WTC-7 Was A Controlled Demolition Inside Job

[eots]

eots=

cuntycorn..

 

[candycorn]

eots=

 

[DiveCon]

no you have fun... wallowing in your denial



NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

yeah, dumbfuck
never used before because they DIDNT FUCKING EXIST BEFORE
that doesnt invalidate the results

just another fucking denial of truth by the moronic troofer

so now the lead investigator at NIST 2001-2007 is a moronic troofer and a dumfuk and divecon has decided he knows better if the computer models are valid or not...typical of divemoroncons

no, thats YOU for taking what HE said out of context
you dumbfuck

 

[eots]

so put in in context divemoroncon,,,or shut the fuck up

 

[DiveCon]

so put in in context divemoroncon,,,or shut the fuck up

i already HAVE you dumbfuck
grow a brain
you and the rest of your troofer morons are WRONG
it was NOT an inside job, it was a terrorist attack and an act of war
so YOU shut the fuck up

 

[eots]

no you have not ...you delusional divemorncon all you ever do is claim you have..weasel out of an answer...because you are a divemeroncon and that's what they do

 

[eots]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8[/ame]



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRaNwPGcQcM&NR=1&feature=fvwp[/ame]

 

[SFC Ollie]

no you have fun... wallowing in your denial



NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

You are basing your disagreements on a statement made about the final NIST report 2 years before it was even finalized? OK.......

 

[DiveCon]

no you have not ...you delusional divemorncon all you ever do is claim you have..weasel out of an answer...because you are a divemeroncon and that's what they do

keep denying it asshole, just shows how fucking delusional you are

 

[eots]

no you have fun... wallowing in your denial



NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

You are basing your disagreements on a statement made about the final NIST report 2 years before it was even finalized? OK.......

Says rollie pollie ollie WITHOUT A CLUE what if anything essentially changed from Aug 2007 and the finalized report in Aug 2008

 

[SFC Ollie]

no you have fun... wallowing in your denial



NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

You are basing your disagreements on a statement made about the final NIST report 2 years before it was even finalized? OK.......

Says rollie pollie ollie WITHOUT A CLUE what if anything essentially changed from Aug 2007 and the finalized report in Aug 2008

Nope not a clue...You believe as always only what you want. But you won't be using that argument anymore.

 

[eots]

You are basing your disagreements on a statement made about the final NIST report 2 years before it was even finalized? OK.......

Says rollie pollie ollie WITHOUT A CLUE what if anything essentially changed from Aug 2007 and the finalized report in Aug 2008

Nope not a clue...You believe as always only what you want. But you won't be using that argument anymore.

if you are self professed clueless...why would I not use the argument anymore ? I belive what I want to believe ?...then why are you trying to pretend and implying the report had any changes of substance since the statements and failings listed and the final report...when in fact all it did not ?

 

[eots]

no you have not ...you delusional divemorncon all you ever do is claim you have..weasel out of an answer...because you are a divemeroncon and that's what they do

keep denying it asshole, just shows how fucking delusional you are

brushing off a shitflake like you shows I am delusional ?....

 

[DiveCon]

no you have not ...you delusional divemorncon all you ever do is claim you have..weasel out of an answer...because you are a divemeroncon and that's what they do

keep denying it asshole, just shows how fucking delusional you are

brushing off a shitflake like you shows I am delusional ?....

LOL
since i have been brushing YOU off for so long, just who looks more like the shitFLAKE

 

[Fizz]

you are still going on about this bulge ..even though it is not in any NIST computer simulations and is not considered significant...and I have proof of explosions ...so as usual point is pointless

it is proof of thermal expansion.

where is your proof of explosives?

 

[candycorn]

eots=

 

[eots]

keep denying it asshole, just shows how fucking delusional you are

brushing off a shitflake like you shows I am delusional ?....

LOL
since i have been brushing YOU off for so long, just who looks more like the shitFLAKE

brushing me off !...this is the eots zone divemoroncon ..and you are running around behind me everywhere I go ...shitflake...

 

[eots]

you are still going on about this bulge ..even though it is not in any NIST computer simulations and is not considered significant...and I have proof of explosions ...so as usual point is pointless

it is proof of thermal expansion.

where is your proof of explosives?

proof of thermal expansion ??? says who ?? and don't tell me the experts at popular mechanics...just don't even bother

 

[Fizz]

you are still going on about this bulge ..even though it is not in any NIST computer simulations and is not considered significant...and I have proof of explosions ...so as usual point is pointless

it is proof of thermal expansion.

where is your proof of explosives?

proof of thermal expansion ??? says who ?? and don't tell me the experts at popular mechanics...just don't even bother

well it sure as hell isnt proof of explosives!!

 

[eots]

it is not proof of anything..there is no proof it even exsisted