Which 9-11 theory you believe?

[Fizz]

any footage of this noticeable lean ?

i didnt see any. why? you calling the first responders liars?

 

[eots]

any footage of this noticeable lean ?

i didnt see any. Why? You calling the first responders liars?

i am suspicious of the credibility of the one clip I have ever seen of one person claiming the building was leaning

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Ok How about this one.
OK city was an inside job.
the 176 victims never died
The bodies came from prison labs doing DNA research to turn jews into monkeys as per the Quran.
The real OKC people were all govern folks , they planted bombs in the WTC.
then they were put on the hijacked planes to tie up the lose ends.

The passengers of the original flights (Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93), sent to a moon base run by crusader frank and art bell.
Where they are digging holes to bury tea party members .

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

any footage of this noticeable lean ?

i didnt see any. Why? You calling the first responders liars?

i am suspicious of the credibility of the one clip I have ever seen of one person claiming the building was leaning

Are you talking about building 7 ?
If you dont know it was wrecked by falling debris, you are a much more disgusting individual than I had first thought.
the pictures of an entire corner of the building being gone are out there, if you look.

 

[eots]

i didnt see any. Why? You calling the first responders liars?

i am suspicious of the credibility of the one clip i have ever seen of one person claiming the building was leaning

are you talking about building 7 ?
If you dont know it was wrecked by falling debris, you are a much more disgusting individual than i had first thought.
The pictures of an entire corner of the building being gone are out there, if you look.

go read the nist report jackass..damage from debris played no significant role in the collapse...thats 5he real problem is assholes like you with opinions that dont even know the official conclusions of the nist report...and just continue to regurgitate popular mechanics disinfo years after the official report has been relased...what a moron

 

[SFC Ollie]

i am suspicious of the credibility of the one clip i have ever seen of one person claiming the building was leaning

are you talking about building 7 ?
If you dont know it was wrecked by falling debris, you are a much more disgusting individual than i had first thought.
The pictures of an entire corner of the building being gone are out there, if you look.

go read the nist report jackass..damage from debris played no significant role in the collapse...thats 5he real problem is assholes like you with opinions that dont even know the official conclusions of the nist report...and just continue to regurgitate popular mechanics dis info years after the official report has been relased...what a moron

Gee eots, you mean the official report that you disagree with except when someone else does?

 

[eots]

are you talking about building 7 ?
If you dont know it was wrecked by falling debris, you are a much more disgusting individual than i had first thought.
The pictures of an entire corner of the building being gone are out there, if you look.

go read the nist report jackass..damage from debris played no significant role in the collapse...thats 5he real problem is assholes like you with opinions that dont even know the official conclusions of the nist report...and just continue to regurgitate popular mechanics dis info years after the official report has been relased...what a moron

Gee eots, you mean the official report that you disagree with except when someone else does?

there is a profound difference between disagreeing with the NIST report and being ignorant of the NIST report..lil Ollie

 

[Fizz]

go read the nist report jackass..damage from debris played no significant role in the collapse...thats 5he real problem is assholes like you with opinions that dont even know the official conclusions of the nist report...and just continue to regurgitate popular mechanics dis info years after the official report has been relased...what a moron

.

Gee eots, you mean the official report that you disagree with except when someone else does?

there is a profound difference between disagreeing with the NIST report and being ignorant of the NIST report..lil Ollie

So you will have no problem quoting from the nist report that says "fire alone" caused the collapse.

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSnjyZNYlW8&feature=related]YouTube - NIST WTC 7 Report - Press Briefing 8/21/08 pt 1[/ame]
7:05

 

[DiveCon]

"Primarily due to fires" is not TOTALLY caused by fires alone


your video discredits your bullshit

 

[Fizz]

"Primarily due to fires" is not TOTALLY caused by fires alone


your video discredits your bullshit

just as i thought. he rants and raves about people being ignorant of the report yet he is the one that is ignorant and doesnt know what it actually says.

and he posts a video from before the release of the final report to top it off!!

 

[eots]

What we found was... that building uncontrolled fires similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings caused an extraordinary event.the collapse of World Trade Center 7.

