Proof the cover story for 9/111 began immediately after the attacks

[eots]

because according to The NIST theory...it would

in 11 years you've not come up with better one

wow I have been...debwunked with ol 11 yrs line...way to dodge the facts

 

[Liability]

because according to The NIST theory...it would

in 11 years you've not come up with better one

wow I have been...debwunked with ol 11 yrs line...way to dodge the facts

Wow. id-eots just used the non-word "debwunked" in an utterly unoriginal and non-persuasive line yet again.

 

[eots]

yes really

so you are claiming what... A kid with a pack of matches or one single explosion could not have caused the collapse

no you are! Since there was no kid and no single explosion(to be more accurate no evidence of the use of explosives) that you are illiterate or making false claims or both....

according nist either scenario would of resulted in a progressive collapse...no testing for explosive residue was ever done

 

[daws101]

because according to The NIST theory...it would

in 11 years you've not come up with better one

wow I have been...debwunked with ol 11 yrs line...way to dodge the facts

how can I dodge what you don't have?
you've presented no facts just specious speculation and a steaming plie of bullshit.
your answer is a dodge....and not even original...

 

[eots]

in 11 years you've not come up with better one

wow i have been...debwunked with ol 11 yrs line...way to dodge the facts

wow. Id-eots just used the non-word "debwunked" in an utterly unoriginal and non-persuasive line yet again.

I coined the term debwunker fucker ...it means someone like you that tries to debunk facts by using insults and strawmen only

 

[eots]

in 11 years you've not come up with better one

wow I have been...debwunked with ol 11 yrs line...way to dodge the facts

how can I dodge what you don't have?
you've presented no facts just specious speculation and a steaming plie of bullshit.
your answer is a dodge....and not even original...

are you now claiming NIST did not say,,, similar fires under any circumstance or the failure of column 79 would of initiated the progressive collapse sequence

 

[daws101]

so you are claiming what... A kid with a pack of matches or one single explosion could not have caused the collapse

no you are! Since there was no kid and no single explosion(to be more accurate no evidence of the use of explosives) that you are illiterate or making false claims or both....

according nist either scenario would of resulted in a progressive collapse...no testing for explosive residue was ever done

yes I know that the report goes in to great detail about it. your point?
no tests for explosives were done because there was no evidence of there use...no det cord or receivers no explosive residue, no blast wave, no audio or video.
why waste time and money chasing nothing....

 

[Liability]

wow i have been...debwunked with ol 11 yrs line...way to dodge the facts

wow. Id-eots just used the non-word "debwunked" in an utterly unoriginal and non-persuasive line yet again.

I coined the term debwunker fucker ...it means someone like you that tries to debunk facts by using insults and strawmen only

You may have "coined" it but that only confirms that you are simpleton scumbag dishonest twoofer shithead, you cocksucker.

You offer nothing of value. Debunking your bullshit requires only pointing to an occasional actual fact -- which a lowlife piece of filth like you cannot even recognize.

 

[eots]

or are you claiming NIST for explosives or accelerants

 

[daws101]

wow I have been...debwunked with ol 11 yrs line...way to dodge the facts

how can I dodge what you don't have?
you've presented no facts just specious speculation and a steaming plie of bullshit.
your answer is a dodge....and not even original...

are you now claiming NIST did not say,,, similar fires under any circumstance or the failure of column 79 would of initiated the progressive collapse sequence

no you are..but again you're attempting to spin it into something else and failing.

 

[Liability]

no you are! Since there was no kid and no single explosion(to be more accurate no evidence of the use of explosives) that you are illiterate or making false claims or both....

according nist either scenario would of resulted in a progressive collapse...no testing for explosive residue was ever done

yes I know that the report goes in to great detail about it. your point?
no tests for explosives were done because there was no evidence of there use...no det cord or receivers no explosive residue, no blast wave, no audio or video.
why waste time and money chasing nothing....

Indeed. Why would it be necessary to waste any time or resources to "investigate" such a rabidly ridiculous DELUSION?

