Which 9-11 theory you believe?

[Hollybaere]

How come you never addressed the points I made concerning Terral's WTC7 theory? You asked for a point by point discussion, which I gave you. You posted one thing back, changed the subject, and then never returned...

Why is that?

You just didn't get it, and somehow I didn't think you would. The reason I asked for you to make those points was because, Fairy Tale Believers such as you, make CLAIMS that someone's post is flawed, but yet offer no proof whatsoever to back it up.

If we are required to back up what we claim, you should back up yours also.

 

[eots]

hahahahaha........you're such a jackass. Nist stated even if there was no damage from debris from the towers collapsing then 7 would have still come down from the fire. Nist also stated the diesel tanks did not cause it. So, when you take those two items out of the picture then it is fire alone that brought it down you dumbass. Why do you octas always have to be spoon fed taught on your own position?

are you too fucking stupid to see the fault in your retarded twoofer logic?

So now the only three possibilities a building has of collapsing are fire, damage from failling towers or diesel tanks?

Thats simply moronic. Stop changing what the nist report actually says to try to fit your own twoofer agenda. It says fire was the primary cause. It does not say fires alone caused the collapse. You are a fucking moronic liar to claim it does.

one could say the hijackers contributed to the collapse of the wtc 7..one could say that the fact that the wtc 7 was ever built is a factor in its collapse or gravity played a role in the collapse but there is one cause cited by NIST for the collapse..and that is fire..not damage to the building...not stored fuel ..not secondary explosions..not inherently faulty design

 

[DiveCon]

hahahahaha........you're such a jackass. Nist stated even if there was no damage from debris from the towers collapsing then 7 would have still come down from the fire. Nist also stated the diesel tanks did not cause it. So, when you take those two items out of the picture then it is fire alone that brought it down you dumbass. Why do you octas always have to be spoon fed taught on your own position?

are you too fucking stupid to see the fault in your retarded twoofer logic?

So now the only three possibilities a building has of collapsing are fire, damage from failling towers or diesel tanks?

Thats simply moronic. Stop changing what the nist report actually says to try to fit your own twoofer agenda. It says fire was the primary cause. It does not say fires alone caused the collapse. You are a fucking moronic liar to claim it does.

one could say the hijackers contributed to the collapse of the wtc 7..one could say that the fact that the wtc 7 was ever built is a factor in its collapse or gravity played a role in the collapse but there is one cause cited by NIST for the collapse..and that is fire..not damage to the building...not stored fuel ..not secondary explosions..not inherently faulty design

correction: the PRIMARY cause

 

[Gamolon]

The reason I asked for you to make those points was because, Fairy Tale Believers such as you, make CLAIMS that someone's post is flawed, but yet offer no proof whatsoever to back it up.

You mean to tell me that you don't get the significance of what it means when Terral annotated a photo with text that says "THERE IS NO MELTING OR BURNING" on the beams and then turns around and says that the same damn photo is supposed to show thermite signatures such as slag and melted ends?????

Are you serious????



Wow.

 

[eots]

Primary..]of first rank or importance or value; direct and immediate... rather than secondary



THE REST IS INDIRECT..IE;...PLANES WHERE HIJACKED..COULD BE CONSIDERED AN INDIRECT CAUSE OF THE COLLAPSE..THERE IS ONLY ONE DIRECT CAUSE CITED FOR THE COLLAPSE OF WTC 7 AND THAT IS ...FIRE

 

[DiveCon]

Primary..]of first rank or importance or value; direct and immediate... rather than secondary



THE REST IS INDIRECT..IE;...PLANES WHERE HIJACKED..COULD BE CONSIDERED AN INDIRECT CAUSE OF THE COLLAPSE..THERE IS ONLY ONE DIRECT CAUSE CITED FOR THE COLLAPSE OF WTC 7 AND THAT IS ...FIRE

yes, being FIRST in rank, doesnt excuse those that are lesser in rank

 

[CurveLight]

are you too fucking stupid to see the fault in your retarded twoofer logic?

So now the only three possibilities a building has of collapsing are fire, damage from failling towers or diesel tanks?

Thats simply moronic. Stop changing what the nist report actually says to try to fit your own twoofer agenda. It says fire was the primary cause. It does not say fires alone caused the collapse. You are a fucking moronic liar to claim it does.

one could say the hijackers contributed to the collapse of the wtc 7..one could say that the fact that the wtc 7 was ever built is a factor in its collapse or gravity played a role in the collapse but there is one cause cited by NIST for the collapse..and that is fire..not damage to the building...not stored fuel ..not secondary explosions..not inherently faulty design

correction: the PRIMARY cause

More proof N's conclusion is so laughable OCTAs are afraid to openly admit without changing it.

 

[DiveCon]

one could say the hijackers contributed to the collapse of the wtc 7..one could say that the fact that the wtc 7 was ever built is a factor in its collapse or gravity played a role in the collapse but there is one cause cited by NIST for the collapse..and that is fire..not damage to the building...not stored fuel ..not secondary explosions..not inherently faulty design

correction: the PRIMARY cause

More proof N's conclusion is so laughable OCTAs are afraid to openly admit without changing it.

name the MAJOR point they got wrong

 

[eots]

fire can not produce a progressive collapse of a steel framed building...this discovery of an "extraordinary event" is not based on any solid forensic evidence as is supported solely on the results of a tweaked computer simulation that does not even resemble the actual collapse

 

[Jeremy]

fire can not produce a progressive collapse of a steel framed building...this discovery of an "extraordinary event" is not based on any solid forensic evidence as is supported solely on the results of a tweaked computer simulation that does not even resemble the actual collapse

Why did the collapse of both towers originate at the impact sites?

The original point of structural failure is obviously the impact sites in every video and every angle.

 

[eots]

wtc 7 did not collapse from the impact point

 

[Jeremy]

wtc 7 did not collapse from the impact point

Sorry, I'm talking about 1 & 2. I know I'm off topic but I am just curious on your thoughts in regards to the collapse of the first two.

 

[eots]

I think fact the collapse occurs near the impact area does not alter the fact buildings do not collapse at the speed and in the manner that occurred with the twin towers nor does somehow suspend the moist basic laws of physics

 

[Jeremy]

I think fact the collapse occurs near the impact area does not alter the fact buildings do not collapse at the speed and in the manner that occurred with the twin towers nor does somehow suspend the moist basic laws of physics

Do the laws of gravity differ depending on the manner in which a building collapses?

 

[Jeremy]

Or do you feel there was in no way enough falling mass from above the impact areas to precipitate the collapse of the rest of the building?

 

[CurveLight]

correction: the PRIMARY cause

More proof N's conclusion is so laughable OCTAs are afraid to openly admit without changing it.

name the MAJOR point they got wrong

Lol......you don't get it! FIRE is the only reason given by N's Report for the collapse but you OCTAs can't seem to accept that so you keep trying to add other reasons.

 

[DiveCon]

More proof N's conclusion is so laughable OCTAs are afraid to openly admit without changing it.

name the MAJOR point they got wrong

Lol......you don't get it! FIRE is the only reason given by N's Report for the collapse but you OCTAs can't seem to accept that so you keep trying to add other reasons.

no, it isnt
it is the PRIMARY reason
thats what you fucking morons dont get, you have to actually understand and comprehend ENGLISH first

 

[CurveLight]

name the MAJOR point they got wrong

Lol......you don't get it! FIRE is the only reason given by N's Report for the collapse but you OCTAs can't seem to accept that so you keep trying to add other reasons.

no, it isnt
it is the PRIMARY reason
thats what you fucking morons dont get, you have to actually understand and comprehend ENGLISH first

N stated 7 would have fallen even with out damage from the towers and the diesel tanks had no role. I quoted the lead investigator several times pointing this out and you ignore it. Now go get your diaper changed you brokedick paparasite.

 

[DiveCon]

Lol......you don't get it! FIRE is the only reason given by N's Report for the collapse but you OCTAs can't seem to accept that so you keep trying to add other reasons.

no, it isnt
it is the PRIMARY reason
thats what you fucking morons dont get, you have to actually understand and comprehend ENGLISH first

N stated 7 would have fallen even with out damage from the towers and the diesel tanks had no role. I quoted the lead investigator several times pointing this out and you ignore it. Now go get your diaper changed you brokedick paparasite.

yes, and "would have" will never mean the same as "DID"

 

[Jeremy]

Q said x would have shit his pants but Y was fucked up on shrooms...