The third building which collapsed on 9/11 was not hit by a plane

[Dissent]

» The Third Building Which Collapsed on 9/11 Was Not Hit By a Plane Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

 

[teapartysamurai]

» The Third Building Which Collapsed on 9/11 Was Not Hit By a Plane Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Yeah! A UFO hit it!

Take your truther crap somewhere else!

 

[blastoff]

So post it in the crazy forum where it belongs.

 

[RDD_1210]

Really? Today? Give me a fucking break.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Really? Today? Give me a fucking break.

Those Truthers never give it up.

There are still idiots who think we never went to the moon.

Crazy is always crazy.

 

[Avatar4321]

so having the debris of two other buildings collapse into it isnt going to cause any damage?

 

[eots]

so having the debris of two other buildings collapse into it isnt going to cause any damage?

NIST determined damage from falling debris was not a factor in the collapse of wtc 7 and that and fires caused an "extraordinary event". Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the entire building down

NIST determined That the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse and 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.

 

[eots]

Really? Today? Give me a fucking break.

Those Truthers never give it up.

There are still idiots who think we never went to the moon.

Crazy is always crazy.

there are still idiots that profess to support the official conclusion yet still cite damage and diesel fuel as reasons for an "inevitable collapse"

 

[daws101]

so having the debris of two other buildings collapse into it isnt going to cause any damage?

NIST determined damage from falling debris was not a factor in the collapse of wtc 7 and that and fires caused an "extraordinary event". Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the entire building down

NIST determined That the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse and 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.

odd the eot's quotes a series of documents he thinks are bullshit or part of the disinformation cover up

 

[RetiredGySgt]

so having the debris of two other buildings collapse into it isnt going to cause any damage?

NIST determined damage from falling debris was not a factor in the collapse of wtc 7 and that and fires caused an "extraordinary event". Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the entire building down

NIST determined That the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse and 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.

odd the eot's quotes a series of documents he thinks are bullshit or part of the disinformation cover up

He ignores the pertinent parts, like why the fire raged for 8 hours and how the fire department never tried to put it out. You see those parts make his claims look as stupid as they are.

 

[daws101]

Really? Today? Give me a fucking break.

Those Truthers never give it up.

There are still idiots who think we never went to the moon.

Crazy is always crazy.

there are still idiots that profess to support the official conclusion yet still cite damage and diesel fuel as reasons for an "inevitable collapse"

now you're just lying..
the so called idiots are telling the whole story,, if eots knew how to read he'd know that..
diesel fuel was a reasonable candidate in the early stages of the investigation.
as more and better data came in it was ruled out.
it's called an update.
little facts like that have never stopped eots from being willfully ignorant.

 

[eots]

Those Truthers never give it up.

There are still idiots who think we never went to the moon.

Crazy is always crazy.

there are still idiots that profess to support the official conclusion yet still cite damage and diesel fuel as reasons for an "inevitable collapse"

now you're just lying..
the so called idiots are telling the whole story,, if eots knew how to read he'd know that..
diesel fuel was a reasonable candidate in the early stages of the investigation.
as more and better data came in it was ruled out.
it's called an update.
little facts like that have never stopped eots from being willfully ignorant.

but being the scumbag disnfo agent you are you constantly post links to debwunkers sites that still cite diesel fuel and building damage as explanations for the collapse...why would you do that ?

 

[eots]

NIST determined damage from falling debris was not a factor in the collapse of wtc 7 and that and fires caused an "extraordinary event". Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the entire building down

NIST determined That the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse and 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.

odd the eot's quotes a series of documents he thinks are bullshit or part of the disinformation cover up

He ignores the pertinent parts, like why the fire raged for 8 hours and how the fire department never tried to put it out. You see those parts make his claims look as stupid as they are.

many worse fires in many buildings...never has a steel framed building collapsed due to fire..even NIST called it an extraordinary event with a very low probability of occurrence..but debwunkers act like its the norm and to be expected

 

[Zoom-boing]

odd the eot's quotes a series of documents he thinks are bullshit or part of the disinformation cover up

He ignores the pertinent parts, like why the fire raged for 8 hours and how the fire department never tried to put it out. You see those parts make his claims look as stupid as they are.

many worse fires in many buildings...never has a steel framed building collapsed due to fire..even NIST called it an extraordinary event with a very low probability of occurrence..but debwunkers act like its the norm and to be expected

So were two planes fully loaded with fuel and people. Unfathomable does not mean it can't happen.

 

[eots]

He ignores the pertinent parts, like why the fire raged for 8 hours and how the fire department never tried to put it out. You see those parts make his claims look as stupid as they are.

many worse fires in many buildings...never has a steel framed building collapsed due to fire..even NIST called it an extraordinary event with a very low probability of occurrence..but debwunkers act like its the norm and to be expected

So were two planes fully loaded with fuel and people. Unfathomable does not mean it can't happen.

there was no fuel or plane that hit wtc 7

 

[daws101]

there are still idiots that profess to support the official conclusion yet still cite damage and diesel fuel as reasons for an "inevitable collapse"

now you're just lying..
the so called idiots are telling the whole story,, if eots knew how to read he'd know that..
diesel fuel was a reasonable candidate in the early stages of the investigation.
as more and better data came in it was ruled out.
it's called an update.
little facts like that have never stopped eots from being willfully ignorant.

but being the scumbag disnfo agent you are you constantly post links to debwunkers sites that still cite diesel fuel and building damage as explanations for the collapse...why would you do that ?

take two ....the so called idiots are telling the whole story,, if eots knew how to read he'd know that..
diesel fuel was a reasonable candidate in the early stages of the investigation.
as more and better data came in it was ruled out.
it's called an update.
little facts like that have never stopped eots from being willfully ignorant.

 

[daws101]

odd the eot's quotes a series of documents he thinks are bullshit or part of the disinformation cover up

He ignores the pertinent parts, like why the fire raged for 8 hours and how the fire department never tried to put it out. You see those parts make his claims look as stupid as they are.

many worse fires in many buildings...never has a steel framed building collapsed due to fire..even NIST called it an extraordinary event with a very low probability of occurrence..but debwunkers act like its the norm and to be expected

again lying ... shit either happens or it does not and it did happen you either except it or you don't...
I guess in your lack of working Grey matter mind everybody should have gone bat shit and blamed the government...?!

 

[eots]

now you're just lying..
the so called idiots are telling the whole story,, if eots knew how to read he'd know that..
diesel fuel was a reasonable candidate in the early stages of the investigation.
as more and better data came in it was ruled out.
it's called an update.
little facts like that have never stopped eots from being willfully ignorant.

but being the scumbag disnfo agent you are you constantly post links to debwunkers sites that still cite diesel fuel and building damage as explanations for the collapse...why would you do that ?

take two ....the so called idiots are telling the whole story,, if eots knew how to read he'd know that..
diesel fuel was a reasonable candidate in the early stages of the investigation.
as more and better data came in it was ruled out.
it's called an update.
little facts like that have never stopped eots from being willfully ignorant.

but the real question is why agent daws continually and knowingly links to sites that still perpetuate these inaccuracies

 

[Politico]

The third building which collapsed on 9/11 was not hit by a plane

Yeah we knew that...11 years ago.

 

[daws101]

many worse fires in many buildings...never has a steel framed building collapsed due to fire..even NIST called it an extraordinary event with a very low probability of occurrence..but debwunkers act like its the norm and to be expected

So were two planes fully loaded with fuel and people. Unfathomable does not mean it can't happen.

there was no fuel or plane that hit wtc 7

augment by anomaly ...
here's an answer that is fact based "no plane plane struck wtc7 "directly" but As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, damaging the south face of the building and starting fires...
the bullshit eot's is trying to sell is an attempt to make it seem that the planes had no part in wtc7's collapse.
guess he's never heard of the domino effect...