Which 9-11 theory you believe?

[DiveCon]

i have no doubts you would reject them \as they are not moronic troofer bullshit
'

Which REALLY means: " I don't have any!".

Seeing that my sites use factual scientific evidence, conducted by experts and yours rely on Fairy Tales and sheer impossibilities, I'd say yours would be bullshit.

that pretty much says it all in a nutshell right there.

i could, and i have in the past
but i found it is a waste of time with delusional fuckers like you

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Which REALLY means: " I don't have any!".

Seeing that my sites use factual scientific evidence, conducted by experts and yours rely on Fairy Tales and sheer impossibilities, I'd say yours would be bullshit.

factual scientific evidence like Atta's passport being found?!!

Oh, so that's what you are going to dwell on? But, I guess that's all you have.

No matter who's passport was found, it was still PLANTED, as eots said.

Now then, I will offer help to you again. ONLY because I am a nice person.

READ this: http://www.journalof911studies.com/...rldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf

I'm sorry that it is quite lengthy, but this scientific PROOF cannot be said in a couple of paragraphs. It makes far more sense as to what happened to the towers than your "911 Commission Fairy Tale Bullshit Pancake Theory".

Oh and here:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3151MqXu52s]YouTube - Fire Weakens Steel but not Woman Waving in WTC North Tower[/ame]

Tell me why Edna Cintron and several other people were able to stand in the impact hole and wave for help if the fire was so intense that it collapsed these buildings.

Or keep dreaming.................

thats what cracks me up about the OCTA'S logic that the fires weakened the steel causing it to collapse is that those fires were oxygen startved as the black smoke proves and the facts they were able to stand so close to the fires and the firemen are heard in a recordings saying the fires are not tense and they should have them put out very soon before they collapsed.as you just proved,those fires werent even hot enough to melt a marshmellow,let alone weaken steel.: that one makes me roll on the floor with laughter everytime.

 

[SFC Ollie]

factual scientific evidence like Atta's passport being found?!!

Oh, so that's what you are going to dwell on? But, I guess that's all you have.

No matter who's passport was found, it was still PLANTED, as eots said.

Now then, I will offer help to you again. ONLY because I am a nice person.

READ this: http://www.journalof911studies.com/...rldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf

I'm sorry that it is quite lengthy, but this scientific PROOF cannot be said in a couple of paragraphs. It makes far more sense as to what happened to the towers than your "911 Commission Fairy Tale Bullshit Pancake Theory".

Oh and here:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3151MqXu52s]YouTube - Fire Weakens Steel but not Woman Waving in WTC North Tower[/ame]

Tell me why Edna Cintron and several other people were able to stand in the impact hole and wave for help if the fire was so intense that it collapsed these buildings.

Or keep dreaming.................

thats what cracks me up about the OCTA'S logic that the fires weakened the steel causing it to collapse is that those fires were oxygen startved as the black smoke proves and the facts they were able to stand so close to the fires and the firemen are heard in a recordings saying the fires are not tense and they should have them put out very soon before they collapsed.as you just proved,those fires werent even hot enough to melt a marshmellow,let alone weaken steel.: that one makes me roll on the floor with laughter everytime.

There was one fireman who made it to some level where there was some fire. He said something along the lines of "we can put it down with 2 lines. What he didn't see was the other floors that were burning. How could he? If he could put down all of the fire with two lines, then, more people would have been able to come down from the upper floors. Because the fire wasn't so bad; right?

WRONG!

You fools really need to use some common sense here.

 

[Fizz]

No matter who's passport was found, it was still PLANTED, as eots said.

and your proof it was planted?

oh thats right. your a twoofer. you can just jump to wild and absurd conclusions based on absolutely no evidence and blame the government. you dont need ACTUAL evidence. you can just make it up.

you claim it was planted so let's see your proof.

then after that we can talk about WHO planted it and what proof you have of that..... once again, it will be another wild conclusion drawn without any evidence. maybe you are going to claim the hijacker travelled to new york and planted his passport on the street before hijacking the plane......

but then again that doesnt fit into your whole "blame the government" agenda.

