Bye-Bye explosives theory

[Fizz]

here is a video that clearly shows the south tower buckling with no demolition explosives.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBYnUyx4kw8[/ame]

now let's see how absurd these troofers can be in denying something right before their eyes.

 

[Terral]

Hi Mr. Fizz cool:

This DoD ConMan was sent here to defend Official Cover Story LIES. The 'only' explanation that makes any sense (#3) is that the WTC Skyscrapers were taken down deliberately using "Controlled Demolition" (AE911Truth.org / ScholarsForTruth.org).

here is a video that clearly shows the south tower buckling with no demolition explosives . . . now let's see how absurd these troofers can be in denying something right before their eyes.

Mr. Fizz cool: = How To Spot A Disinformation Agent) can explain how more than a hundred solid concrete slabs vanished into thin air from Building Fires. WTC-7 (my CD Topic) stood more than 350 feet away from the nearest of the Twin Towers ...

... and was struck by NO Jetliner!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIbqaybkbWI&NR=1]Mr. Fizz Says 'This' Was Caused By Building Fires[/ame]

Take a look at the 'Side-by-side' Video Clip and:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo]... Decide For Yourself ...[/ame]

Mr. Fizz cool is missing more than 250 concrete slabs with 'no' explanation for how they simply burned up from building fires.

Watch The Short WTC "Controlled Demolition" Video

GL,

Terral

 

[Si modo]

I still can't watch it.

 

[Terral]

Hi Si Modo:

I still can't watch it.

Si Modo (pic) stands with the majority (#9) around here.

GL,

Terral

 

[Si modo]

Hi Si Modo:

I still can't watch it.

Si Modo (pic) stands with the majority (#9) around here.

GL,

Terral

Not quite, Terral.

I will watch it when someone presents some good new evidence. I see no reason to watch it because some insanely paranoid moron keeps spouting off his own-world paranoia. I need no gratuitous confirmation of your, and that of others like you, insanity.

 

[dilloduck]

Terrel--you're fucking crazy

 

[Zona]

I really dont beleive in anything other than the fact that we got caught with our pants down, but I still dont get wtc 7 going down.

 

[Fizz]

Hi Mr. Fizz cool:

This DoD ConMan was sent here to defend Official Cover Story LIES. The 'only' explanation that makes any sense (#3) is that the WTC Skyscrapers were taken down deliberately using "Controlled Demolition" (AE911Truth.org / ScholarsForTruth.org).

here is a video that clearly shows the south tower buckling with no demolition explosives . . . now let's see how absurd these troofers can be in denying something right before their eyes.

Mr. Fizz cool: = How To Spot A Disinformation Agent) can explain how more than a hundred solid concrete slabs vanished into thin air from Building Fires. WTC-7 (my CD Topic) stood more than 350 feet away from the nearest of the Twin Towers ...


... and was struck by NO Jetliner!!!

Mr. Fizz Says 'This' Was Caused By Building Fires

Take a look at the 'Side-by-side' Video Clip and:

... Decide For Yourself ...

Mr. Fizz cool is missing more than 250 concrete slabs with 'no' explanation for how they simply burned up from building fires.

Watch The Short WTC "Controlled Demolition" Video

GL,

Terral

Terral, you are pathetic. you have evidence right in front of your eyes that the towers collapsed without any demolition. YOU CANT REFUTE THIS EVIDENCE..

how to spot a completely delusional jackass.

1. can't refute the evidence so they attack the messenger.
2. believes in wild conspiracy theories that make no sense.
3. believes everyone that disagrees with them is a secret government agent.
4. can't refute the evidence so they try to change the subject.

STICK TO THE SUBJECT. THIS VIDEO SHOWS THE BUILDING BUCKLING AND COLLAPSING WITH NO EXPLOSIVES!!

 

[Trojan]

Hi Mr. Fizz cool:

This DoD ConMan was sent here to defend Official Cover Story LIES. The 'only' explanation that makes any sense (#3) is that the WTC Skyscrapers were taken down deliberately using "Controlled Demolition" (AE911Truth.org / ScholarsForTruth.org).

here is a video that clearly shows the south tower buckling with no demolition explosives . . . now let's see how absurd these troofers can be in denying something right before their eyes.

Mr. Fizz cool: = How To Spot A Disinformation Agent) can explain how more than a hundred solid concrete slabs vanished into thin air from Building Fires. WTC-7 (my CD Topic) stood more than 350 feet away from the nearest of the Twin Towers ...

... and was struck by NO Jetliner!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIbqaybkbWI&NR=1]Mr. Fizz Says 'This' Was Caused By Building Fires[/ame]

Take a look at the 'Side-by-side' Video Clip and:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo]... Decide For Yourself ...[/ame]

Mr. Fizz cool is missing more than 250 concrete slabs with 'no' explanation for how they simply burned up from building fires.

