Which 9-11 theory you believe?

[eots]

Oh just little things like 110 stories falling on it knocking out the water mains and starting the fires. You know, little shit like that. It builds up into all the little reasons that fire was able to take out a building....

For instance, if you were to sneak into the building and started a fire in an office, the building would not have fallen from that fire. Why? because you wouldn't take out the sprinklers and the water mains... For starters..... But to your way of thinking that doesn't matter..... So neither does anything else......It's OK, we understand.....

same fires lil olie..that means without sprinklers on several floors...what would of happened to the wtc 7 according to nist ???

 

[CurveLight]

Doesn't curvelight all of a sudden sound exactly like Id eots?

Like a little bitch you ignore your own false claim and what the lead nist investigator stated.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Without any means of fighting the fire, the building would eventually come down. No matter how you want to spin it there were reasons. And none of those reasons were controlled demolition.

 

[CurveLight]

Oh just little things like 110 stories falling on it knocking out the water mains and starting the fires. You know, little shit like that. It builds up into all the little reasons that fire was able to take out a building....

For instance, if you were to sneak into the building and started a fire in an office, the building would not have fallen from that fire. Why? because you wouldn't take out the sprinklers and the water mains... For starters..... But to your way of thinking that doesn't matter..... So neither does anything else......It's OK, we understand.....

Nist said even without any damage from the towers collapsing that 7 still would have collapsed from the fires. Will you ever learn the basics of your own position?

 

[eots]

the reality is no one can debate the NIST report because if most of the public took the time to understand it they would reject it, to keep the 9/11 myth alive it is existential to cloak the NIST report in confusion by mixing it with the popular mechanics narrative of raging uncontrolled fires, stored fuel explosions, massive damage to the building from 110 story buildings falling on it....

 

[SFC Ollie]

My only position is that there was no controlled demolition. You see i don't have to prove how right or wrong some report might be. I agree with them that there were no planted explosives. Now if you want to disprove that, have at it. I don't give a rats ass if you think they are wrong that fires brought down WTC 7. They are right that planted explosives did not, because there were no planted explosives.

One more time.

There was no controlled demolition of any of the WTC buildings on 9-11-01.

 

[CurveLight]

Without any means of fighting the fire, the building would eventually come down. No matter how you want to spin it there were reasons. And none of those reasons were controlled demolition.

You're such a dishonest fucking princess.

 

[eots]

My only position is that there was no controlled demolition. You see i don't have to prove how right or wrong some report might be. I agree with them that there were no planted explosives. Now if you want to disprove that, have at it. I don't give a rats ass if you think they are wrong that fires brought down WTC 7. They are right that planted explosives did not, because there were no planted explosives.

One more time.

There was no controlled demolition of any of the WTC buildings on 9-11-01.

so you do not care if the NIST report failed to determine the cause of the collapse but yet accept their findings as accurate..I see

In the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, doublethink is the act of simultaneously accepting as correct two mutually contradictory beliefs. It is related to, but distinct from, hypocrisy and neutrality. Its opposite is cognitive dissonance, where the two beliefs cause conflict in one's mind.

 

[CurveLight]

My only position is that there was no controlled demolition. You see i don't have to prove how right or wrong some report might be. I agree with them that there were no planted explosives. Now if you want to disprove that, have at it. I don't give a rats ass if you think they are wrong that fires brought down WTC 7. They are right that planted explosives did not, because there were no planted explosives.

One more time.

There was no controlled demolition of any of the WTC buildings on 9-11-01.

Your only position is the one the government tells you to have. Be good and you'll get good little boy patriotic treats later.

 

[SFC Ollie]

My only position is that there was no controlled demolition. You see i don't have to prove how right or wrong some report might be. I agree with them that there were no planted explosives. Now if you want to disprove that, have at it. I don't give a rats ass if you think they are wrong that fires brought down WTC 7. They are right that planted explosives did not, because there were no planted explosives.

One more time.

There was no controlled demolition of any of the WTC buildings on 9-11-01.

Your only position is the one the government tells you to have. Be good and you'll get good little boy patriotic treats later.

What's your position bentdick? Have you decided on one yet? Or do you still want to deny that you are just another truther stooge?

 

[CurveLight]

My only position is that there was no controlled demolition. You see i don't have to prove how right or wrong some report might be. I agree with them that there were no planted explosives. Now if you want to disprove that, have at it. I don't give a rats ass if you think they are wrong that fires brought down WTC 7. They are right that planted explosives did not, because there were no planted explosives.

One more time.

There was no controlled demolition of any of the WTC buildings on 9-11-01.

Your only position is the one the government tells you to have. Be good and you'll get good little boy patriotic treats later.

What's your position bentdick? Have you decided on one yet? Or do you still want to deny that you are just another truther stooge?

You don't care what my position is because you don't even care what NIST's report says.

