Why don't people want to know the truth about 9/11?

[Gamolon]

Still waiting for that quote from NIST that you say exists.

You know. The one where they said buildings of similar structural design caught fire and did not collapse?

I'll wait here for it.

it is in the opening statements of the wtc 7 final report

It is?

I just looked through it and I don't see that quote.

Which page?

 

[Gamolon]

THE NIST QUOTE IS THERE HAVE BEEN SIMILAR FIRES IN BUILDINGS OF SIMILAR CONSTRUCTION ..SO AGAIN GO ARGUE WITH NIST..NOWHERE WAS THE DESIGN OF WTC 7 CALLED INTO QUESTIONS...NO BUILDING CODES WHERE CHANGED AS A RESULT ...YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT AND FLINGING LIKE THEW MONKEY YOU ARE

Similar fires in buildings of similar construction huh? That's the quote you say exists in the WTC7 final report? Below is the actual quote and proves your a fucking liar as usual.

Instead, the fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinkles did not function or were not present. These buildings did not collapse, while WTC 7 succumbed to its fires.

No where in that quote do they say ANYTHING about the structural design of the buildings being similar. Only that they were "tall buildings" with "non-functioning/non-existent sprinkler systems".

Jackass.

What you fail to understand is that different building designs will react differently to similar fires.

So this building design:

Is the same as this building design?:

and it's your thinking that they should both react the same exact way in a fire?

 

[Uncensored2008]

you are totally delusional....

That has to be in the "ten most ironic statements of all time" list.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Damn, same video I picked apart less than 2 weeks ago. You really need some new material....

Really 9/11?

The firemen were out by the time Silverstein made that statement? What time did Silverstein make that statement and what time was the last firefighter out of WTC7?

I bet you can't answer that. Let's see your proof.

Can I try?
"No manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY."
An alternative interpretation of Silverstein's statement is that "pull it" refers to withdrawing firefighters from the building. However, according to FEMA's report there were no manual firefighting operations in Building 7, so there would not have been any firefighters to "pull" -- at least not from inside the building.

Page 21, Third Full Paragraph
"In addition, the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities."

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

"fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says.."
9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Popular Mechanics

"By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from [WTC 7] for safety reasons." --NY TIMES
Killtown's:* Was the WTC 7 pulled? - Reports & Articles:* New York Times (11/29/01)...


What was Mr. Silverstein "pulling" from the building?

Page 23, Second Full Paragraph
"With the limited information currently available, fire development in this building needs additional study. Fires were observed to be located on some of the lower levels about the 10th floor for the majority of the time from the collapse of WTC 1 to the collapse of WTC 7. It appears that the sprinklers may not have been but may have been effective due to the limited water on site, and that the development of the fires was not significantly impeded by the firefighters because manual firefighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day."

And here we have a Fox news report from some asshole who claims to have been told by several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers "that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall."
He insinuates that a controlled demolition of WTC 7 was a noble gesture that would potentially save lives. "There was no secret. There was no conspiracy."
I wonder how this claim could be made if the building wasn't already wired to be demolished by CD?

Shame On Jesse Ventura! - FoxNews.com

 

[Gamolon]

Damn, same video I picked apart less than 2 weeks ago. You really need some new material....

Really 9/11?

The firemen were out by the time Silverstein made that statement? What time did Silverstein make that statement and what time was the last firefighter out of WTC7?

I bet you can't answer that. Let's see your proof.

Can I try?
"No manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY."
An alternative interpretation of Silverstein's statement is that "pull it" refers to withdrawing firefighters from the building. However, according to FEMA's report there were no manual firefighting operations in Building 7, so there would not have been any firefighters to "pull" -- at least not from inside the building.

Page 21, Third Full Paragraph
"In addition, the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities."

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

"fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says.."
9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Popular Mechanics

"By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from [WTC 7] for safety reasons." --NY TIMES
Killtown's:* Was the WTC 7 pulled? - Reports & Articles:* New York Times (11/29/01)...


What was Mr. Silverstein "pulling" from the building?

Page 23, Second Full Paragraph
"With the limited information currently available, fire development in this building needs additional study. Fires were observed to be located on some of the lower levels about the 10th floor for the majority of the time from the collapse of WTC 1 to the collapse of WTC 7. It appears that the sprinklers may not have been but may have been effective due to the limited water on site, and that the development of the fires was not significantly impeded by the firefighters because manual firefighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day."

And here we have a Fox news report from some asshole who claims to have been told by several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers "that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall."
He insinuates that a controlled demolition of WTC 7 was a noble gesture that would potentially save lives. "There was no secret. There was no conspiracy."
I wonder how this claim could be made if the building wasn't already wired to be demolished by CD?

Shame On Jesse Ventura! - FoxNews.com

Hmmmm.

All pertaining to FIREFIGHTING. What about the ongoing search and rescue operations that firefighters are responsible for?

Here is a quote from Cheif Nigro:

Steve Mosiello and Chief Turi told me they had
been looking for Chief Ganci. They thought they knew where
he was, unsuccessfully, and they were going back to - I
walked back down to the area where he was and sometime
after that they found Chief Ganci. He was like the first
person that I knew of that they found in the rubble. He
was somewhere across West Street from the Trade Center.
The most important operational decision to be made that
afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade
Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey
between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very
heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of
an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we
had to give up some rescue operations that were going on
at the time and back the people away far enough so that if
7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldnít lose any more
people.

We continued to operate on what we could from
that distance and approximately an hour and a half after
that order was giver., at 5:30 in the afternoon, World
Trade Center collapsed completely I continued to operate
at the scene until probably somewhere around...

So. 1 1/2 hours AFTER the order to halt rescue operations in the building, it collapsed. That was at 5:30, making the order about 4:00? How long did it take to get everyone out of the building after the actual order was given?

 

[Mr. Jones]

Damn, same video I picked apart less than 2 weeks ago. You really need some new material....

Really 9/11?

The firemen were out by the time Silverstein made that statement? What time did Silverstein make that statement and what time was the last firefighter out of WTC7?

I bet you can't answer that. Let's see your proof.

Can I try?
"No manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY."
An alternative interpretation of Silverstein's statement is that "pull it" refers to withdrawing firefighters from the building. However, according to FEMA's report there were no manual firefighting operations in Building 7, so there would not have been any firefighters to "pull" -- at least not from inside the building.

Page 21, Third Full Paragraph
"In addition, the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities."

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

"fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says.."
9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Popular Mechanics

"By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from [WTC 7] for safety reasons." --NY TIMES
Killtown's:* Was the WTC 7 pulled? - Reports & Articles:* New York Times (11/29/01)...


What was Mr. Silverstein "pulling" from the building?

Page 23, Second Full Paragraph
"With the limited information currently available, fire development in this building needs additional study. Fires were observed to be located on some of the lower levels about the 10th floor for the majority of the time from the collapse of WTC 1 to the collapse of WTC 7. It appears that the sprinklers may not have been but may have been effective due to the limited water on site, and that the development of the fires was not significantly impeded by the firefighters because manual firefighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day."

And here we have a Fox news report from some asshole who claims to have been told by several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers "that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall."
He insinuates that a controlled demolition of WTC 7 was a noble gesture that would potentially save lives. "There was no secret. There was no conspiracy."
I wonder how this claim could be made if the building wasn't already wired to be demolished by CD?

Shame On Jesse Ventura! - FoxNews.com

Hmmmm.

All pertaining to FIREFIGHTING. What about the ongoing search and rescue operations that firefighters are responsible for?

Here is a quote from Cheif Nigro:

Steve Mosiello and Chief Turi told me they had
been looking for Chief Ganci. They thought they knew where
he was, unsuccessfully, and they were going back to - I
walked back down to the area where he was and sometime
after that they found Chief Ganci. He was like the first
person that I knew of that they found in the rubble. He
was somewhere across West Street from the Trade Center.
The most important operational decision to be made that
afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade
Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey
between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very
heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of
an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we
had to give up some rescue operations that were going on
at the time and back the people away far enough so that if
7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldnít lose any more
people.

We continued to operate on what we could from
that distance and approximately an hour and a half after
that order was giver., at 5:30 in the afternoon, World
Trade Center collapsed completely I continued to operate
at the scene until probably somewhere around...

So. 1 1/2 hours AFTER the order to halt rescue operations in the building, it collapsed. That was at 5:30, making the order about 4:00? How long did it take to get everyone out of the building after the actual order was given?

I believe what you quoted might not be pertaining to WTC7 and instead refers to the other 2 towers, perhaps you could provide a link and I'll do a little reading just to clarify things. But from what I read and posted for you, it seems that all FDNY personnel were already out of the building, as early as 11:30 AM, and WTC 7 sat there without FDNY and rescue personnel.
The Fox news report and what the individual said strike you as strange?

 

[Gamolon]

I believe what you quoted might not be pertaining to WTC7 and instead refers to the other 2 towers, perhaps you could provide a link and I'll do a little reading just to clarify things. But from what I read and posted for you, it seems that all FDNY personnel were already out of the building, as early as 11:30 AM, and WTC 7 sat there without FDNY and rescue personnel.
The Fox news report and what the individual said strike you as strange?

Sorry. I forgot to add the link.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Nigro_Daniel.txt

 

[BrianH]

ahh I see you decided to get in that cage with Gomer and sling shit in defeat with that other monkey.you did not listen to my advise though,i said dont come back until you went back and studied junior high school science that you slept through.Oh well,i guess frady cat monkeys cant understand EVERYTHING.they do know how to come on constantly and fling shit in defeat all the time though.

oh lastly,just so you know,i have seen gomers pathetic attempts to debunk that video of explosives SEVERAL times in the past.He failed EVERY single time.so I know you are full of shit that he debunked it because he NEVER did in the past and just because YOU say he does,that doesnt make it fact since you yourself have failed to debunk it troll not even trying.lol. just because thats what you WANT to think and believe in,doesnt make it fact.

I'm starting to think your a recorded message that is saying the same thing over and over again. Big suprise that you don't have anything else to offer.

Obviously your definition of "fail" is conviniently different from Webster's dictionary. Considering it is YOU who is accusing the government, then it is YOU who must convince everyone else that you are right. It's called "Burden of Proof." I don't have to "debunk" your conspiracy. That's precisely why it's called a "conspiracy" and not "fact"...you have to prove it. This is something you've obviously and literally "failed" at doing.

As far as my "shit" I have "flung."

1. I've shown you that more engineers don't disagree with the NIST report than do disagree with it...WAY more than your 1450 that you're so proud of.

2. I've also debunked your videos. People heard explosions at 9/11. Big suprise. IT doesn't take an idiot to know that anything that can combust will combust when the conditions are present. I also showed you that a plane that crashed in a field by itself will continue to create explosions after the fact.

3. I've also shown you that the term "pull" is used by firefighters to pull people away from the buildings. And I've also shown you that the term "pull" is a term used by engineers to actually and litterally "PULL" a building away from other buildings. You can look up pictures of 9/11 and see cables being used to pull buildings. I've also shown you that Silverstein ackwnowledged that he was NOT talking about demolition when he used the term. And if all the firefighters were supposedly out by the time Silverstein made these remarks, did he know? Maybe he thought they were all still in there and then made the statement. Some even say that there are reports that no firefighting was taking place in building 7. So what? Who do you think goes inside of these buildings to look for people? Is it possible that these firefighters were not fighting the fire, but were on search and rescue missions...most certainly. MOREOVER: Even if this building was brought down by demolition...it doesn't prove any kind of government conspiracy. You nuts are convinced (WITH NO PROOF) that there were sensative and incriminating documents in the building. If the building was unsafe to stay were it standed, then I don't fault the order to bring it down with explosives--if it were proven to be so. Buildings are brought down with explosives all of the time because they've been abandoned or dubbed as unsafe. But this is aside from the fact that you haven't proven that it was.

4. I've also shown you that when people were talking about secondary explosives in the area, that a firefighter ON CAMERA said there was reports of a device at the high school...

You have shown nothing but the repetetive nonsense that you keep posting.

Lastly...you're an idiot and everyone here knows it. The only one giving inside "jobs" are you.

 

[BrianH]

Let me ask you this inside jack-ass. If our government is capable of secretly orchestrating and carrying out the largest terrorist attack in the history of the world, why would they not be able to get rid of all you conspiracy nuts that are trying to prove them wrong? Why would the government allow websites that advocate this stuff to be on the internet? You truthers are completely contradictory based on the event of your choosing. You believe our government has the power to monitor every inch of the earth via satellites and spy cameras, monitor every megabyte of information through any kind of communication apparatus, but suddenly become incompetent when it comes to keeping everything a secret? If there was any truth to what you guys are saying, the government would certainly have every asset to get rid of you. Truthers would be disappearing left and right.

To orchestrate an event would require THOUSANDS of people. It would have taken THOUSANDS of people to plan and actually follow through with this event. Have you ever seen THOUSANDS of people keep one secret? NO. Where are all these demolition experts who planted said "bombs" in the buildings? There are so many holes in your argument. Plain and simple: You haven't proven it because you can't.

 

[eots]

Let me ask you this inside jack-ass. If our government is capable of secretly orchestrating and carrying out the largest terrorist attack in the history of the world, why would they not be able to get rid of all you conspiracy nuts that are trying to prove them wrong? Why would the government allow websites that advocate this stuff to be on the internet?

what a simpleton...a government round up and death squads would go unnoticed...lol


You truthers are completely contradictory based on the event of your choosing. You believe our government has the power to monitor every inch of the earth via satellites and spy cameras, monitor every megabyte of information through any kind of communication apparatus, but suddenly become incompetent when it comes to keeping everything a secret? If there was any truth to what you guys are saying, the government would certainly have every asset to get rid of you. Truthers would be disappearing left and right

.

what a loon

To orchestrate an event would require THOUSANDS of people.

says thee black op expert...lol

It would have taken THOUSANDS of people to plan and actually follow through with this event. Have you ever seen THOUSANDS of people keep one secret? NO. Where are all these demolition experts who planted said "bombs" in the buildings? There are so many holes in your argument. Plain and simple: You haven't proven it because you can't

.

so wheres bin laden...oh ya... its secret

 

[SFC Ollie]

He's right eots, and you know it.

Not one of you has been able to disprove the 911 CR.

You haven't produced one piece of evidence that would stand up in court.

And the Bush administration proved several times that they couldn't even keep a wire tap secret. Yet not one of the thousands who would have had to been involved in carrying out and covering up your conspiracy have leaked even a whisper.

You have nothing and you know it.

 

[BrianH]

what a simpleton...a government round up and death squads would go unnoticed...lol


You truthers are completely contradictory based on the event of your choosing. You believe our government has the power to monitor every inch of the earth via satellites and spy cameras, monitor every megabyte of information through any kind of communication apparatus, but suddenly become incompetent when it comes to keeping everything a secret? If there was any truth to what you guys are saying, the government would certainly have every asset to get rid of you. Truthers would be disappearing left and right

.

what a loon

How so? Nothing but a name and nothing to refute anything I just said.



says thee black op expert...lol

Oh yeah, three government agents orchestrated the whole thing by themselves under the radar.

It would have taken THOUSANDS of people to plan and actually follow through with this event. Have you ever seen THOUSANDS of people keep one secret? NO. Where are all these demolition experts who planted said "bombs" in the buildings? There are so many holes in your argument. Plain and simple: You haven't proven it because you can't

.

so wheres bin laden...oh ya... its secret

Doesn't matter where bin laden is. The FACT is that he and Al Qaeda took credit for it. Why in the hell would a terrorist organization take credit for something when (hypothetically) if they didn't do it? Why would they bring on that kind of a shit-storm. You're telling me that some terrorist all sat around a rock and said, "Hey, let's take credit for this so that the Americans can come over and put us on the run. So they can anihalate our forces and send our leader into hiding in the mountains." The more and more you and inside-dumbass post, the more and more I don't believe a thing either of you say.

 

[BrianH]

He's right eots, and you know it.

Not one of you has been able to disprove the 911 CR.

You haven't produced one piece of evidence that would stand up in court.

And the Bush administration proved several times that they couldn't even keep a wire tap secret. Yet not one of the thousands who would have had to been involved in carrying out and covering up your conspiracy have leaked even a whisper.

You have nothing and you know it.

Exactly. Congressman after Congressman have met their demise over someone not keeping a secret. CIA and FBI agents have had to hide because their identities were blown by not being able to keep a secret. These are miniscule things compared to this event, and lo' and behold everyone's keeping it a secret.... Common Sense is against this conspiracy.

 

[eots]

ahh I see you decided to get in that cage with Gomer and sling shit in defeat with that other monkey.you did not listen to my advise though,i said dont come back until you went back and studied junior high school science that you slept through.Oh well,i guess frady cat monkeys cant understand EVERYTHING.they do know how to come on constantly and fling shit in defeat all the time though.

oh lastly,just so you know,i have seen gomers pathetic attempts to debunk that video of explosives SEVERAL times in the past.He failed EVERY single time.so I know you are full of shit that he debunked it because he NEVER did in the past and just because YOU say he does,that doesnt make it fact since you yourself have failed to debunk it troll not even trying.lol. just because thats what you WANT to think and believe in,doesnt make it fact.

I'm starting to think your a recorded message that is saying the same thing over and over again. Big suprise that you don't have anything else to offer.

Obviously your definition of "fail" is conviniently different from Webster's dictionary. Considering it is YOU who is accusing the government, then it is YOU who must convince everyone else that you are right. It's called "Burden of Proof." I don't have to "debunk" your conspiracy. That's precisely why it's called a "conspiracy" and not "fact"...you have to prove it. This is something you've obviously and literally "failed" at doing.

As far as my "shit" I have "flung."

1. I've shown you that more engineers don't disagree with the NIST report than do disagree with it...WAY more than your 1450 that you're so proud of.

YOU HAVE SHOWN NO SUCH THING

2. I've also debunked your videos. People heard explosions at 9/11. Big suprise. IT doesn't take an idiot to know that anything that can combust will combust when the conditions are present. I also showed you that a plane that crashed in a field by itself will continue to create explosions after the fact.

NIST denied any Explosions louder than a shot gun blast in an urban setting to discount controlled demoralization ....yet you say they were everywhere

I've also shown you that the term "pull" is used by firefighters to pull people away from the buildings. And I've also shown you that the term "pull" is a term used by engineers to actually and litterally "PULL" a building away from other buildings. You can look up pictures of 9/11 and see cables being used to pull buildings. I've also shown you that Silverstein ackwnowledged that he was NOT talking abou

t

you need to ask him again with a board and some water

And if all the firefighters were supposedly out by the time Silverstein made these remarks, did he know? Maybe he thought they were all still in there and then made the statement. Some even say that there are reports that no firefighting was taking place in building 7. So what? Who do you think goes inside of these buildings to look for people? Is it possible that these firefighters were not fighting the fire, but were on search and rescue missions...most certainly. MOREOVER: Even if this building was brought down by demolition...it doesn't prove any kind of government conspiracy. You nuts are convinced (WITH NO PROOF) that there were sensative and incriminating documents in the building. If the building was unsafe to stay were it standed, then I don't fault the order to bring it down with explosives--if it were proven to be so. Buildings are brought down with explosives all of the time because they've been abandoned or dubbed as unsafe. But this is aside from the fact that you haven't proven that it was.

blah,blah blah blah ?

4. I've also shown you that when people were talking about secondary explosives in the area, that a firefighter ON CAMERA said there was reports of a device at the high school...

You have shown nothing but the repetetive nonsense that you keep posting.

Lastly...you're an idiot and everyone here knows it. The only one giving inside "jobs" are you.

complete fail...

 

[SFC Ollie]

 

[BrianH]

ahh I see you decided to get in that cage with Gomer and sling shit in defeat with that other monkey.you did not listen to my advise though,i said dont come back until you went back and studied junior high school science that you slept through.Oh well,i guess frady cat monkeys cant understand EVERYTHING.they do know how to come on constantly and fling shit in defeat all the time though.

oh lastly,just so you know,i have seen gomers pathetic attempts to debunk that video of explosives SEVERAL times in the past.He failed EVERY single time.so I know you are full of shit that he debunked it because he NEVER did in the past and just because YOU say he does,that doesnt make it fact since you yourself have failed to debunk it troll not even trying.lol. just because thats what you WANT to think and believe in,doesnt make it fact.

I'm starting to think your a recorded message that is saying the same thing over and over again. Big suprise that you don't have anything else to offer.

Obviously your definition of "fail" is conviniently different from Webster's dictionary. Considering it is YOU who is accusing the government, then it is YOU who must convince everyone else that you are right. It's called "Burden of Proof." I don't have to "debunk" your conspiracy. That's precisely why it's called a "conspiracy" and not "fact"...you have to prove it. This is something you've obviously and literally "failed" at doing.

As far as my "shit" I have "flung."



YOU HAVE SHOWN NO SUCH THING




NIST denied any Explosions louder than a shot gun blast in an urban setting to discount controlled demoralization ....yet you say they were everywhere



t

you need to ask him again with a board and some water











blah,blah blah blah ?

4. I've also shown you that when people were talking about secondary explosives in the area, that a firefighter ON CAMERA said there was reports of a device at the high school...

You have shown nothing but the repetetive nonsense that you keep posting.

Lastly...you're an idiot and everyone here knows it. The only one giving inside "jobs" are you.

complete fail...

Says the guy that hasn't proven a thing he's posted on here. All you guys do is keep telling me that I haven't proven anything while not posting anything to prove me otherwise. YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN THIS CONSPIRACY WITHOUT A REASONABLE DOUBT. All you have done is provide speculation or alternate scenarios do things I have shown you.

1. You have not proven that building seven was brought down by explosives.

2. You have not proven that the towers were brought down by explosives.

3. You have not proven that there was any secret coverup documents inside building 7.

4. You have not proven at all that this was a larger government conspiracy.

I and Ollie are still right until you do. That's the beauty of this. I don't feel like I am wrong about anything because as of right now, the majority of people in the U.S. don't believe your theory. You mind as well be convincing everyone that donkey turds are good for your health.

 

[eots]

I'm starting to think your a recorded message that is saying the same thing over and over again. Big suprise that you don't have anything else to offer.

Obviously your definition of "fail" is conviniently different from Webster's dictionary. Considering it is YOU who is accusing the government, then it is YOU who must convince everyone else that you are right. It's called "Burden of Proof." I don't have to "debunk" your conspiracy. That's precisely why it's called a "conspiracy" and not "fact"...you have to prove it. This is something you've obviously and literally "failed" at doing.

As far as my "shit" I have "flung."



YOU HAVE SHOWN NO SUCH THING




NIST denied any Explosions louder than a shot gun blast in an urban setting to discount controlled demoralization ....yet you say they were everywhere



t

you need to ask him again with a board and some water











blah,blah blah blah ?







complete fail...

Says the guy that hasn't proven a thing he's posted on here. All you guys do is keep telling me that I haven't proven anything while not posting anything to prove me otherwise. YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN THIS CONSPIRACY WITHOUT A REASONABLE DOUBT. All you have done is provide speculation or alternate scenarios do things I have shown you.

1. You have not proven that building seven was brought down by explosives.

2. You have not proven that the towers were brought down by explosives.

3. You have not proven that there was any secret coverup documents inside building 7.

4. You have not proven at all that this was a larger government conspiracy.

I and Ollie are still right until you do. That's the beauty of this. I don't feel like I am wrong about anything because as of right now, the majority of people in the U.S. don't believe your theory. You mind as well be convincing everyone that donkey turds are good for your health.

to prove a criminal case case one needs an authority to investigate under the terms of the petition....but without question You..lil Ollie and NIST and the 9/11 commission have failed to meet your burden of proof on your 9/11 conspiracy theory and explanation for the collapses

 

[Gamolon]

Damn, same video I picked apart less than 2 weeks ago. You really need some new material....

Really 9/11?

The firemen were out by the time Silverstein made that statement? What time did Silverstein make that statement and what time was the last firefighter out of WTC7?

I bet you can't answer that. Let's see your proof.

Can I try?
"No manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY."
An alternative interpretation of Silverstein's statement is that "pull it" refers to withdrawing firefighters from the building. However, according to FEMA's report there were no manual firefighting operations in Building 7, so there would not have been any firefighters to "pull" -- at least not from inside the building.

Page 21, Third Full Paragraph
"In addition, the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities."

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

"fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says.."
9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Popular Mechanics

"By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from [WTC 7] for safety reasons." --NY TIMES
Killtown's:* Was the WTC 7 pulled? - Reports & Articles:* New York Times (11/29/01)...


What was Mr. Silverstein "pulling" from the building?

Page 23, Second Full Paragraph
"With the limited information currently available, fire development in this building needs additional study. Fires were observed to be located on some of the lower levels about the 10th floor for the majority of the time from the collapse of WTC 1 to the collapse of WTC 7. It appears that the sprinklers may not have been but may have been effective due to the limited water on site, and that the development of the fires was not significantly impeded by the firefighters because manual firefighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day."

And here we have a Fox news report from some asshole who claims to have been told by several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers "that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall."
He insinuates that a controlled demolition of WTC 7 was a noble gesture that would potentially save lives. "There was no secret. There was no conspiracy."
I wonder how this claim could be made if the building wasn't already wired to be demolished by CD?

Shame On Jesse Ventura! - FoxNews.com

One simple question Mr. Jones.

What time did Silverstein make the statement to "pull"?

 

[Gamolon]

THE NIST QUOTE IS THERE HAVE BEEN SIMILAR FIRES IN BUILDINGS OF SIMILAR CONSTRUCTION ..SO AGAIN GO ARGUE WITH NIST..NOWHERE WAS THE DESIGN OF WTC 7 CALLED INTO QUESTIONS...NO BUILDING CODES WHERE CHANGED AS A RESULT ...YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT AND FLINGING LIKE THEW MONKEY YOU ARE

Similar fires in buildings of similar construction huh? That's the quote you say exists in the WTC7 final report? Below is the actual quote and proves your a fucking liar as usual.

Instead, the fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinkles did not function or were not present. These buildings did not collapse, while WTC 7 succumbed to its fires.

No where in that quote do they say ANYTHING about the structural design of the buildings being similar. Only that they were "tall buildings" with "non-functioning/non-existent sprinkler systems".

Jackass.

What you fail to understand is that different building designs will react differently to similar fires.

So this building design:

Is the same as this building design?:

and it's your thinking that they should both react the same exact way in a fire?

I see you "missed" this post eots, you chickenshit.

So you are now a proven liar. They never said that the buildings were of similar construction did they?

Also, are those two buildings in the quote supposed to act exactly the same way in a fire? Yes or no?

 

[Gamolon]

Hey eots.

What about the .8 seconds on NON-FREEFALL right before the 2.25 seconds of free fall that the out facade went through?

I thought that all the columns of the outer WTC7 facade were cut at the same time in order to create that 2.25 seconds of free fall you idiots so devotedly claim? If that's the case, why .8 seconds of NON-FREEFALL?

Come on. One of you jokers MUST have an explanation. It's physics right?