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

[eots]

Ok......................which point would you like to start with? Pick one and lets discuss it.

Ok this is really the ONLY one that needs to be discussed because its the point nobody has ever been able to debunk which is again building 7 the crux of the 9/11 coverup commission they couldnt get around and nobody has ever been able to get around.

again Building 7 was a couple blocks away from the towers.again this is where you crippled your argument mentioniong the combination of the jet and the fires causing the collapse.well bld 7 WASNT hit by an airliner and the fires were not anywhere near as severe as the fires in the buildings that were next door neighbors to the towers which were also damaged FAR MORE EXTENSIVELY as these photos that Pualitican posted on this thread prove.Its the 9th post on this page.you going to deny those buildings next to the towers were not damaged far worse than bld 7? the first two pics are buildings that are not part of world trade center,they are posted because THEY are serious fires unlike the twin towers or bld 7 yet those towers remained standing is why he posted those two pics first.

so WHY did THEY not collapse genius? could it be possible because they were not owned by jew Larry Silverstein? think, you can do it.oh thats right,your in denial and a coincidence theorist so you dont want to think.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...question-for-the-911-conspiracy-buffs-16.html

So, your theory is that Building 7 couldn’t possibly have fallen due to being on fire ALL DAY? Even though the FDNY was expecting it to fall at any time.:

We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110081.PDF

THERE WHERE NOT FIRES ON ALL FLOORS AND NO EVIDENCE OF THIS

Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110447.PDF

THATS A QUESTION


When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)

IT IS NOT TRUE THERE WHERE NOT FIRES ON ALL 47 FLOORS AND NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM



Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade www.thememoryhole.org / server maintenance page 48.

HE WAS...ADVISED

There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post.
– Capt. Chris Boyle http://tinyurl.com/e7bzp

BUT NIST DETERMINED THE HOKE WAS NOT A FACTOR IN THE COLLAPSE

[B]They were saying building Seven was going to collapse, so we regrouped and went back to our rig. We waited for building Seven to come down. –Firefighter James Wallace http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110409.PDF[/B]

who is they ??


Now that is just a small fraction of the quotes by fireman that I have found. Here is a link to the full accounts of the FDNY.
FDNY accounts are here: About.com: http://216.185.112.5/presenter.jhtml?identifier=45352l

Sounds to me like the FDNY was fully expecting it to come down.

YOU MEAN HERE IS A LINK TO SELECT FIREFIGHTER STATEMENTS SOUNDS LIKE A FEW QOUTES MOSTLY SAYING THEY WERE TOLD IT WOULD COME DOWN

They were literally waiting for it to come down so they could continue their rescue efforts. They had been pulled back because by all estimates, that building was in danger of collapse. Are you claiming that all these men knew that the building was going to be “brought down” by some means other than the damage that they all witnessed?

ALL THESE MEN ?? AND NIST DETERMINED DAMAGE WAS NOT A FACTOR !!!!

It’s easy to sit here now, 10 years later, watching a video of the north side of that building as it falls and saying “that looks like a controlled demolition”. The problem with that are all the actual people, mainly firefighters, which were ACTUALLY THERE.

YES AND YOU HAVE INGNORED ALL TESTIMONY SAYING THEY SAY NO RESON THAT BUILDING WOULD COME DOWN...WHY IS THAT ??

Now that the "crux" of your argument lay in waste, what else you got!?

I GOT ANOTHER DEBWUNKER THAT DOES NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT THE NIST REPORT ON WTC 7 CLAIMS AND IGNORES THE OF ALL FIRST RESPONDERS THAT SPEAK OF EXPLOSIONS AND THAT THEY SAW NO REASON THAT BUILDING WOULD COME DOWN

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fM9e-4yQJfE]9/11 First Responder Speaks: WTC 7 Exposed - YouTube[/ame]

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IfgYhjQ9fE]WTC Building 7 Explosions First Responder Craig Bartmer Interview - YouTube[/ame]

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db6JrFjwL8M]9/11 First Responder David Miller Speaks about 9/11 - Pt.II - YouTube[/ame]

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgCoV7phKa8&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL1F1B1F5906BB03D9]Jonathan Barnett - forensic engineer for WTC7 collapse - YouTube[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsbbpUA9FHM]Erik Lawyer - Firefighter - AE911Truth.org - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Light]

Ok this is really the ONLY one that needs to be discussed because its the point nobody has ever been able to debunk which is again building 7 the crux of the 9/11 coverup commission they couldnt get around and nobody has ever been able to get around.