Watch The Short WTC "Controlled Demolition" Video

GL,

Terral

Terral - the narration in your video even states it was building fires "that's why they did not try to put the fire out"

 

[Terral]

Hi Trojan:

Terral - the narration in your video even states it was building fires "that's why they did not try to put the fire out"

Listen up! Those of you who think confused: = #9) that building fires can take down modern-day steel-framed skyscrapers are Loyal Bushie/Obama DUPES!!!!

Which one of you can point to ANY modern-day 'non-911' skyscraper that has collapsed from building fires? NOBODY, because that is very much IMPOSSIBLE (#3 = "Compartmentalization" of supporting columns/beams).

You are willfully ignorant 'and' you choose to remain that way . . .

GL,

Terral

 

[Trojan]

Hi Trojan:


Which one of you can point to ANY modern-day 'non-911' skyscraper that has collapsed from building fires? NOBODY, because that is very much IMPOSSIBLE (#3 = "Compartmentalization" of supporting columns/beams).

You are willfully ignorant 'and' you choose to remain that way . . .

GL,

Terral

Terral

In your world, if it never happened before, I guess it can never happen at all -- is this your claim?

May I remind you that on December 7, 1941, four US Battleships were sunk by aircraft attack -- never before in US history had a battleship been sunk by air attack, and never again subsequent was a US Battleship sunk by air attack -- yep on one day, something never before seen and never seen after -- happened four times.

But its impossible for something to happen only once and never happen again right?

 

[eots]

August 21, 2007 at 14:25:22
View Ratings | Rate It

Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.
. 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.”

"although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure"
OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

 

[Gamolon]

August 21, 2007 at 14:25:22
View Ratings | Rate It

Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.
. 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.”

"although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure"
OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

Eots, does Mr. Quintiere say in his own paper that he believes that the collapse of the towers was caused by the floor trusses failing due to heat and NOT the columns failing as NIST suggests?

Is that his belief? Yes or no.

 

[Toro]

Terral, you are pathetic. you have evidence right in front of your eyes that the towers collapsed without any demolition. YOU CANT REFUTE THIS EVIDENCE..

how to spot a completely delusional jackass.

1. can't refute the evidence so they attack the messenger.
2. believes in wild conspiracy theories that make no sense.
3. believes everyone that disagrees with them is a secret government agent.
4. can't refute the evidence so they try to change the subject.

STICK TO THE SUBJECT. THIS VIDEO SHOWS THE BUILDING BUCKLING AND COLLAPSING WITH NO EXPLOSIVES!!

Terral believes every conspiracy theory ever concocted, including ones he made up himself.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...errals-conspiracies-compilation-thread-5.html

He believes that the creators of the 9/11 conspiracy theory, Loose Change, are actually a part of the conspiracy themselves.

You don't really need to know much else.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Hi Mr. Fizz cool:

This DoD ConMan was sent here to defend Official Cover Story LIES. The 'only' explanation that makes any sense (#3) is that the WTC Skyscrapers were taken down deliberately using "Controlled Demolition" (AE911Truth.org / ScholarsForTruth.org).

here is a video that clearly shows the south tower buckling with no demolition explosives . . . now let's see how absurd these troofers can be in denying something right before their eyes.

Mr. Fizz cool: = How To Spot A Disinformation Agent) can explain how more than a hundred solid concrete slabs vanished into thin air from Building Fires. WTC-7 (my CD Topic) stood more than 350 feet away from the nearest of the Twin Towers ...

... and was struck by NO Jetliner!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIbqaybkbWI&NR=1]Mr. Fizz Says 'This' Was Caused By Building Fires[/ame]

Take a look at the 'Side-by-side' Video Clip and:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo]... Decide For Yourself ...[/ame]

Mr. Fizz cool is missing more than 250 concrete slabs with 'no' explanation for how they simply burned up from building fires.

Watch The Short WTC "Controlled Demolition" Video

GL,

Terral

yeah give it agent Fizz,we have disproven your pathetic theories that the fires caused the towers to collapse hundreds of times.you never refuted our posts that controlled demolitions were used.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Hi Mr. Fizz cool:

This DoD ConMan was sent here to defend Official Cover Story LIES. The 'only' explanation that makes any sense (#3) is that the WTC Skyscrapers were taken down deliberately using "Controlled Demolition" (AE911Truth.org / ScholarsForTruth.org).

here is a video that clearly shows the south tower buckling with no demolition explosives . . . now let's see how absurd these troofers can be in denying something right before their eyes.

Mr. Fizz cool: = How To Spot A Disinformation Agent) can explain how more than a hundred solid concrete slabs vanished into thin air from Building Fires. WTC-7 (my CD Topic) stood more than 350 feet away from the nearest of the Twin Towers ...

... and was struck by NO Jetliner!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIbqaybkbWI&NR=1]Mr. Fizz Says 'This' Was Caused By Building Fires[/ame]

Take a look at the 'Side-by-side' Video Clip and:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo]... Decide For Yourself ...[/ame]

Mr. Fizz cool is missing more than 250 concrete slabs with 'no' explanation for how they simply burned up from building fires.

Watch The Short WTC "Controlled Demolition" Video

GL,

Terral

yeah give it agent Fizz,we have disproven your pathetic theories that the fires caused the towers to collapse hundreds of times.you never refuted our posts that controlled demolitions were used.the fact that you have ignored our facts is proof you were sent here to propagate their lies.you have yet to disprove the fact that office fires CANT melt steel like the photos proved many of the steel columns WERE melted and that nano thermite samples were found by a team of the most famous world known scientists from around the world , that NASA thermal images recorded intense heat readings several weeks later after tons of water had been hosed down on the buildings,temps FAR TOO INTENSE to be office or jet fuel fires.hahahahahahahaha anymore pathetic attempts you want to make that explosives did not bring down the towers? lol.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Hi Mr. Fizz cool:

This DoD ConMan was sent here to defend Official Cover Story LIES. The 'only' explanation that makes any sense (#3) is that the WTC Skyscrapers were taken down deliberately using "Controlled Demolition" (AE911Truth.org / ScholarsForTruth.org).

here is a video that clearly shows the south tower buckling with no demolition explosives . . . now let's see how absurd these troofers can be in denying something right before their eyes.

Mr. Fizz cool: = How To Spot A Disinformation Agent) can explain how more than a hundred solid concrete slabs vanished into thin air from Building Fires. WTC-7 (my CD Topic) stood more than 350 feet away from the nearest of the Twin Towers ...

... and was struck by NO Jetliner!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIbqaybkbWI&NR=1]Mr. Fizz Says 'This' Was Caused By Building Fires[/ame]

Take a look at the 'Side-by-side' Video Clip and:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo]... Decide For Yourself ...[/ame]

Mr. Fizz cool is missing more than 250 concrete slabs with 'no' explanation for how they simply burned up from building fires.

Watch The Short WTC "Controlled Demolition" Video

GL,

Terral

yeah give it agent Fizz,we have disproven your pathetic theories that the fires caused the towers to collapse hundreds of times.you never refuted our posts that controlled demolitions were used.the fact that you have ignored our facts is proof you were sent here to propagate their lies.you have yet to disprove the fact that office fires CANT melt steel like the photos proved many of the steel columns WERE melted and that nano thermite samples were found by a team of the most famous world known scientists from around the world , that NASA thermal images recorded intense heat readings several weeks later after tons of water had been hosed down on the buildings,temps FAR TOO INTENSE to be office or jet fuel fires.hahahahahahahaha anymore pathetic attempts you want to make that explosives did not bring down the towers? lol.

The fact is that no one has proven that there were any controlled explosions....Yet we have seen several videos that were edited or misguided in their times, etc..........

 

[Fizz]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBYnUyx4kw8[/ame]

look. no explosives. all your rhetoric is useless. "fires couldnt have cause the collapse" but they did. just look. its right in front of your face. you can see the steel buckle and collapse. anyone that still believes demolitions were used to blow up the towers is a complete fucking moron.

 

[Gamolon]

Eots, does Mr. Quintiere say in his own paper that he believes that the collapse of the towers was caused by the floor trusses failing due to heat and NOT the columns failing as NIST suggests?

Is that his belief? Yes or no.

 

[Bern80]

yeah give it agent Fizz,we have disproven your pathetic theories that the fires caused the towers to collapse hundreds of times.you never refuted our posts that controlled demolitions were used.the fact that you have ignored our facts is proof you were sent here to propagate their lies.you have yet to disprove the fact that office fires CANT melt steel like the photos proved many of the steel columns WERE melted and that nano thermite samples were found by a team of the most famous world known scientists from around the world , that NASA thermal images recorded intense heat readings several weeks later after tons of water had been hosed down on the buildings,temps FAR TOO INTENSE to be office or jet fuel fires.hahahahahahahaha anymore pathetic attempts you want to make that explosives did not bring down the towers? lol.

Why is it you troofers resort to dishonestly characterizing your opposition's position? Of course fire played a role in bring down 1 and 2. You don't think a FUCKING AIRLINER crashing into it might have caused some structural integrity issues as well?

You simply do not have the facts to support your position and for a group of people who claim to be about the truth you are conducting your 'investigation' in a very unobjective, biased manor. Generally when trying to find the facts of a case, it doesn't work too well to come into it with a preconceived conclusion. Then one ends up simply ignroing everything that doesn't fit said conclusion regardless of it's validity.

These 'facts' you speak of? It amounts to this: A bunch of borderline mental cases that believed in a black helicopter world to begin with saw a bunch of building fall in a manner not disimilar from a controlled demolition let their paranoid imaginations run amuck and accuse the government of an inside job. You started out with the conclusion that our government perpatrated this act. One problem: even if all the events of that you say are true, all the building were a CD, Flight 93 was faked, a missile hit the pentagon, etc. It STILL doesn't prove our government did any of it.