 

[CurveLight]

My only position is that there was no controlled demolition. You see i don't have to prove how right or wrong some report might be. I agree with them that there were no planted explosives. Now if you want to disprove that, have at it. I don't give a rats ass if you think they are wrong that fires brought down WTC 7. They are right that planted explosives did not, because there were no planted explosives.

One more time.

There was no controlled demolition of any of the WTC buildings on 9-11-01.

so you do not care if the NIST report failed to determine the cause of the collapse but yet accept their findings as accurate..I see

In the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, doublethink is the act of simultaneously accepting as correct two mutually contradictory beliefs. It is related to, but distinct from, hypocrisy and neutrality. Its opposite is cognitive dissonance, where the two beliefs cause conflict in one's mind.

I don't see doublethink here. His position is no explosives were used and N's Report says fire brought it down. Granted, he can't claim a negative and fire along bringing down a skyscraper is something that happened only on 9E but 1984 seems to get bandied about a bit too much.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Mares eat eots and does eat eots.
And little lambs eat ivy. A kiddle eat ivy too wouldnt ewe?

 

[eots]

Mares eat eots and does eat eots.
And little lambs eat ivy. A kiddle eat ivy too wouldnt ewe?

another defeated cretin left to babble his gibberish in its last flailing attempts...

 

[JiggsCasey]

another fucking idiot makes claims he cant back up.....

lol... torrets can be contained via medication. seek it.

so let's see your "let it happen on purpose" proof. oh, thats right. you have none.

you mean besides the Phoenix Memo? the ISI's wire transfer to Atta, and the wildly abnormal insider trading on affected corporations shortly before 9/11?

epic fail.

you should generally wait for an answer before declaring victory, tool box. ... else you look glucose-addled. ... Cut down on the sugar sticks, k?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Oh just little things like 110 stories falling on it knocking out the water mains and starting the fires. You know, little shit like that. It builds up into all the little reasons that fire was able to take out a building....

For instance, if you were to sneak into the building and started a fire in an office, the building would not have fallen from that fire. Why? because you wouldn't take out the sprinklers and the water mains... For starters..... But to your way of thinking that doesn't matter..... So neither does anything else......It's OK, we understand.....

Nist said even without any damage from the towers collapsing that 7 still would have collapsed from the fires. Will you ever learn the basics of your own position?

The fire was feed from a huge fuel tank in the basement. No sprinklers to fight it and the fire department abandoned the building and ANNOUNCED it would collapse from the fire. Pretty simple concept actually.

 

[Fizz]

another fucking idiot makes claims he cant back up.....

lol... torrets can be contained via medication. seek it.

i dont have torrets. i dont have Turrets either. when i see a fucking idiot making stupid statements i have no problem calling them a fucking idiot. if you dont want to be called a fucking idiot then stop being one and i will stop calling you one.

so let's see your "let it happen on purpose" proof. oh, thats right. you have none.

you mean besides the Phoenix Memo?

somebody clearly dropped the ball. that does not equate to "letting it happen on purpose" and having clearly sinister intentions.

the ISI's wire transfer to Atta,

so now the ISI is part of the american government?!!

and the wildly abnormal insider trading on affected corporations shortly before 9/11?

ok, now prove who did the trading. otherwise your just throwing shit against the wall hoping something sticks.

epic fail.

you should generally wait for an answer before declaring victory, tool box. ... else you look glucose-addled. ... Cut down on the sugar sticks, k?

still waiting for evidence. if this is all you got then my original FAIL assessment was correct!!

 

[CurveLight]

Oh just little things like 110 stories falling on it knocking out the water mains and starting the fires. You know, little shit like that. It builds up into all the little reasons that fire was able to take out a building....

For instance, if you were to sneak into the building and started a fire in an office, the building would not have fallen from that fire. Why? because you wouldn't take out the sprinklers and the water mains... For starters..... But to your way of thinking that doesn't matter..... So neither does anything else......It's OK, we understand.....

Nist said even without any damage from the towers collapsing that 7 still would have collapsed from the fires. Will you ever learn the basics of your own position?

The fire was feed from a huge fuel tank in the basement. No sprinklers to fight it and the fire department abandoned the building and ANNOUNCED it would collapse from the fire. Pretty simple concept actually.

I should start charging you dumbasses for having to teach you your own position. NIST specifically stated the diesel tanks in the basement did not fuel the fire that caused the collapse.

Try learning the facts of your own position before posting. Pretty simple concept actually.

One other thing, if this "fire" causing the collapse thing is so obvious and simple, why did it take NIST over six years to state the cause?

 

[CurveLight]

still waiting for evidence. if this is all you got then my original FAIL assessment was correct!!

Jokes like you are pathetic. You ignore facts then whine about "evidence."

 

[Fizz]

still waiting for evidence. if this is all you got then my original FAIL assessment was correct!!

Jokes like you are pathetic. You ignore facts then whine about "evidence."

asking for evidence is "whining"?!! HAHAHahahaha

i guess when you've got no evidence at all the best you can do is call someone that asks for evidence "whining".