This is the first time that we are aware of, that a building taller than about 15 stories has collapsed primarily due to fires

 

[eots]

NIST states damage played "no significant role "in the collapse and that fires alone would still have initiated the collapse it was on the nist fact sheet but now it is only available on pdf and it would not cut and paste.. no mention of fizzes leaning tower however

 

[DiveCon]

What we found was that unbuilding controlled fires—similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings—caused an extraordinary event, ..the collapse of World Trade Center 7.

This is the first time that we are aware of, that a building taller than about 15 stories has collapsed primarily due to fires

are you dyslexic?
"uncontrolled building fires"

 

[DiveCon]

NIST states damage played "no significant role "in the collapse and that fires alone would still have initiated the collapse it was on the nist fact sheet but now it is only available on pdf and it would not cut and paste.. no mention of fizzes leaning tower however

again, "no significant role" does NOT equal "no role"
you nitpick the report and try and make it say something it actually doesnt

and "would still have" doesnt say "did"

 

[eots]

NIST states damage played "no significant role "in the collapse and that fires alone would still have initiated the collapse it was on the nist fact sheet but now it is only available on pdf and it would not cut and paste.. no mention of fizzes leaning tower however

again, "no significant role" does NOT equal "no role"
you nitpick the report and try and make it say something it actually doesnt

and "would still have" doesnt say "did"

impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns. The debris impact damage did play a secondary role in the last stages of the collapse sequence, where the exterior façade buckled at the lower floors where the impact damage was located. A separate analysis showed that even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 (the south tower) hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


moron

 

[DiveCon]

NIST states damage played "no significant role "in the collapse and that fires alone would still have initiated the collapse it was on the nist fact sheet but now it is only available on pdf and it would not cut and paste.. no mention of fizzes leaning tower however

again, "no significant role" does NOT equal "no role"
you nitpick the report and try and make it say something it actually doesnt

and "would still have" doesnt say "did"

impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns. The debris impact damage did play a secondary role in the last stages of the collapse sequence, where the exterior façade buckled at the lower floors where the impact damage was located. A separate analysis showed that even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 (the south tower) hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


moron

no shit moron
what the nfuck do you think i have been saying
"WOULD HAVE" does not say "DID"

 

[eots]

again, "no significant role" does NOT equal "no role"
you nitpick the report and try and make it say something it actually doesnt

and "would still have" doesnt say "did"

impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns. The debris impact damage did play a secondary role in the last stages of the collapse sequence, where the exterior façade buckled at the lower floors where the impact damage was located. A separate analysis showed that even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 (the south tower) hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


moron

no shit moron
what the nfuck do you think i have been saying
"WOULD HAVE" does not say "DID"

it means all you monkeys that like to point structural damage and urban legends of leaning towers or "110 story skyscrapers " falling on to the wtc 7 as a rebuttal to the weaknesses of the fires did it theory are talking out their ass.. as it is NUSTs findings that even without the damage fire alone would have initiated a collapse and the cause of the collapse of wtc 7 was due to fire

 

[DiveCon]

impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns. The debris impact damage did play a secondary role in the last stages of the collapse sequence, where the exterior façade buckled at the lower floors where the impact damage was located. A separate analysis showed that even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 (the south tower) hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


moron

no shit moron
what the nfuck do you think i have been saying
"WOULD HAVE" does not say "DID"

it means all you monkeys that like to point structural damage and urban legends of leaning towers or "110 story skyscrapers " falling on to the wtc 7 as a rebuttal to the weaknesses of the fires did it theory are talking out their ass.. as it is NUSTs findings that even without the damage fire alone would have initiated a collapse and the cause of the collapse of wtc 7 was due to fire

dipshit
structural damage DID play a role
just not a SIGNIFICANT ROLE
you post it, but you dont COMPREHEND IT

 

[eots]

no shit moron
what the nfuck do you think i have been saying
"WOULD HAVE" does not say "DID"

it means all you monkeys that like to point structural damage and urban legends of leaning towers or "110 story skyscrapers " falling on to the wtc 7 as a rebuttal to the weaknesses of the fires did it theory are talking out their ass.. as it is NUSTs findings that even without the damage fire alone would have initiated a collapse and the cause of the collapse of wtc 7 was due to fire

dipshit
structural damage DID play a role
just not a SIGNIFICANT ROLE
you post it, but you dont COMPREHEND IT

and that role was ???...come on dive you can do it ! ...that role was...?