• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Anomolies at ground zero

Docker said:
Do what you like, I have never libeled Silverstein. I'm sure he knows, but go ahead and tell him.
Click to expand...
Please let Alex Jones know that in my opinion he's intellectually dishonest and a prick.
 
So to summarize, you think that maybe WTC7 was brought down by explosives, but you also don't dismiss the official story, Docker?
 
Docker said:
I agree with you. But you haven't published it.
Click to expand...
How is my making a public statement on an internet forum that Gravy making a statement in a word doc?

ETA: I was really looking for the fame of being sued by Jones.
 
Docker, do you agree that the collapse of WTC7 due to structural damage and fire is a relatively good hypothesis?
 
Pardalis said:
Docker, do you agree that the collapse of WTC7 due to structural damage and fire is a relatively good hypothesis?
Click to expand...

No, because FEMA themselves stated that that hypothesis has "only a low probability of occurence"
 
Docker said:
No, because FEMA themselves stated that that hypothesis has "only a low probability of occurence"
Click to expand...

Care to show me the exact quote?

ETA: nevermind I got it:
Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.(Chapter 5, pg 31.)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
Care to show me the exact quote?
Click to expand...

"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. "
 
Docker said:
It says that maybe they aren't allowed to investigate explosives.
Click to expand...
arent allowed? thats the dumbest thing youve said today, although its only 1am

except they ARE considering explosives as a hypothesis, remember we discussed it already in this thread?
 
defaultdotxbe said:
arent allowed? thats the dumbest thing youve said today, although its only 1am

except they ARE considering explosives as a hypothesis, remember we discussed it already in this thread?
Click to expand...
No NIST are considering explosives. Please pay attention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom