Why is it truthers feel the need to lie?

[eots]

no, that is not what they concluded

so according to you they concluded.....?

what they actually said, ya know, not your delusional spin on it

which was ??

 

[tempesta29]

no, that is not what they concluded

so according to you they concluded.....?

what they actually said, ya know, not your delusional spin on it

He quoted them and cited a link.

 

[DiveCon]

so according to you they concluded.....?

what they actually said, ya know, not your delusional spin on it

He quoted them and cited a link.

yes, and he adds his spin to it

 

[eots]

what they actually said, ya know, not your delusional spin on it

He quoted them and cited a link.

yes, and he adds his spin to it

which was ?

 

[tempesta29]

what they actually said, ya know, not your delusional spin on it

He quoted them and cited a link.

yes, and he adds his spin to it

If he quoted them then how did he add spin? What was the spin?

You seem to have no trouble coming on this forum ad nauseam but you never back up any of your claims. Cite your claim of his spin.

 

[DiveCon]

He quoted them and cited a link.

yes, and he adds his spin to it

which was ?

He quoted them and cited a link.

yes, and he adds his spin to it

If he quoted them then how did he add spin? What was the spin?

You seem to have no trouble coming on this forum ad nauseam but you never back up any of your claims. Cite your claim of his spin.

clearly you are both too fucking stupid to figure it out

 

[eots]

yes, and he adds his spin to it

which was ?

yes, and he adds his spin to it

If he quoted them then how did he add spin? What was the spin?

You seem to have no trouble coming on this forum ad nauseam but you never back up any of your claims. Cite your claim of his spin.

clearly you are both too fucking stupid to figure it out

do you really think you are not pathetically see through and clearly are incapable of an honest answer to a straight forward question

 

[DiveCon]

which was ?

If he quoted them then how did he add spin? What was the spin?

You seem to have no trouble coming on this forum ad nauseam but you never back up any of your claims. Cite your claim of his spin.

clearly you are both too fucking stupid to figure it out

do you really think you are not pathetically see through and clearly are incapable of an honest answer to a straight forward question

look in the mirror and say that, moron

 

[eots]

clearly you are both too fucking stupid to figure it out

do you really think you are not pathetically see through and clearly are incapable of an honest answer to a straight forward question

look in the mirror and say that, moron

II t would not be true of myself ..but of you there is no question...its sad really

 

[DiveCon]

do you really think you are not pathetically see through and clearly are incapable of an honest answer to a straight forward question

look in the mirror and say that, moron

II t would not be true of myself ..but of you there is no question...its sad really

it is far more true of you, than it is of me
but then, you are a pathological moron

 

[eots]

look in the mirror and say that, moron

II t would not be true of myself ..but of you there is no question...its sad really

it is far more true of you, than it is of me
but then, you are a pathological moron

then tell us what NIST concluded in regards to column 79....coward

 

[DiveCon]

II t would not be true of myself ..but of you there is no question...its sad really

it is far more true of you, than it is of me
but then, you are a pathological moron

then tell us what NIST concluded in regards to column 79....coward

its right here, dipshit

NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008

you posted it, didnt you read it for comprehension?
it does NOT say what you want to think it says

 

[eots]

it is far more true of you, than it is of me
but then, you are a pathological moron

then tell us what NIST concluded in regards to column 79....coward

its right here, dipshit

NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008

you posted it, didnt you read it for comprehension?
it does NOT say what you want to think it says

So please elaborate I would love to hear your interpretation of what you think the direct quote I posted...."says"

 

[DiveCon]

then tell us what NIST concluded in regards to column 79....coward

its right here, dipshit

NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008

you posted it, didnt you read it for comprehension?
it does NOT say what you want to think it says

So please elaborate I would love to hear your interpretation of what you think the direct quote I posted...."says"

exactly what it says
not your spin by ignoring certain words that doesnt say what you seem to think they do

no where does it say it DID collapse by just that column failing
but YOU want to say it does

 

[eots]

its right here, dipshit

NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008

you posted it, didnt you read it for comprehension?
it does NOT say what you want to think it says

So please elaborate I would love to hear your interpretation of what you think the direct quote I posted...."says"

exactly what it says
not your spin by ignoring certain words that doesnt say what you seem to think they do

blah blah blah mumble mumble ....what ????

 

[DiveCon]

So please elaborate I would love to hear your interpretation of what you think the direct quote I posted...."says"

exactly what it says
not your spin by ignoring certain words that doesnt say what you seem to think they do

blah blah blah mumble mumble ....what ????

congrats, thats the most sense you have made thus far

 

[eots]

WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008

 

[DiveCon]

WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008

no shit
no where does that say it DID collapse just because of that one column

 

[eots]

Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building.

NIST and the World Trade Center

 

[eots]

wtc 7’s column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby wtc 1 tower were not factors. the investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

nist tech beat - november 20, 2008

no shit
no where does that say it did collapse just because of that one column

right there