Anomolies at ground zero

Do what you like, I have never libeled Silverstein. I'm sure he knows, but go ahead and tell him.
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?
 
I agree with you. But you haven't published it.
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?
 
Docker, do you agree that the collapse of WTC7 due to structural damage and fire is a relatively good hypothesis?

No, because FEMA themselves stated that that hypothesis has "only a low probability of occurence"
 
No, because FEMA themselves stated that that hypothesis has "only a low probability of occurence"

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.)
 
Last edited:
Care to show me the exact quote?

"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. "
 
It says that maybe they aren't allowed to investigate explosives.
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?
 
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?
No NIST are considering explosives. Please pay attention.
 

Back
Top Bottom