Why is it truthers feel the need to lie?

[SFC Ollie]

wtc 7’s column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—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.

nist tech beat - november 20, 2008

no shit
no where does that say it did collapse just because of that one column

right there

Only if you leave out the words would and if.

 

[DiveCon]

wtc 7’s column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—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.

nist tech beat - november 20, 2008

no shit
no where does that say it did collapse just because of that one column

right there

no, it didnt say "did" said "would" which means that if none of the iother conditions had been involved that it would have still collapsed, but it doesnt say that it would have collapsed the exact same way

 

[tempesta29]

no shit
no where does that say it did collapse just because of that one column

right there

no, it didnt say "did" said "would" which means that if none of the iother conditions had been involved that it would have still collapsed, but it doesnt say that it would have collapsed the exact same way

Straw man. Nobody said anything about "the exact same way". You're moving goal posts.

 

[SFC Ollie]

And we lose the point. Eots consistently wants to say that the NIST report says that the collapse of the towers were not a factor in the collapse of WTC7.

Once again from the report:

"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. "

Conclusion: That even though fire was the primary cause of the failure, the damage done to the building by the collapse of the tower was also a factor.

 

[DiveCon]

right there

no, it didnt say "did" said "would" which means that if none of the iother conditions had been involved that it would have still collapsed, but it doesnt say that it would have collapsed the exact same way

Straw man. Nobody said anything about "the exact same way". You're moving goal posts.

wrong, it is eots and you morons that are pul;ling out the strawmen

 

[tempesta29]

no, it didnt say "did" said "would" which means that if none of the iother conditions had been involved that it would have still collapsed, but it doesnt say that it would have collapsed the exact same way

Straw man. Nobody said anything about "the exact same way". You're moving goal posts.

wrong, it is eots and you morons that are pul;ling out the strawmen

Oh, really? Thanks for clarifying once again. Gosh you're a great help.

 

[DiveCon]

Straw man. Nobody said anything about "the exact same way". You're moving goal posts.

wrong, it is eots and you morons that are pul;ling out the strawmen

Oh, really? Thanks for clarifying once again. Gosh you're a great help.

why is it you morons want to ignore what it actually says an leave out the words "would" "if" "could" ???
you want to make it seem like it says something it DOESNT
do you need it any clearer?

 

[tempesta29]

And we lose the point. Eots consistently wants to say that the NIST report says that the collapse of the towers were not a factor in the collapse of WTC7.

Once again from the report:

"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. "

Conclusion: That even though fire was the primary cause of the failure, the damage done to the building by the collapse of the tower was also a factor.

They were not decisive factors. That's pretty significant. You know, the office equipment in the building was also a factor in WTC 7's collapse.

 

[SFC Ollie]

And we lose the point. Eots consistently wants to say that the NIST report says that the collapse of the towers were not a factor in the collapse of WTC7.

Once again from the report:

"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. "

Conclusion: That even though fire was the primary cause of the failure, the damage done to the building by the collapse of the tower was also a factor.

They were not decisive factors. That's pretty significant. You know, the office equipment in the building was also a factor in WTC 7's collapse.

STFU you are embarrassing yourself.

 

[slackjawed]

To get back to the Op, twoofwer lie 'cause it's in their nature. Like it's in a scorpion's nature to sting you.

It's because that's just what kind of treasonous little jerkweeds they are.

 

[tempesta29]

STFU you are embarrassing yourself.

I don't feel embarrassed, so no, you're wrong. If you're embarrassed for having written such garbage then I suggest you change your attitude.

 

[eots]

And we lose the point. Eots consistently wants to say that the NIST report says that the collapse of the towers were not a factor in the collapse of WTC7.

Once again from the report:

"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. "

Conclusion: That even though fire was the primary cause of the failure, the damage done to the building by the collapse of the tower was also a factor.

actually the conclusion was..."The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events."

 

[SFC Ollie]

And we lose the point. Eots consistently wants to say that the NIST report says that the collapse of the towers were not a factor in the collapse of WTC7.

Once again from the report:

"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. "

Conclusion: That even though fire was the primary cause of the failure, the damage done to the building by the collapse of the tower was also a factor.

actually the conclusion was..."The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events."

Would have.....there's that word again. Do you still deny that the damage to the building was a factor?

 

[eots]

and we lose the point. Eots consistently wants to say that the nist report says that the collapse of the towers were not a factor in the collapse of wtc7.

Once again from the report:

"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. "

conclusion: That even though fire was the primary cause of the failure, the damage done to the building by the collapse of the tower was also a factor.

actually the conclusion was..."the investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events."

would have.....there's that word again. Do you still deny that the damage to the building was a factor?

the fact the building was ever built was a factor in its collapse the only factor the damage played was its credited for igniting the fire but not for initiating the collapse sequence

 

[eots]

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 Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC_total__rept.pdf

 

[DiveCon]

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 Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC_total__rept.pdf

there are those words again

 

[eots]

In other word...if there wa no damage and instead you disabled the sprinkler system on ten floors and lit a pile of newspapers on fire the building would eventually collapse

 

[DiveCon]

In other word...if there wa no damage and instead you disabled the sprinkler system on ten floors and lit a pile of newspapers on fire the building would eventually collapse

would have isn't did

 

[eots]

in other word...if there wa no damage and instead you disabled the sprinkler system on ten floors and lit a pile of newspapers on fire the building would eventually collapse

would have isn't did

no, would have is would have so deal with that fact...the wtc 7 did collapse from fires ignited from falling debris and partially disabling sprinklers according to NIST and if you partially disabled the sprinkler and those fires were started with a match instead the result would have been virtually same...according to NIST

 

[DiveCon]

in other word...if there wa no damage and instead you disabled the sprinkler system on ten floors and lit a pile of newspapers on fire the building would eventually collapse

would have isn't did

no, would have is would have so deal with that fact...the wtc 7 did collapse from fires ignited from falling debris and partially disabling sprinklers according to NIST and if you partially disabled the sprinkler and those fires were started with a match instead the result would have been virtually same...according to NIST

wrong again, the report said "would have" not "did" as you do