Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
So then you do admit that NIST didn't actually prove why the buildings collapsed?

Great.

Of course they didn't "prove" why WTC 7 collapsed. They themselves never said their report "proved" why it collapsed either, it's an educated speculation. That's entirely a lie on your part as well. I accept it becuase a) it conforms to all the evidence and eyewitness testimony and b) doesn't require 10,000 imaginary secret agents planted everywhere to be pushing out gov't disinformation . I likewise accept the possibility of Dr. Quintiere's "not enough fireproofing" theory for the same reason, as well as the "it was a death trap to begin with" theory I see occasionally.

It also stood for several decades until those explosions started coming out of it that were reported by witnessed and caught on seismographs, labeled by FEMA as "further collapse" after the Twin Towers collapsed without any further explanation.

If you're referring to the explosions that occurred during the ten seconds immediately preceding the collapse, that was from the penthouse collapsing into the interior of the building, and unless you're lying through your teeth again and never read the NIST report as you claimed you did, you know this is already documented. What do you think was going to happen, that the Penthouse was going to come crashing down silently?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Of course they didn't "prove" why WTC 7 collapsed.

"Prove" in quotation marks. Speaking of lying through your teeth, even when you admit the official reports didn't prove why the buildings collapsed, you still put "prove" in quotes like it means something else now? You are projecting exactly what YOU are doing onto me!


Blah blah blah, baselessly call me a liar five or six times in two posts of angsty ranting.

Look, you already admitted that the government reports don't actually prove why the buildings came down. That's all I wanted to hear. We have reached an agreement. Thank you, goodnight.


I don't care to argue about whose opinion is better, because I'm perfectly comfortable in my thoughts, and we both already know no conclusive investigation has ever been conducted. And if you disagree with that then YOU are lying as well as contradicting yourself, since you just agreed the reports don't prove anything. Stop being so melodramatic in your frustration.

Let's look at "Dave" 's reading comprehension, and how loose his standards are for calling people liars.

This will take about 2 seconds.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
They themselves never said their report "proved" why it collapsed either, it's an educated speculation. That's entirely a lie on your part as well.

And here's what I actually said on the last page:

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
The "chain of events" from WTC1's collapse to WTC7's collapse does not prove, anywhere, what brought down WTC7, even according to NIST.

As is clearly shown above, I said myself that according to NIST, their report didn't prove why WTC7 came down.

According to "Dave," I said that NIST did say their report was proof (clearly wrong) and therefore I am a liar.


You see what he is doing?

If it's intentional then it's against ToS. If it's unintentional.... what can I say? I'm really not surprised...