again Building 7 was a couple blocks away from the towers.again this is where you crippled your argument mentioniong the combination of the jet and the fires causing the collapse.well bld 7 WASNT hit by an airliner and the fires were not anywhere near as severe as the fires in the buildings that were next door neighbors to the towers which were also damaged FAR MORE EXTENSIVELY as these photos that Pualitican posted on this thread prove.Its the 9th post on this page.you going to deny those buildings next to the towers were not damaged far worse than bld 7? the first two pics are buildings that are not part of world trade center,they are posted because THEY are serious fires unlike the twin towers or bld 7 yet those towers remained standing is why he posted those two pics first.

so WHY did THEY not collapse genius? could it be possible because they were not owned by jew Larry Silverstein? think, you can do it.oh thats right,your in denial and a coincidence theorist so you dont want to think.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...question-for-the-911-conspiracy-buffs-16.html

So, your theory is that Building 7 couldn’t possibly have fallen due to being on fire ALL DAY? Even though the FDNY was expecting it to fall at any time.:



THERE WHERE NOT FIRES ON ALL FLOORS AND NO EVIDENCE OF THIS




THATS A QUESTION


When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)

IT IS NOT TRUE THERE WHERE NOT FIRES ON ALL 47 FLOORS AND NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM



Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade www.thememoryhole.org / server maintenance page 48.

HE WAS...ADVISED



BUT NIST DETERMINED THE HOKE WAS NOT A FACTOR IN THE COLLAPSE



who is they ??


Now that is just a small fraction of the quotes by fireman that I have found. Here is a link to the full accounts of the FDNY.
FDNY accounts are here: About.com: http://216.185.112.5/presenter.jhtml?identifier=45352l


YOU MEAN HERE IS A LINK TO SELECT FIREFIGHTER STATEMENTS SOUNDS LIKE A FEW QOUTES MOSTLY SAYING THEY WERE TOLD IT WOULD COME DOWN

ALL THESE MEN ?? AND NIST DETERMINED DAMAGE WAS NOT A FACTOR !!!!



YES AND YOU HAVE INGNORED ALL TESTIMONY SAYING THEY SAY NO RESON THAT BUILDING WOULD COME DOWN...WHY IS THAT ??

Now that the "crux" of your argument lay in waste, what else you got!?

I GOT ANOTHER DEBWUNKER THAT DOES NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT THE NIST REPORT ON WTC 7 CLAIMS AND IGNORES THE OF ALL FIRST RESPONDERS THAT SPEAK OF EXPLOSIONS AND THAT THEY SAW NO REASON THAT BUILDING WOULD COME DOWN

No evidence of the extent of the fires because there doesn't happen to be video or pics of the fires? We are supposed to ignore what firefighters on the site said and believe whatever is said on the net?
Can you post some of that "testimony saying there was no reason for the building to come down"?...............That is from someone that was there, not some armchair quarterback that THINKS they know what was going on.
As for explosions.............how many times does THIS need to be said?..........Explosions don't equal explosives. Multiple buildings and rubble on fire and you expect no explosions!? When someone finds EVIDENCE of explosives, then you can use that argument.

By the way, thanks for trying to answer for "9/11 inside job", but this was in response to his claim. I want to hear what HE says.

 

[eots]

So, your theory is that Building 7 couldn’t possibly have fallen due to being on fire ALL DAY? Even though the FDNY was expecting it to fall at any time.:



THERE WHERE NOT FIRES ON ALL FLOORS AND NO EVIDENCE OF THIS




THATS A QUESTION


When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)

IT IS NOT TRUE THERE WHERE NOT FIRES ON ALL 47 FLOORS AND NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM



Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade www.thememoryhole.org / server maintenance page 48.

HE WAS...ADVISED



BUT NIST DETERMINED THE HOKE WAS NOT A FACTOR IN THE COLLAPSE



who is they ??


Now that is just a small fraction of the quotes by fireman that I have found. Here is a link to the full accounts of the FDNY.
FDNY accounts are here: About.com: http://216.185.112.5/presenter.jhtml?identifier=45352l


YOU MEAN HERE IS A LINK TO SELECT FIREFIGHTER STATEMENTS SOUNDS LIKE A FEW QOUTES MOSTLY SAYING THEY WERE TOLD IT WOULD COME DOWN

ALL THESE MEN ?? AND NIST DETERMINED DAMAGE WAS NOT A FACTOR !!!!



