Homeland Insurgency
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,705
Ok HI, lets see here, where to start.
Ok, NIST has 10,000 pages of information that they present as evidence. Once the collapse started, it was a done deal. We all know that. Everyone who matters knows that. I have never seen (well, once, but it was a failed CD) a building stop collapsing after a fire. I have seen many building collapse because of fire. Anyway, next point.
NIST said that even without the structural damage, the building was doomed. Moot point son.
NIST also said that the oil tanks only burned off about 2000 gallons of diesel. (IIRC) They also said that even if this diesel (Which, BTW, is flameable, not explosive) was ignited and sprayed directly onto a column or beam, it wouldn't have made a difference. Thay also saaid that the diesel gas played no park whatsoever in the collapse of WTC 7
NIST also mkes it a point to say that the ConEd substation below WTC 7 played no role in the WTC 7 collapse.
However, NIST DID specifically mentioned thermal expansion many times in their report on WTC 7 collapse.
Have you read their report??? My guess is you got to the second page, got confused because it says "This page left intentionally blank" and stopped reading, thinking that was the end.
So, what exactly were you saying???
I know what the NIST report says junior. I also know what everyone here said for years. And it wasn't that "without the structural damage, the building was doomed."
So how is the point that the ability of debunkers around here is very sad, a moot point?
If NIST came out tomorrow and said the towers and WTC-7 fell because 3 different earthquakes debunkers would line up right behind it. All debunker credibility (that wasn't much to begin with) was destroyed with the endorsement of the wtc-7 report after everything they claimed for years.
Admit you had no idea about WTC-7 before the report came out.
Last edited: