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.
why do you intentional deceive when know as well as I do that NIST found debris was not a factor in the collapse and the collapse was due to fire and regardless of damage the building would still of collapsed due to fire alone causing the loss of column 79..who is it you are trying to decive ?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?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.
it's not.
those building were not heavily damage by debris.
they did not have broken supports.
they all had working fire suppression equipment and fire fighters on scene.
it's a false comparison.
oh no! not the large font ploy..."The White House Has Played Cover-Up"–Former 9/11 Commission Member Max Cleland Blasts Bush
The White House Has Played Cover-Up Former 9 11 Commission Member Max Cleland Blasts Bush Democracy Now
guess you don't understand the difference between damage and debris.why do you intentional deceive when know as well as I do that NIST found debris was not a factor in the collapse and the collapse was due to fire and regardless of damage the building would still of collapsed due to fire alone causing the loss of column 79..who is it you are trying to decive ?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?
You loons see conspiracies because they appeal to your fears and profound ignorance.
it's not.
those building were not heavily damage by debris.
they did not have broken supports.
they all had working fire suppression equipment and fire fighters on scene.
it's a false comparison.
The Illuminate' has not authorized me to divulge that information to you.why do you intentional deceive when know as well as I do that NIST found debris was not a factor in the collapse and the collapse was due to fire and regardless of damage the building would still of collapsed due to fire alone causing the loss of column 79..who is it you are trying to decive ?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?
You loons see conspiracies because they appeal to your fears and profound ignorance.
it's not.
those building were not heavily damage by debris.
they did not have broken supports.
they all had working fire suppression equipment and fire fighters on scene.
it's a false comparison.
seriously who is it you are trying to deceive when you talk about burning jet fuel and building damage as explanations for the collapse when you know this is not what NIST concluded ?oh no! not the large font ploy..."The White House Has Played Cover-Up"–Former 9/11 Commission Member Max Cleland Blasts Bush
The White House Has Played Cover-Up Former 9 11 Commission Member Max Cleland Blasts Bush Democracy Now
lol!The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies
The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission.
Farmer, Dean of Rutger Universities' School of Law and former Attorney General of New Jersey, was responsible for drafting the original flawed 9/11 report.
The 9 11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies - Salem-News.Com
the only factor NIST attributes to damage is initiating the fires and you know this as well as Idoguess you don't understand the difference between damage and debris.why do you intentional deceive when know as well as I do that NIST found debris was not a factor in the collapse and the collapse was due to fire and regardless of damage the building would still of collapsed due to fire alone causing the loss of column 79..who is it you are trying to decive ?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 7
it's not.
those building were not heavily damage by debris.
they did not have broken supports.
they all had working fire suppression equipment and fire fighters on scene.
it's a false comparison.
the damage done by it was a major factor in the collapse.
unless the same condition existed in the fires you are attempting to compare to wtc7, any comparison you make is false.
"How long have we watered the Tree of Deceit with the blood of patriots?"The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies
The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission.
Farmer, Dean of Rutger Universities' School of Law and former Attorney General of New Jersey, was responsible for drafting the original flawed 9/11 report.
The 9 11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies - Salem-News.Com
What caused the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2?seriously who is it you are trying to deceive when you talk about burning jet fuel and building damage as explanations for the collapse when you know this is not what NIST concluded ?oh no! not the large font ploy..."The White House Has Played Cover-Up"–Former 9/11 Commission Member Max Cleland Blasts Bush
The White House Has Played Cover-Up Former 9 11 Commission Member Max Cleland Blasts Bush Democracy Now
Major news story published in ever major newspaper..its not in dispute by anyone..so you again just talking drivel"How long have we watered the Tree of Deceit with the blood of patriots?"The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies
The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission.
Farmer, Dean of Rutger Universities' School of Law and former Attorney General of New Jersey, was responsible for drafting the original flawed 9/11 report.
The 9 11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies - Salem-News.Com
Looks like the typical, supermarket tabloid need service you troll for your conspiracy theories.
What caused the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2?seriously who is it you are trying to deceive when you talk about burning jet fuel and building damage as explanations for the collapse when you know this is not what NIST concluded ?oh no! not the large font ploy..."The White House Has Played Cover-Up"–Former 9/11 Commission Member Max Cleland Blasts Bush
The White House Has Played Cover-Up Former 9 11 Commission Member Max Cleland Blasts Bush Democracy Now
Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York City Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.
if no planes hit wtc7 there would be no jet fuel there is no indication that jet fuel from either impact made any contact with wtc7.the only factor NIST attributes to damage is initiating the fires and you know this as well as Idoguess you don't understand the difference between damage and debris.why do you intentional deceive when know as well as I do that NIST found debris was not a factor in the collapse and the collapse was due to fire and regardless of damage the building would still of collapsed due to fire alone causing the loss of column 79..who is it you are trying to decive ?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...
it's not.
those building were not heavily damage by debris.
they did not have broken supports.
they all had working fire suppression equipment and fire fighters on scene.
it's a false comparison.
the damage done by it was a major factor in the collapse.
unless the same condition existed in the fires you are attempting to compare to wtc7, any comparison you make is false.
thanks just proves nist correct.View attachment 40305What caused the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2?seriously who is it you are trying to deceive when you talk about burning jet fuel and building damage as explanations for the collapse when you know this is not what NIST concluded ?oh no! not the large font ploy..."The White House Has Played Cover-Up"–Former 9/11 Commission Member Max Cleland Blasts Bush
The White House Has Played Cover-Up Former 9 11 Commission Member Max Cleland Blasts Bush Democracy Now
Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York City Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.
It actually is in dispute. What is not in dispute is the source of your cut and paste: a rabid conspiracy theory website.Major news story published in ever major newspaper..its not in dispute by anyone..so you again just talking drivel"How long have we watered the Tree of Deceit with the blood of patriots?"The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies
The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission.
Farmer, Dean of Rutger Universities' School of Law and former Attorney General of New Jersey, was responsible for drafting the original flawed 9/11 report.
The 9 11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies - Salem-News.Com
Looks like the typical, supermarket tabloid need service you troll for your conspiracy theories.
reality check hand job. sayit and I are not the same person. better check your meds.
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.
Got a link to any of this insane rambling ?...you need to take some time off,you are starting to unravelif no planes hit wtc7 there would be no jet fuel there is no indication that jet fuel from either impact made any contact with wtc7.the only factor NIST attributes to damage is initiating the fires and you know this as well as Idoguess you don't understand the difference between damage and debris.why do you intentional deceive when know as well as I do that NIST found debris was not a factor in the collapse and the collapse was due to fire and regardless of damage the building would still of collapsed due to fire alone causing the loss of column 79..who is it you are trying to decive ?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 collapse
it's not.
those building were not heavily damage by debris.
they did not have broken supports.
they all had working fire suppression equipment and fire fighters on scene.
it's a false comparison.
the damage done by it was a major factor in the collapse.
unless the same condition existed in the fires you are attempting to compare to wtc7, any comparison you make is false.
it didn't even start to burn till wtc I collapsed.
no jet fuel burns that long
you're talking out your ass
guess you forget what towers you are talking about
Got a link to any of this insane rambling ?...you need to take some time off,you are starting to unravelif no planes hit wtc7 there would be no jet fuel there is no indication that jet fuel from either impact made any contact with wtc7.the only factor NIST attributes to damage is initiating the fires and you know this as well as Idoguess you don't understand the difference between damage and debris.why do you intentional deceive when know as well as I do that NIST found debris was not a factor in the collapse and the collapse was due to fire and regardless of damage the building would still of collapsed due to fire alone causing the loss of column 79..who is it you are trying to decive ?that would be true if wtc7 had been comparable to those fire ..
it's not.
those building were not heavily damage by debris.
they did not have broken supports.
they all had working fire suppression equipment and fire fighters on scene.
it's a false comparison.
the damage done by it was a major factor in the collapse.
unless the same condition existed in the fires you are attempting to compare to wtc7, any comparison you make is false.
it didn't even start to burn till wtc I collapsed.
no jet fuel burns that long
you're talking out your ass
guess you forget what towers you are talking about
