It is an official NatGeo video not an official explanation about why the towers collapsed. In addition it never claims that a jet fuel fire melted steel nor does it state that melted steel caused the collapse of the fire. Once again you fail miserably.
Yes you fail. It is you who is lying. Still no referrence to anyone claiming a jet fuel fire melted steel causing the towers collapse.
whats the point here and where did you come up with that (*)(*)(*)(*)? It sounds like you cant distinguish the difference between sarcasm and a claim.
Your fellow twoofers came up with it not me and it is fact they made the claim. Twoofers such as you have been making this lame argument for over a decade but it is a silly lie because no one claimed that a jet fuel fire melted steel and caused the towers collapse. But that is in fact what twoofers are claiming that NIST or the WTC report or others in authority stated to explain the collapse. Maybe you never stated such a lie personally but your comrades drag it out over and over again despite being proven false. On the other hand you have made many other false claims such as the report being fradulent. You have never produced evidence for your claims that is the point
So shall I start pounding you with OSHugger outrageously stoopid noob (*)(*)(*)(*) thats been posting since the beginning of time and still proffered as true when its been proven to them its not and they are simply too dimwitted to get it? How about the the WTC was just a thin shell, or the outside was glass, I mean (*)(*)(*)(*) I can go on for pages with stoopid dablunder noob (*)(*)(*)(*). Wanna do that? If you do then I want to know how thin that shell was and the glass is so absurdotoid I cant even frame a question. You can feel free to post, in detail, what you think I falsely claimed. Chandler however goes over it in great detail, what he is not aware of is that there are standards that these agencies must uphold and the kind of deception NIST pulled is criminal fraud.
You just made a false claim that the NIST report was deception. It was not and you and Chandler cannot produce evidence that it was. You never have and never will because you have no such evidence. You just say it is.
again and for the last time, he goes over it and highlights it and he even misses some. watch the clip, I am done with this unless you have something specific to cite.
I did citre something specific he and you both fail to provide any evidence that the NIST report was fruadulent or a deception. Yes you are done and have been crushed as you always are on all these tthreads.
No, I am not wrong. You are simply making things up which are completely contradicted by the facts again. David Chandler is a physics teacher who forced NIST to contradict themselves and admit there was free-fall acceleration at WTC 7, and Steven Jones is a physics professor who annihilated the NIST report from start to finish. There isn't much point trying to have a conversation with me if you're simply going to lie outrageously. I'll just put you on ignore and speak to someone more truthful.
False claim, huh? NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception." http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm Serious comedy value can also be had from this contradiction:- ‘free fall happens only when there are no structural components below the falling section of the building.’ Any natural scenario is going to involve a progression of failures and these don’t happen instantaneously.” Head of NIST, Shyam Sunder. http://rememberbuilding7.org/nist-collapse-model/ Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm The NIST report isn't deception: it's the bloody well laughing stock of the entire world. A deception implies the use of cunning, instead of blatantly contradicting yourself every other sentence with your own language.
Sorry kid,but one person's alleged mistatements doesn't invalidate the whole report... Speaking of 'laughingstocks'.....
I'm afraid they do when that "one person" is the lead investigator, and when everything they say contradicts either the evidence, or something else they have said. The NIST report is criminally fraudulent, and no statements need to be made for this to be proven. One simply needs the knowledge that NIST did not investigate the most probable hypothesis, which was obviously demolition. In true comedic fashion, NIST then went on to argue with the scientists who actually investigated and found evidence for demolition. That simply is the opposite of the scientific method. NIST had already reached its conclusions before it began its "investigation".
Several falsehoods here. One yes you need to state evidence to prove NIST is fraudulent your opinion is not evidence and proives nothing. NIST did investigate the event and detailed what happened demolition was not only improbable but unsupported by any evidence. NIST followed the evidence to a conclusion but it is you who cherry picks evidence to reach a forgone conclusion which is based on your politics and religion. You cannot offer any evidence that NIST was fraudulent andyes you need to do so or it proves you are foolish and lying - - - Updated - - - I skipped past nothng you gave no evidencde and yes are done
No, based on the NIST WTC Building 7 report. It is a documented fraud which is admissible evidence in a criminal court of law.
So the lead investigator isn't a very good public speaker....hardly invalidates the report..... And NO ONE found evidence of demolition...NO ONE....harrit's paint chips don't qualify.... - - - Updated - - - what part exactly is 'documented fraud'?......page numbers and paraghraphs....