 

[eots]

Oh, so that's what you are going to dwell on? But, I guess that's all you have.

No matter who's passport was found, it was still PLANTED, as eots said.

Now then, I will offer help to you again. ONLY because I am a nice person.

READ this: http://www.journalof911studies.com/...rldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf

I'm sorry that it is quite lengthy, but this scientific PROOF cannot be said in a couple of paragraphs. It makes far more sense as to what happened to the towers than your "911 Commission Fairy Tale Bullshit Pancake Theory".

Oh and here:
YouTube - Fire Weakens Steel but not Woman Waving in WTC North Tower

Tell me why Edna Cintron and several other people were able to stand in the impact hole and wave for help if the fire was so intense that it collapsed these buildings.

Or keep dreaming.................

thats what cracks me up about the OCTA'S logic that the fires weakened the steel causing it to collapse is that those fires were oxygen startved as the black smoke proves and the facts they were able to stand so close to the fires and the firemen are heard in a recordings saying the fires are not tense and they should have them put out very soon before they collapsed.as you just proved,those fires werent even hot enough to melt a marshmellow,let alone weaken steel.: that one makes me roll on the floor with laughter everytime.

There was one fireman who made it to some level where there was some fire. He said something along the lines of "we can put it down with 2 lines. What he didn't see was the other floors that were burning. How could he? If he could put down all of the fire with two lines, then, more people would have been able to come down from the upper floors. Because the fire wasn't so bad; right?

WRONG!

You fools really need to use some common sense here.

he was on the 72 floor

 

[DiveCon]

thats what cracks me up about the OCTA'S logic that the fires weakened the steel causing it to collapse is that those fires were oxygen startved as the black smoke proves and the facts they were able to stand so close to the fires and the firemen are heard in a recordings saying the fires are not tense and they should have them put out very soon before they collapsed.as you just proved,those fires werent even hot enough to melt a marshmellow,let alone weaken steel.: that one makes me roll on the floor with laughter everytime.

There was one fireman who made it to some level where there was some fire. He said something along the lines of "we can put it down with 2 lines. What he didn't see was the other floors that were burning. How could he? If he could put down all of the fire with two lines, then, more people would have been able to come down from the upper floors. Because the fire wasn't so bad; right?

WRONG!

You fools really need to use some common sense here.

he was on the 72 floor

and the worst fires were above him

 

[eots]

There was one fireman who made it to some level where there was some fire. He said something along the lines of "we can put it down with 2 lines. What he didn't see was the other floors that were burning. How could he? If he could put down all of the fire with two lines, then, more people would have been able to come down from the upper floors. Because the fire wasn't so bad; right?

WRONG!

You fools really need to use some common sense here.

he was on the 72 floor

and the worst fires were above him

maybe..but the woman may indicate maybe not...but regardless why would this cause the entire structure beneath it to fall at near free fall speed into a pile of beams, rubble and dust ?

 

[eots]

I can see the terrorist plotting now...no need for hijackings or suicide missions..we will get access to a building, disable the sprinkler system,light some office fires and bring this sucker down to a pile of rubble !!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A]YouTube - wtc 7 collapse[/ame]

 

[SFC Ollie]

he was on the 72 floor

and the worst fires were above him

maybe..but the woman may indicate maybe not...but regardless why would this cause the entire structure beneath it to fall at near free fall speed into a pile of beams, rubble and dust ?

Yet we have seen the video with pieces falling well ahead of the main collapse.

And in case you haven't seen it for yourself.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - 9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed[/ame]

OOpps, there goes that near free fall shit.....

 

[eots]

NIST describes the collapse as" at near free fall speed " lil Ollie ..once again the debwunkers and dwiveconspirators..show the dont even know the official story they claim to support

 

[SFC Ollie]

NIST describes the collapse as" at near free fall speed " lil Ollie ..once again the debwunkers and dwiveconspirators..show the dont even know the official story they claim to support

But i showed you a video and everything.... Doesn't that make it right?

 

[DiveCon]

NIST describes the collapse as" at near free fall speed " lil Ollie ..once again the debwunkers and dwiveconspirators..show the dont even know the official story they claim to support

wasnt that only for a small point of the WTC7 collapse?

 

[SFC Ollie]

NIST describes the collapse as" at near free fall speed " lil Ollie ..once again the debwunkers and dwiveconspirators..show the dont even know the official story they claim to support

wasnt that only for a small point of the WTC7 collapse?

We must remember that the NIST is correct only when Id eots says they are. And when it is within his context.

 

[eots]

NIST describes the collapse as" at near free fall speed " lil Ollie ..once again the debwunkers and dwiveconspirators..show the dont even know the official story they claim to support

But i showed you a video and everything.... Doesn't that make it right?

No Ollie it does not..youtube videos ,news articles,books etc are simply ways of communicating information..that information can be relevant and factual such as my statement that NIST describes the collapse as"at near free fall".. conversely it can be irrelevant and misleading such as your youtube video

 

[DiveCon]

NIST describes the collapse as" at near free fall speed " lil Ollie ..once again the debwunkers and dwiveconspirators..show the dont even know the official story they claim to support

But i showed you a video and everything.... Doesn't that make it right?

No Ollie it does not..youtube videos ,news articles,books etc are simply ways of communicating information..that information can be relevant and factual such as my statement that NIST describes the collapse as"at near free fall".. conversely it can be irrelevant and misleading such as your youtube video

but what was the context of the "near free fall"

 

[eots]

NIST describes the collapse as" at near free fall speed " lil Ollie ..once again the debwunkers and dwiveconspirators..show the dont even know the official story they claim to support

wasnt that only for a small point of the WTC7 collapse?

NIST admits total free fall for a portion of the wtc 7 collapse but describes the collapse of the twin towers as at near free fall speed which it clearly is we are talking a matter of secs

 

[DiveCon]

NIST describes the collapse as" at near free fall speed " lil Ollie ..once again the debwunkers and dwiveconspirators..show the dont even know the official story they claim to support

wasnt that only for a small point of the WTC7 collapse?

NIST admits total free fall for a portion of the wtc 7 collapse but describes the collapse of the twin towers as at near free fall speed which it clearly is we are talking a matter of secs

so, free fall speed is aprox 9 sec
is 15 seconds "near" or 22 sec?
would 30 sec still be NEAR?

 

[SFC Ollie]

wasnt that only for a small point of the WTC7 collapse?

NIST admits total free fall for a portion of the wtc 7 collapse but describes the collapse of the twin towers as at near free fall speed which it clearly is we are talking a matter of secs

so, free fall speed is aprox 9 sec
is 15 seconds "near" or 22 sec?
would 30 sec still be NEAR?

I would love to see where NIST actually said that; for context, so we can understand exactly what they were talking about.

 

[DiveCon]

NIST admits total free fall for a portion of the wtc 7 collapse but describes the collapse of the twin towers as at near free fall speed which it clearly is we are talking a matter of secs

so, free fall speed is aprox 9 sec
is 15 seconds "near" or 22 sec?
would 30 sec still be NEAR?

I would love to see where NIST actually said that; for context, so we can understand exactly what they were talking about.

i might be remembering wrong, but i believe they were badgered into saying it was near free fall by troofer morons screaming it over and over

that they admitted the "near" to shut them the fuck up

but typical for most of the things done under the Bush administration, that failed too

 

[eots]

so, free fall speed is aprox 9 sec
is 15 seconds "near" or 22 sec?
would 30 sec still be NEAR?

I would love to see where NIST actually said that; for context, so we can understand exactly what they were talking about.

i might be remembering wrong, but i believe they were badgered into saying it was near free fall by troofer morons screaming it over and over

that they admitted the "near" to shut them the fuck up

but typical for most of the things done under the Bush administration, that failed too

Yes, this is true almost ever revision in the theories original put forth by fema and NISTand propagated through popular mechanics came from toofers relentlessly pointing out the absurdity of the claims,many of which debwunkers repeat till this day