If one has a brain (this excludes morons and filth like id-eots, of course) one can see how FACIALLY ridiculous it is to even pretend that the conspiracy in their fevered nightmares could possibly exist. ALL that would HAVE TO BE true in order for their absurd conspiracy blather to be even remotely possible is so staggeringly impossible, that it doesn't even pass a giggle test.

Twoofers need to be under observation.

 

[daws101]

or are you claiming NIST for explosives or accelerants

english please ?!

 

[eots]

no you are! Since there was no kid and no single explosion(to be more accurate no evidence of the use of explosives) that you are illiterate or making false claims or both....

according nist either scenario would of resulted in a progressive collapse...no testing for explosive residue was ever done

yes I know that the report goes in to great detail about it. your point?
no tests for explosives were done because there was no evidence of there use...no det cord or receivers no explosive residue, no blast wave, no audio or video.
why waste time and money chasing nothing....

what an idiot...

 

[eots]

english please ?!

or are you claiming NIST for TESTED for explosives or accelerants

 

[Liability]

according nist either scenario would of resulted in a progressive collapse...no testing for explosive residue was ever done

yes I know that the report goes in to great detail about it. your point?
no tests for explosives were done because there was no evidence of there use...no det cord or receivers no explosive residue, no blast wave, no audio or video.
why waste time and money chasing nothing....

what an idiot...

Finally. You admit what you are.

A good first step id-eots.

 

[eots]

if you only had to take out on column you would not need all these items you list

 

[x0Maximilian0x]

Still no response to the below information from the full time O.J. Simpson defense attorneys attempting to defend the "official story" through wits end...

Interesting how the story was put out so fast...before any tower even collapsed and only 33 minutes after the second tower got hit was an elaborate story being aired on who's responsible...

Well it certainly brings to question if the "official story" for 9/11 was prewitten before the attacks...

If nothing else it sure looks bad for the investigation into who was responsible for 9/11 being completed so fast... let alone the investigation on who was responsible having to make its way to the media with an elaborate story written...

The story being out so fast is incriminating enough let alone if you think about...was the investigation done before the attacks even happened...I think the answer is quite clear.

Another interesting fact is the first guy who promoted the story was Jerome Hauer who just happened to be...

*Bio Warfare expert...which brings to mind the anthrax attacks right after 9/11 targeting Senate and Media

*Drug Company Director...which brings to mind the fact that the White House staff was taking the medication for anthrax before the first anthrax attack even occured...(fact if you are not too lazy to check for yourself)

*Commissioner for Office of Emergency Management...which brings to mind how it was being reinforced as a sky bunker just before 9/11 on the 23rd floor of World Tade Center 7, Building 7...with its floors, walls, windows all being reinforced making it some type of tree fort within sight of the World Trade Center twin towers...

*Bush Administration Insider...last but not least

 

[daws101]

The building was not compromised.by damage...the NIST claim is the failure of column 79...UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE...would of resulted in initiation of the NIST collapse scenario ...(for example an a single explosion...or a kid with a pack of matches could cause the complete collapse of a 47 story steel framed building)

this line is bullshit.:"UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.."
what was actually said Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of the WTC towers?
Yes. 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.

 

[eots]

yes I know that the report goes in to great detail about it. your point?
no tests for explosives were done because there was no evidence of there use...no det cord or receivers no explosive residue, no blast wave, no audio or video.
why waste time and money chasing nothing....

what an idiot...

Finally. You admit what you are.

A good first step id-eots.

so you can't comprehend what you read I see

 

[eots]

The building was not compromised.by damage...the NIST claim is the failure of column 79...UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE...would of resulted in initiation of the NIST collapse scenario ...(for example an a single explosion...or a kid with a pack of matches could cause the complete collapse of a 47 story steel framed building)

this line is bullshit.:"UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.."
what was actually said Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of the WTC towers?
Yes. 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.

blah blan blah..NIST CLEARLY SAYS THE LOSS OF COLUMN 79 UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN A PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE...THAT SIMPLE