proves the failure of a single column (79) would initiate the completely progress collapse of the wtc 7 in secs ?

He has nothing but the dubious guesses and theories of the NIST, who is an agency of the government. He uses what credible experts in many relevant fields have thoroughly exposed as being flawed, yet because it is NIST and the government the appeal to their authority is somehow beyond reproach

NIST's models depend on stripping of insulation and fire temperatures of 1000° C.
But, there is no actual physical evidence for NIST's proposed
Structural damage, Stripping of fire–proofing material, Fire temperatures, or Sagging of floors.
During the public comment period, August 2008, Shyam Sunder said free fall could not occur because of resistance by the structure itself. David Chandler showed free fall did occur for a distance of about 105 feet, or a time of about 2.5 seconds.
NIST admitted to free fall in the final report, but did not examine the implications.

There are many problems with NIST's theory that suggest fraud. See David Ray Griffin's "The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7," Olive Branch Press, 2010.

NIST's Theory for WTC7 is almost pure speculation. There is no direct evidence for high temperature fires, expansion of girders, or failure of columns due to fire.

NIST: "… we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

Here we go again, There is a difference between a building and a part or section of a building. Why is this so difficult to understand?

because its babble....