YES AND YOU HAVE INGNORED ALL TESTIMONY SAYING THEY SAY NO RESON THAT BUILDING WOULD COME DOWN...WHY IS THAT ??




I GOT ANOTHER DEBWUNKER THAT DOES NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT THE NIST REPORT ON WTC 7 CLAIMS AND IGNORES THE OF ALL FIRST RESPONDERS THAT SPEAK OF EXPLOSIONS AND THAT THEY SAW NO REASON THAT BUILDING WOULD COME DOWN

No evidence of the extent of the fires because there doesn't happen to be video or pics of the fires? We are supposed to ignore what firefighters on the site said and believe whatever is said on the net?

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF FIRES ON ALL FLOORS AND FIREFIGHTER THAT CONFIRMS THIS

Can you post some of that "testimony saying there was no reason for the building to come down"?...............That is from someone that was there, not some armchair quarterback that THINKS they know what was going on.
As for explosions.............how many times does THIS need to be said?..........Explosions don't equal explosives. Multiple buildings and rubble on fire and you expect no explosions!? When someone finds EVIDENCE of explosives, then you can use that argument.

RAMBLING DISCOURSE...FOCUS

By the way, thanks for trying to answer for "9/11 inside job", but this was in response to his claim. I want to hear what HE says.

GO READ THE NIST REPORT AND UNDERSTAND IT BEFORE YOU PLAY DEBWUNKER..CLEARLY YOU DO NOT EVEN KNOW THE FINDINGS OF THE OFFICIAL REPORT YOU SUPPORT..WHICH MAKES YOU A JOKE

 

[Light]

No evidence of the extent of the fires because there doesn't happen to be video or pics of the fires? We are supposed to ignore what firefighters on the site said and believe whatever is said on the net?

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF FIRES ON ALL FLOORS AND FIREFIGHTER THAT CONFIRMS THIS



RAMBLING DISCOURSE...FOCUS

By the way, thanks for trying to answer for "9/11 inside job", but this was in response to his claim. I want to hear what HE says.

GO READ THE NIST REPORT AND UNDERSTAND IT BEFORE YOU PLAY DEBWUNKER..CLEARLY YOU DO NOT EVEN KNOW THE FINDINGS OF THE OFFICIAL REPORT YOU SUPPORT..WHICH MAKES YOU A JOKE

I have read the NIST Report. What exactly is your claim against it?

 

[eots]

GO READ THE NIST REPORT AND UNDERSTAND IT BEFORE YOU PLAY DEBWUNKER..CLEARLY YOU DO NOT EVEN KNOW THE FINDINGS OF THE OFFICIAL REPORT YOU SUPPORT..WHICH MAKES YOU A JOKE

I have read the NIST Report. What exactly is your claim against it?

IN THE NIST THEORY THE HOLE PLAYED NO ROLE IN THE COLLAPSE...SO IT SEEMS YOU HAVE A CLAIM AGAINST IT

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U]WTC 7 fires and south side hole - YouTube[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8]Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Light]

I have read the NIST Report. What exactly is your claim against it?

IN THE NIST THEORY THE HOLE PLAYED NO ROLE IN THE COLLAPSE...

Yes, the damage alone, didn't cause the collapse. The damage caused by the falling tower DID ignite the fires that lead to the collapse. The damage to the south face of that building was extensive. That much debris falling into that many floors of WTC7 is what caused the fires to be so spread through that building. Had the tower not damaged WTC7 and it still collapsed, I would have to agree that something else must have caused the collapse. But to see the damage that was caused by the tower and hear FDNY report the damage and the fires that they witnessed tells me that the building was indeed compromised.

To argue "the damage didn't cause the collapse" is a little something called a straw man argument! The claim has not been made that it did. The claim is that the wide spread fires were caused by the damage............... and the fires brought down the building.

 

[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)

 

[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)

not this intentional misinterpretation again this is what nist said: Did debris from the collapse of WTC 1 cause damage to WTC 7's structure in a way that contributed to the building's collapse?
The debris caused structural damage to the southwest region of the building-severing seven exterior columns-but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse. The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse after the fires grew and spread to the northeast region after several hours. The debris impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns. The debris impact damage did play a secondary role in the last stages of the collapse sequence, where the exterior façade buckled at the lower floors where the impact damage was located. A separate analysis showed that even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 (the south tower) hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings.

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.

so eot's is bullshiting again! http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

 

[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)

not this intentional misinterpretation again this is what nist said: Did debris from the collapse of WTC 1 cause damage to WTC 7's structure in a way that contributed to the building's collapse?
The debris caused structural damage to the southwest region of the building-severing seven exterior columns-but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse. The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse after the fires grew and spread to the northeast region after several hours. The debris impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns. The debris impact damage did play a secondary role in the last stages of the collapse sequence, where the exterior façade buckled at the lower floors where the impact damage was located. A separate analysis showed that even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 (the south tower) hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings.

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.

so eot's is bullshiting again!

oh really..

 

[daws101]

What are the major differences between "typical" major high rise building fires that have occurred in the United States and the fire in the WTC 7 building on September 11, 2001?
There are more similarities than differences between the uncontrolled fires that burned in WTC 7 and those that occurred in the following buildings: First Interstate Bank Building (1988), One Meridian Plaza Building (1981), One New York Plaza (1970), and WTC 51 (2001).

The following factors describe the fire events that occurred in both WTC 7 and the referenced buildings: 1) the fuel for the fires was ordinary office combustibles at ordinary combustible load levels; 2) there was no use of accelerants; 3) the spread of fire from combustible to combustible was governed by ordinary fire physics; 4) fire-induced window breakage provided ventilation for continued fire spread and growth; 5) there were simultaneous fires on multiple floors; 6) the fires on each floor occupied a substantial portion of the floor; 7) the fires on each floor had passed the point of flashover and the structure was subjected to typical post-flashover temperatures; 8) the sprinklers were inoperative or ineffective; and 9) the fires burned for sufficient time to cause significant distortion and/or failure to the building structure.

There were some differences between the fires in WTC 7 and those in the referenced buildings, but these differences were secondary to the fire factors that led to the collapse of WTC 7: 1) Fires in high rise buildings typically have a single point of origin on a single floor, whereas the fires in WTC 7 likely had a single point of origin on multiple (10) floors; 2); fires in other high rise buildings were due to isolated events, whereas the fires in WTC 7 followed the collapse of WTC 1; 3) water was available to fight fires in the other high rise buildings, but the water supply to fight fires in WTC 7 was impaired; and 4) while the fires in the other buildings were actively fought by fire fighters to the extent possible, in WTC 7, no efforts were made to fight the fires.

The differences in the fires were not meaningful for the following reasons. By the time that WTC 7 collapsed, the fires in WTC 7 had advanced well beyond the likely points of origin on multiple floors (i.e., south and west faces) and originating points of fire origin had no bearing on the fire conditions when the building collapsed (i.e., in the northeast quadrant). Additionally, in each of the other referenced buildings, the fires burned out several floors, even with available water and fire fighting activities (except for WTC 5). Thus, whether the fire fighters fought the WTC 7 fires or not is not a meaningful point of dissimilarity from the other cited fires.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

 

[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)

not this intentional misinterpretation again this is what nist said: Did debris from the collapse of WTC 1 cause damage to WTC 7's structure in a way that contributed to the building's collapse?
The debris caused structural damage to the southwest region of the building-severing seven exterior columns-but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse. The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse after the fires grew and spread to the northeast region after several hours. The debris impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns. The debris impact damage did play a secondary role in the last stages of the collapse sequence, where the exterior façade buckled at the lower floors where the impact damage was located. A separate analysis showed that even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 (the south tower) hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings.

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.

so eot's is bullshiting again!

oh really..

yes really.....this is your failed attempt to take this: "A separate analysis showed that even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 (the south tower) hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings.

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." out of context and make it more important the it actually is...
that's why it's bullshit... and there is the pesky fact you have no evidence of any other cause....
witnesses hearing explosions completely debunks your thermite fairy tale.
as to explosions I could name a hundred things that exploded that day ,none of them explosives.
BTW most people can't tell the difference between a blowout and a backfire,
that's why earwittness testimony alone is not evidence.

 

[eots]

not this intentional misinterpretation again this is what nist said: Did debris from the collapse of WTC 1 cause damage to WTC 7's structure in a way that contributed to the building's collapse?
The debris caused structural damage to the southwest region of the building-severing seven exterior columns-but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse. The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse after the fires grew and spread to the northeast region after several hours. The debris impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns. The debris impact damage did play a secondary role in the last stages of the collapse sequence, where the exterior façade buckled at the lower floors where the impact damage was located. A separate analysis showed that even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 (the south tower) hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings.

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.

so eot's is bullshiting again!

oh really..

yes really

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

 

[eots]

because according to The NIST theory...it would

 

[daws101]

oh really..

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....

 

[daws101]

because according to The NIST theory...it would

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