National Geographic on 9/11

why do you try to deceive like that...wtc 7 did not have a 110 story building fall on it you phrase it that way in a flailing attempt to connect the damage from falling debris to the collapse of wtc 7 when nist sates that regardless of structural damage the building still would have collapsed from the fires alone...wtf is wrong with you ??


The collapse of wtc 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. A 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse

even without the structural damage, wtc 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building.




The fire in philadelphia was being fought the entire time it was burning. Wtc7 had absolutely no firefighting going on for hours.

Not a valid comparison.

the fires in wtc 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including philadelphia's one meridian plaza,
wtc.nist.gov/media/nist_ncstar_1a_for_public_comment.pdf
stfu
 
I know you are but what am I ..lol...what a loser you cant even address that fact your 110 story building line is pointless and according to NIST the collapse would of occurred from the fires alone..its the fact
which is another LIE by you
 
FUN FACTS ABOUT TROOFERS:

Did you know that one variation of the conspiracy theory offered by the Troofers was that the jet fuel is NOT what did all the burning in the Twin Towers? Nope. I keed you not. Some of the Troofer scum actually maintain that the "conspirators" (there have to be a lot of those fuckers) sent huge pods filled with NAPALM crashing into the Twin Towers and THAT'S what did all the burning!

I have also discovered that SOME Troofers think that W's daddy (Booooosh the elder) was actually the son of a famous German Nazi. Evidently, Prescott Bush was ALSO one of the Nazis according to some of these Troofer goons.
 
ANOTHER FUN FACT ABOUT TROOFERS:

Again, I keed you not: SOME of the Troofers also seem to believe that George H.W. Bush was IN Dallas Texas on November 22, 1963 standing just outside the infamous book depository!

BONUS SET OF TROOFER FUN FACTS:

Some of the Troofers also seem to believe that George H.W. Bush was the inspiration for the Curious George monkey! And, get this, there's a Nazi connection to THAT ONE, too!
 
I know you are but what am I ..lol...what a loser you cant even address that fact your 110 story building line is pointless and according to NIST the collapse would of occurred from the fires alone..its the fact
which is another LIE by you

I just posted the NIST quote stating the collapse would of occurred regardless of the structural damage...you are out of your head..in completely denial...you say its incorrect ..prove it ...back up your statement
 
I know you are but what am I ..lol...what a loser you cant even address that fact your 110 story building line is pointless and according to NIST the collapse would of occurred from the fires alone..its the fact
which is another LIE by you

I just posted the NIST quote stating the collapse would of occurred regardless of the structural damage...you are out of your head..in completely denial...you say its incorrect ..prove it ...back up your statement
you lie again
 
some people ...that believe the official story are rapist and murders...fun fact

Are you one of the Troofers who believes that George H.W. Bush was the son of a Nazi?

Are you one of the scumbag Troofers who actually believes that our own government committed mass murder to falsely blame some Islamo-nazis as a pretext to take us to war?

Are you the kind of pussy who would deliberately violate one of the rules of this Board?

That tells us all something about YOUR dedication to "truth." You agree to abide by some pretty basic, simple, easily-kept promises and then you deliberately and willfully violate one of those terms as soon as it's expedient for you.

It would be easier if you'd just tell the truth: you have doubts but you have NO legitimate ground to make such reckless and vile accusations about anybody in the American government. Yet, you make those irresponsible accusations all the time, anyway, because you are unconcerned with anything akin to the TRUTH.

You filthy lying scumbag Troofers are a miserable excuse for human beings.
 
Last edited:
cant do it ...you should be ashamed putting two word response like..you lie...are you Brain damaged or what..why waste your time if you cant address an issue beyond that ...it is pathtic...

Two words are often all it takes to expose deliberate Troofer dishonesty.

And two words are often far more than any of the shit you post deserves in response.

If you want to know what's pathtic, id-eots, just look in the mirror.
 
some people ...that believe the official story are rapist and murders...fun fact

Are you one of the Troofers who believes that George H.W. Bush was the son of a Nazi?

Are you one of the scumbag Troofers who actually believes that our own government committed mass murder to falsely blame some Islamo-nazis as a pretext to take us to war?

Are you the kind of pussy who would deliberately violate one of the rules of this Board?

