Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wow. Thermal hot spots. That indicates .... nothing significant at all. Pretty weak material to support your conspiracy theory.Images of the World Trade Center Site Show Thermal Hot Spots on September 16 and 23, 2001.View attachment 40301
USGS Spectroscopy Lab - World Trade Center USGS environmental assessment
You may wish to email your fellow twoofers for some entertaining conspiracy theories.“…the best hypothesis [fire] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.”
http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf
guess eots does not understand what in context means“…the best hypothesis [fire] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.”
http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf
why would you need to ask such a tarded question?Wow. Thermal hot spots. That indicates .... nothing significant at all. Pretty weak material to support your conspiracy theory.Images of the World Trade Center Site Show Thermal Hot Spots on September 16 and 23, 2001.View attachment 40301
USGS Spectroscopy Lab - World Trade Center USGS environmental assessment
why would you say something so tarded, explain why its not significant.
You conspiracy theory loons are an entertaining lot. Is there something sinister you wish to propose about burning jet fuel and a building collapse?Wow. Thermal hot spots. That indicates .... nothing significant at all. Pretty weak material to support your conspiracy theory.Images of the World Trade Center Site Show Thermal Hot Spots on September 16 and 23, 2001.View attachment 40301
USGS Spectroscopy Lab - World Trade Center USGS environmental assessment
why would you say something so tarded, explain why its not significant.
There was no burning jet fuel at wtc 7You conspiracy theory loons are an entertaining lot. Is there something sinister you wish to propose about burning jet fuel and a building collapse?Wow. Thermal hot spots. That indicates .... nothing significant at all. Pretty weak material to support your conspiracy theory.Images of the World Trade Center Site Show Thermal Hot Spots on September 16 and 23, 2001.View attachment 40301
USGS Spectroscopy Lab - World Trade Center USGS environmental assessment
why would you say something so tarded, explain why its not significant.
You loons see conspiracies because they appeal to your fears and profound ignorance.
You trolls do make it very clear you are not capable of defending NIST conclusions on it meritwhy would you need to ask such a tarded question?Wow. Thermal hot spots. That indicates .... nothing significant at all. Pretty weak material to support your conspiracy theory.Images of the World Trade Center Site Show Thermal Hot Spots on September 16 and 23, 2001.View attachment 40301
USGS Spectroscopy Lab - World Trade Center USGS environmental assessment
why would you say something so tarded, explain why its not significant.
when the answer is soo obvious..
It must have been the Jooooooos setting fires or gasmain leaks? But yeah, conspiracies are more entertaining.There was no burning jet fuel at wtc 7You conspiracy theory loons are an entertaining lot. Is there something sinister you wish to propose about burning jet fuel and a building collapse?Wow. Thermal hot spots. That indicates .... nothing significant at all. Pretty weak material to support your conspiracy theory.Images of the World Trade Center Site Show Thermal Hot Spots on September 16 and 23, 2001.View attachment 40301
USGS Spectroscopy Lab - World Trade Center USGS environmental assessment
why would you say something so tarded, explain why its not significant.
You loons see conspiracies because they appeal to your fears and profound ignorance.
You conspiracy theory loons are floating a number of failed conspiracy theories. Why not get Geraldo Rivera to help you out?You trolls do make it very clear you are not capable of defending NIST conclusions on it meritwhy would you need to ask such a tarded question?Wow. Thermal hot spots. That indicates .... nothing significant at all. Pretty weak material to support your conspiracy theory.Images of the World Trade Center Site Show Thermal Hot Spots on September 16 and 23, 2001.View attachment 40301
USGS Spectroscopy Lab - World Trade Center USGS environmental assessment
why would you say something so tarded, explain why its not significant.
when the answer is soo obvious..
your point? there was no water either however there were thousands of tons of combustible materials...There was no burning jet fuel at wtc 7You conspiracy theory loons are an entertaining lot. Is there something sinister you wish to propose about burning jet fuel and a building collapse?Wow. Thermal hot spots. That indicates .... nothing significant at all. Pretty weak material to support your conspiracy theory.Images of the World Trade Center Site Show Thermal Hot Spots on September 16 and 23, 2001.View attachment 40301
USGS Spectroscopy Lab - World Trade Center USGS environmental assessment
why would you say something so tarded, explain why its not significant.
You loons see conspiracies because they appeal to your fears and profound ignorance.
there is no need, it stands on it's own.You trolls do make it very clear you are not capable of defending NIST conclusions on it meritwhy would you need to ask such a tarded question?Wow. Thermal hot spots. That indicates .... nothing significant at all. Pretty weak material to support your conspiracy theory.Images of the World Trade Center Site Show Thermal Hot Spots on September 16 and 23, 2001.View attachment 40301
USGS Spectroscopy Lab - World Trade Center USGS environmental assessment
why would you say something so tarded, explain why its not significant.
when the answer is soo obvious..
guess eots does not understand what in context means“…the best hypothesis [fire] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.”
http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf
context
noun con·text \ˈkän-ˌtekst\
: the words that are used with a certain word or phrase and that help to explain its meaning
: the situation in which something happens : the group of conditions that exist where and when something happens
Fallacy of quoting out of context
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The practice of quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as "contextomy" and quote mining), is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.[1] Contextomies are stereotypically intentional, but may also occur accidentally if someone misinterprets the meaning and omits something essential to clarifying it, thinking it non-essential.
Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms:
In either case, while quoting a person out of context can be done intentionally to advance an agenda or win an argument, it is also possible to remove essential context without the aim to mislead, through not perceiving a change in meaning or implication that may result from quoting what is perceived as the essential crux of a statement.
- As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute.
- As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position.[2]
there is no theory the NIST report is a cover upIt must have been the Jooooooos setting fires or gasmain leaks? But yeah, conspiracies are more entertaining.There was no burning jet fuel at wtc 7You conspiracy theory loons are an entertaining lot. Is there something sinister you wish to propose about burning jet fuel and a building collapse?Wow. Thermal hot spots. That indicates .... nothing significant at all. Pretty weak material to support your conspiracy theory.Images of the World Trade Center Site Show Thermal Hot Spots on September 16 and 23, 2001.View attachment 40301
USGS Spectroscopy Lab - World Trade Center USGS environmental assessment
why would you say something so tarded, explain why its not significant.
You loons see conspiracies because they appeal to your fears and profound ignorance.
false the nist report being a cover up is a classic conspiracy theory...denying that fact just proves it is.guess eots does not understand what in context means“…the best hypothesis [fire] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.”
http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf
context
noun con·text \ˈkän-ˌtekst\
: the words that are used with a certain word or phrase and that help to explain its meaning
: the situation in which something happens : the group of conditions that exist where and when something happens
Fallacy of quoting out of context
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The practice of quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as "contextomy" and quote mining), is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.[1] Contextomies are stereotypically intentional, but may also occur accidentally if someone misinterprets the meaning and omits something essential to clarifying it, thinking it non-essential.
Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms:
In either case, while quoting a person out of context can be done intentionally to advance an agenda or win an argument, it is also possible to remove essential context without the aim to mislead, through not perceiving a change in meaning or implication that may result from quoting what is perceived as the essential crux of a statement.
- As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute.
- As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position.[2]
there is no theory the NIST report is a cover upIt must have been the Jooooooos setting fires or gasmain leaks? But yeah, conspiracies are more entertaining.There was no burning jet fuel at wtc 7You conspiracy theory loons are an entertaining lot. Is there something sinister you wish to propose about burning jet fuel and a building collapse?Wow. Thermal hot spots. That indicates .... nothing significant at all. Pretty weak material to support your conspiracy theory.
why would you say something so tarded, explain why its not significant.
You loons see conspiracies because they appeal to your fears and profound ignorance.
regular office materials no different than all other hi-rise fires..relatively small fires when compared to fully engage hi-rise fires that have never resulted in collapseyour point? there was no water either however there wear thousands of tons of combustible materials...There was no burning jet fuel at wtc 7You conspiracy theory loons are an entertaining lot. Is there something sinister you wish to propose about burning jet fuel and a building collapse?Wow. Thermal hot spots. That indicates .... nothing significant at all. Pretty weak material to support your conspiracy theory.Images of the World Trade Center Site Show Thermal Hot Spots on September 16 and 23, 2001.View attachment 40301
USGS Spectroscopy Lab - World Trade Center USGS environmental assessment
why would you say something so tarded, explain why its not significant.
You loons see conspiracies because they appeal to your fears and profound ignorance.
Dr. Quintiere said he originally “had high hopes” that NIST would do a good job with the investigation.“They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job.But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire.And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information.What prevented all of this?I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST.And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”false the nist report being a cover up is a classic conspiracy theory...denying that fact just proves it is.guess eots does not understand what in context means“…the best hypothesis [fire] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.”
http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf
context
noun con·text \ˈkän-ˌtekst\
: the words that are used with a certain word or phrase and that help to explain its meaning
: the situation in which something happens : the group of conditions that exist where and when something happens
Fallacy of quoting out of context
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The practice of quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as "contextomy" and quote mining), is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.[1] Contextomies are stereotypically intentional, but may also occur accidentally if someone misinterprets the meaning and omits something essential to clarifying it, thinking it non-essential.
Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms:
In either case, while quoting a person out of context can be done intentionally to advance an agenda or win an argument, it is also possible to remove essential context without the aim to mislead, through not perceiving a change in meaning or implication that may result from quoting what is perceived as the essential crux of a statement.
- As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute.
- As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position.[2]
there is no theory the NIST report is a cover upIt must have been the Jooooooos setting fires or gasmain leaks? But yeah, conspiracies are more entertaining.There was no burning jet fuel at wtc 7You conspiracy theory loons are an entertaining lot. Is there something sinister you wish to propose about burning jet fuel and a building collapse?why would you say something so tarded, explain why its not significant.
You loons see conspiracies because they appeal to your fears and profound ignorance.
As usual, your silly conspiracies are only contrived to further new conspiracies.regular office materials no different than all other hi-rise fires..relatively small fires when compared to fully engage hi-rise fires that have never resulted in collapseyour point? there was no water either however there wear thousands of tons of combustible materials...There was no burning jet fuel at wtc 7You conspiracy theory loons are an entertaining lot. Is there something sinister you wish to propose about burning jet fuel and a building collapse?Wow. Thermal hot spots. That indicates .... nothing significant at all. Pretty weak material to support your conspiracy theory.
why would you say something so tarded, explain why its not significant.
You loons see conspiracies because they appeal to your fears and profound ignorance.
that would be true if wtc7 had been comparable to those fire ..regular office materials no different than all other hi-rise fires..relatively small fires when compared to fully engage hi-rise fires that have never resulted in collapseyour point? there was no water either however there wear thousands of tons of combustible materials...There was no burning jet fuel at wtc 7You conspiracy theory loons are an entertaining lot. Is there something sinister you wish to propose about burning jet fuel and a building collapse?Wow. Thermal hot spots. That indicates .... nothing significant at all. Pretty weak material to support your conspiracy theory.
why would you say something so tarded, explain why its not significant.
You loons see conspiracies because they appeal to your fears and profound ignorance.
thanks for proving my point.Dr. Quintiere said he originally “had high hopes” that NIST would do a good job with the investigation.“They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job.But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire.And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information.What prevented all of this?I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST.And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”false the nist report being a cover up is a classic conspiracy theory...denying that fact just proves it is.guess eots does not understand what in context means“…the best hypothesis [fire] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.”
http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf
context
noun con·text \ˈkän-ˌtekst\
: the words that are used with a certain word or phrase and that help to explain its meaning
: the situation in which something happens : the group of conditions that exist where and when something happens
Fallacy of quoting out of context
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The practice of quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as "contextomy" and quote mining), is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.[1] Contextomies are stereotypically intentional, but may also occur accidentally if someone misinterprets the meaning and omits something essential to clarifying it, thinking it non-essential.
Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms:
In either case, while quoting a person out of context can be done intentionally to advance an agenda or win an argument, it is also possible to remove essential context without the aim to mislead, through not perceiving a change in meaning or implication that may result from quoting what is perceived as the essential crux of a statement.
- As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute.
- As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position.[2]
there is no theory the NIST report is a cover upIt must have been the Jooooooos setting fires or gasmain leaks? But yeah, conspiracies are more entertaining.There was no burning jet fuel at wtc 7You conspiracy theory loons are an entertaining lot. Is there something sinister you wish to propose about burning jet fuel and a building collapse?
You loons see conspiracies because they appeal to your fears and profound ignorance.
Article Former Chief of NIST s Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation OpEdNews