That tells us all something about YOUR dedication to "truth." You agree to abide by some pretty basic, simpl,e easil- kept promises and then you deliberately and willfully violate one of those terms as soon as it's expedient for you.

It would be easier if you'd just tell the truth: you have doubts but you have NO legitimate ground to make such reckless and vile accusations about anybody in the American government. Yet, you make thoise irresponsible accusations all the time, anyway, because you are unconcerned with anything akin to the TRUTH.

You filthy lying scumbag Troofers are a miserable excuse for human beings.

Why are so so schizophrenic in your responses..go start a thread on Prescott bush and his connect ins is thats what you wish to discuss
 
some people ...that believe the official story are rapist and murders...fun fact

Are you one of the Troofers who believes that George H.W. Bush was the son of a Nazi?

Are you one of the scumbag Troofers who actually believes that our own government committed mass murder to falsely blame some Islamo-nazis as a pretext to take us to war?

Are you the kind of pussy who would deliberately violate one of the rules of this Board?

That tells us all something about YOUR dedication to "truth." You agree to abide by some pretty basic, simpl,e easil- kept promises and then you deliberately and willfully violate one of those terms as soon as it's expedient for you.

It would be easier if you'd just tell the truth: you have doubts but you have NO legitimate ground to make such reckless and vile accusations about anybody in the American government. Yet, you make thoise irresponsible accusations all the time, anyway, because you are unconcerned with anything akin to the TRUTH.

You filthy lying scumbag Troofers are a miserable excuse for human beings.

Why are so so schizophrenic in your responses..go start a thread on Prescott bush and his connect ins is thats what you wish to discuss

Hm. I wonder if it makes sense to take any advice from a lying scumbag Troofer with such a tenuous grasp on English, grammar, spelling, logic, reason and judgment?

:lol:

By the way, among the questions you just ducked, this one interests me at the moment, most of all: Are you the kind of pussy who would deliberately violate one of the rules of this Board?

I believe you ducked THAT one for a very obvious reason.
 
cant do it ...you should be ashamed putting two word response like..you lie...are you Brain damaged or what..why waste your time if you cant address an issue beyond that ...it is pathtic...

as opposed to this brilliant response by you?


you deleted this part of my post...



Quote Fizz ..The fire in philadelphia was being fought the entire time it was burning. Wtc7 had absolutely no firefighting going on for hours.

Not a valid comparison.


the fires in wtc 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including philadelphia's one meridian plaza,
wtc.nist.gov/media/nist_ncstar_1a_for_public_comment.pdf

stfu
 
cant do it ...you should be ashamed putting two word response like..you lie...are you Brain damaged or what..why waste your time if you cant address an issue beyond that ...it is pathtic...

as opposed to this brilliant response by you?

you deleted this part of my post...



Quote Fizz ..The fire in philadelphia was being fought the entire time it was burning. Wtc7 had absolutely no firefighting going on for hours.

Not a valid comparison.


the fires in wtc 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including philadelphia's one meridian plaza,
wtc.nist.gov/media/nist_ncstar_1a_for_public_comment.pdf

stfu

You just flat out LIED again.

That seems to be ALL you fucking Troofers can do: lie.

In reality, your ENTIRE reply was: "stfu"

You said not one other word. Not a letter. Not a period. Nothing else at all, you outright deliberate lying fucktard scumbag "Troofer."

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1997316-post361.html

Here, to preserve it against any editing efforts by you (since you are a lowlife deliberate outright filthy liar), is the entire post ending with your sole four letter response:

why do you try to deceive like that...wtc 7 did not have a 110 story building fall on it you phrase it that way in a flailing attempt to connect the damage from falling debris to the collapse of wtc 7 when nist sates that regardless of structural damage the building still would have collapsed from the fires alone...wtf is wrong with you ??


The collapse of wtc 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. A 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse

even without the structural damage, wtc 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building.




The fire in philadelphia was being fought the entire time it was burning. Wtc7 had absolutely no firefighting going on for hours.

Not a valid comparison.

the fires in wtc 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including philadelphia's one meridian plaza,
wtc.nist.gov/media/nist_ncstar_1a_for_public_comment.pdf
stfu
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top