Debunker says what? [Archive] - Page 2

FineWine

10th July 2009, 08:44 PM

Oh stop with the jet fuel and 500 mph crap already. Don't you even know your own story?

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_latest_findings_1004.htm

Post-impact capabilities of the WTC towers assessed. Demand to capacity ratios—the calculations indicating whether or not structures can support the loads put on them—showed that for the floors affected by the aircraft impacts, the majority of the core and perimeter columns in both towers continued to carry their loads after the impact. The loads from damaged or severed columns were carried by nearby undamaged columns. Although the additional loads strained the load-bearing capabilities of the affected columns, the results show that the columns could have carried them. This shows that the towers withstood the initial aircraft impacts and that they would have remained standing indefinitely if not for another significant event such as the subsequent fires. NIST previously reported that the towers had significant reserve capacity after aircraft impact based on analysis of post-impact vibration data obtained from video evidence on WTC 2, the more severely damaged tower.

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:GH9eOK7wFwIJ:wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACMeetingMinutes121807.pdf+Sunder+%22%22The+je t+fuel+probably+burned+out+in+less+than+10+minutes .%E2%80%9D+%E2%80%9D&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

In the case of the towers, the jet fuel was unusual, but even there we talked about normal building fires since the jet fuel burned within a matter of a few minutes. What burned over the next hour to hour-and-a-half were normal fires where the combustibles were building contents plus the airplane contents

Yes, we all understand that the towers withstood the initial impacts. They didn't fall down immediately, as some of us noticed. Sadly, your desperation has reached the stage where you are compelled to humiliate yourself by citing information that destroys the insane rubbish you peddle. The planes did not knock the buildings down, but they severed and damaged columns, both perimeter and core, and caused extensive fires that weakened structural steel. What you hope to gain by posting information that every debunker can recite in his sleep, information that you are incapable of understanding, is a mystery.

You have been totally discredited, HI. Either throw in the towel or join Christopher7, Bill Smith, Heiwa, Ultima1, and roundhead in grotesque orgies of self-degradation. The result, however, is in: you lose.

FineWine

10th July 2009, 08:46 PM

Seriously, are you actually this dumb or are you pretending? I can't tell.

It's more than just stupidity.

Oscar

10th July 2009, 08:47 PM

Homeland, I wish you'd stop ignoring every post that rips you to pieces. And I do wish you'd stop replying with silly childish questions that have been answered a hundred times over.

It just makes you look like a prat. Perhaps you are one and can't help it. I wouldn't like to say.

FineWine

10th July 2009, 08:50 PM

Well will everyone just listen to this debunker dribble?

They point out that the experts say tons of shaped charges would have been
required to bring down two of the tallest skyscrapers in the world.

But then turnaround and claim planes can do the same thing. Even though NIST their Gospel tells them the planes and impacts did not take down the towers. It was normal building content fire. Besides this in the case of WTC-7 there was no plane impacts or jet fuel. Just normal building content fire.

Debunker logic when painted into a corner...

normal building content fire = tons of shaped charges strategically place over months on every floor attached to building supports.

Hilarious.

Why do you strange, incredibly stupid people pretend to laugh whenever you make an insane assertion?

For the thousandth time, the planes did not knock the towers down. They caused the collapses by doing damage to the structure and by starting extensive fires. Granted, you are not playing with a full deck, but can even you describe a fire that resulted from the crash of jet airliner as a "normal" office fire? Does your head ever feel like it's about to explode? Is there anything so absurd that you won't resort to it to salvage your idiotic fantasy?

Homeland Insurgency

10th July 2009, 08:51 PM

Yes, we all understand that the towers withstood the initial impacts. They didn't fall down immediately, as some of us noticed. Sadly, your desperation has reached the stage where you are compelled to humiliate yourself by citing information that destroys the insane rubbish you peddle. The planes did not knock the buildings down, but they severed and damaged columns, both perimeter and core, and caused extensive fires that weakened structural steel. What you hope to gain by posting information that every debunker can recite in his sleep, information that you are incapable of understanding, is a mystery.

I'm not peddling rubbish I'm refuting it. Get it straight already. I'm not the one peddling and defending a fable. That would be you and your ilk. Your story is just as delusional as your claims of victory.

Keep reading back in the thread. Your babbling was a great example for me to use.

Thanks.

applecorped

10th July 2009, 08:52 PM

FineWine

10th July 2009, 08:54 PM

Debunker logic...

Smoking in bed = tons of shaped charges strategically place over months on every floor attached to building supports.

lol

It's really time to seek medical attention, HI. If your evil masters were paying you, you'd get fired.

Oscar

10th July 2009, 08:54 PM

HI:
I'm not peddling rubbish I'm refuting it. Get it straight already. I'm not the one peddling and defending a fable. That would be you and your ilk. Your story is just as delusional as your claims of victory.

Keep reading back in the thread. Your babbling was a great example for me to use.

Whatever you're drinking, I'll avoid, thanks.

Homeland Insurgency

10th July 2009, 08:56 PM

Debunker logic...

Spontaneous human Combustion = tons of shaped charges strategically place over months on every floor attached to building supports.

lol

stateofgrace

10th July 2009, 08:57 PM

That's funny. What do the Loizeauxs think about your insane fantasy?

Oh, and just because they use the smallest amount neccesary doesn't mean that the smallest amount neccesary isn't a large amount, genuis.

His own link destroys his fantasy.

NOVA: Can you describe the prep work that goes into dropping a building.

SL: Well, it depends on the structure, obviously. We've had chimneys prepared in half a day and we've had buildings that take three months.We will then ask them to perform preparatory operations, including non-load bearing partition removal—meaning, the dry wall that separates the rooms Generally we don't do the preparation work. We are usually an implosion subcontractor, meaning that there is a main demolition contractor on site, who's been contracted by the property owner or the developer, and they then subcontract the implosion to us. . It's not carrying the weight of the building. It's just there as a divider. But what happens—you know, if you have a case of beer—all the little cardboard reinforcements inside? If you have all those little cardboard reinforcements, then you can jump up and down on the case. But if you take them out, the case will crush under your weight. Those little partitions actually add up and act as stiffeners. So that's one of the first things we strip out. The second thing we do is drilling. Depending on the height of the structure, we'll work on a couple of different floors—usually anywhere from two to six. The taller the building, the higher up we work.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html

Ignorant trolls like this deserve only one thing, ignore is your friend, guys.

Homeland Insurgency

10th July 2009, 08:57 PM

HI:

Whatever you're drinking, I'll avoid, thanks.

I don't remember offering you any. Get your own.

Shalamar

10th July 2009, 08:58 PM

Debunker logic...

Spontaneous human Combustion = tons of shaped charges strategically place over months on every floor attached to building supports.

lol

Evidence of Spontaneous Human Combustion on 9/11?

Or are you just drooling?

FineWine

10th July 2009, 09:00 PM

I'm not peddling rubbish I'm refuting it. Get it straight already. I'm not the one peddling and defending a fable. That would be you and your ilk. Your story is just as delusional as your claims of victory.

Keep reading back in the thread. Your babbling was a great example for me to use.

Thanks.

You've been crushed, HI. Your pathetic whimpering can't change a fact that is as plain as the point on top of your head. Notice that, as usual, you were helpless to respond to a single concrete point I made.

I'll bring you back to earth:

Your claim that the sane side is being inconsistent is mad. Your references to the NIST Report suggest cognitive dissonance. Your equating controlled demolition with smoking in bed would have your fellow frauds scurrying for the exits.

You are one of the easiest fish to fry on this forum. You are humiliated regularly. Your performance on this thread, however, sinks to new depths.

I'm eager to see you "use" my devastating posts against me. I dare you.

Homeland Insurgency

10th July 2009, 09:02 PM

His own link destroys his fantasy.

Yeah. Yeah you're right.

NOVA: I understand that you try to use the smallest amount of explosives possible.

SL: Right.

NOVA: Can you explain why?

SL: Well, the explosives are really just the catalyst. Largely what we use is gravity.

lol

Oscar

10th July 2009, 09:02 PM

I think I have an insight to HI's world.

What about the orangutans?

cyclonic

10th July 2009, 09:02 PM

H.I. tell your momma that the mushrooms she has been picking in the park are the wrong ones.

FineWine

10th July 2009, 09:04 PM

Debunker logic...

Dried out Christmas tree = tons of shaped charges strategically place over months on every floor attached to building supports.

When you suffered your last public breakdown after a particularly severe beating, it was uncomfortable to watch. You're falling apart again. Take a breather.

FineWine

10th July 2009, 09:07 PM

Yeah. Yeah you're right.

NOVA: I understand that you try to use the smallest amount of explosives possible.

SL: Right.

NOVA: Can you explain why?

SL: Well, the explosives are really just the catalyst. Largely what we use is gravity.

lol

Stacey Loizeaux has stated that prepping the towers would be a vastly bigger job than any demolition company has ever attempted. She didn't give a specific number, but said that "many tons" of charges would be required. You simply can't expect the Loizeaux family to support your insane delusions. They despise you frauds.

Homeland Insurgency

10th July 2009, 09:07 PM

FineWine

10th July 2009, 09:08 PM

Much more then you. You want something?

In truth, you know far less than any debunker. You seem happy to advertise your staggering lack of knowledge.

Oscar

10th July 2009, 09:09 PM

HI:
Me: Hey man? Did you hear something?

No, HI, sadly you never hear anything.

Get well soon.

FineWine

10th July 2009, 09:10 PM

Delusional Debunker: You've been crushed!

The beat down continues!

You are destroyed!

I'm gonna give you such a pinch!

My post contains no facts about 9/11! Take That!

Me: Hey man? Did you hear something?

Yes, I heard a beaten fraud whimpering and squealing. Note your total inability to address a single point I've made. Your breakdown isn't pretty.

Oscar

10th July 2009, 09:13 PM

One question for HI: do you actually believe what you write?

It's a yes or no answer.

Homeland Insurgency

10th July 2009, 09:14 PM

Stacey Loizeaux has stated that prepping the towers would be a vastly bigger job than any demolition company has ever attempted. She didn't give a specific number, but said that "many tons" of charges would be required. You simply can't expect the Loizeaux family to support your insane delusions. They despise you frauds.

The interview I posted with Stacy was before 9/11. Not the revisionism.

Your official story relies on a gravity driven global collapse. You know? The part not covered by NIST? Just like she talks about in the 96 interview.

You're welcome.

YOU'RE CRUSHED!

YOU'RE DESTROYED!

STEP INTO A SLIM JIM!

lol

Homeland Insurgency

10th July 2009, 09:16 PM

One question for HI: do you actually believe what you write?

It's a yes or no answer.

Everything except the sarcasm.

Can you tell the difference?

dtugg

10th July 2009, 09:17 PM

Gravity was involved in the destruction of the WTC!?!?!?!? HOLY CRAP!!!!!!! I HAD NO IDEA!!!!!

Oscar

10th July 2009, 09:20 PM

HI:
Everything except the sarcasm.

Can you tell the difference?

No. It's impossible when faced with a mix of lunacy and smugness.

FineWine

10th July 2009, 09:22 PM

The interview I posted with Stacy was before 9/11. Not the revisionism.

Your official story relies on a gravity driven global collapse. You know? The part not covered by NIST? Just like she talks about in the 96 interview.

You're welcome.

YOU'RE CRUSHED!

YOU'RE DESTROYED!

STEP INTO A SLIM JIM!

lol

You're either the stupidest liar in the world or you're seriously ill. The Loizeauxs haven't changed their views about their industry. NIST explained in 10,000 pages, none of which you've read, exactly how that global collapse was initiated. Your inability to understand the explanation is your problem.

It seems that each lunatic fraud has his own approach to conning people. You pretend to find contradictions in statements made by sane people when CLEARLY there are no contradictions.

Stacey Loizeaux's views about demolition haven't changed one iota since 9/11. It remains a fact that no demolition company has ever attempted a job as big as taking down the twin towers. Loizeaux's estimate of many tons of explosives and months of work to place them stands unchallenged by the inept fabrications of agenda-driven fools.

FineWine

10th July 2009, 09:24 PM

Everything except the sarcasm.

Can you tell the difference?

It's clear that you can't. Irony is a game for smart people.

UNLoVedRebel

10th July 2009, 09:30 PM

Homeland Insurgency

10th July 2009, 09:33 PM

Stacey Loizeaux's views about demolition haven't changed one iota since 9/11.

I didn't post an interview from since 9/11. It was from before 9/11 and I didn't read anything in that interview talking about thousands of tons of explosives.

Nice try.

Foolmewunz

10th July 2009, 09:35 PM

How does that help your case? What was the point of the bolding?

Grammar school thinking.

"Wow, if small is, uh, like, small, ya know. Then smaller has got to be really small, but whoa(!) smallest??? That's gotta be like teeny weeny tiny."

HI doesn't get that the smallest, say, Liquid Natural Gas carrier would still way several hundred thousand tons. Or that the smallest of the Rockies is still a mountain. To HI, "smallest" means "fits in a back pocket".

Homeland Insurgency

10th July 2009, 09:44 PM

Grammar school thinking.

"Wow, if small is, uh, like, small, ya know. Then smaller has got to be really small, but whoa(!) smallest??? That's gotta be like teeny weeny tiny."

HI doesn't get that the smallest, say, Liquid Natural Gas carrier would still way several hundred thousand tons. Or that the smallest of the Rockies is still a mountain. To HI, "smallest" means "fits in a back pocket".

Way to come with the hard facts there fool. Thanks.

Have you documented that 100% occupancy of the towers yet? How about the 100% of the elevators in service on 9/11?

psssst... the NIST report gives some numbers on that.

Do I need to do everything for you?

Alright you're turn. Let's hear your unfunny fact less response.

Bobert

10th July 2009, 09:44 PM

HI has you guys up against the ropes!
Any second now will come the knock out blow!!

Oscar

10th July 2009, 09:48 PM

HI:
Have you documented that 100% occupancy of the towers yet? How about the 100% of the elevators in service on 9/11?

Oh crumbs. Not the elevator controlled demolition fantasy again. I thought you might have something less old and Joe90 than that.

stateofgrace

10th July 2009, 09:50 PM

Sword_Of_Truth

10th July 2009, 09:51 PM

Was the bomb even inside the building?

According to truthers, yes it was.

Foolmewunz

10th July 2009, 09:52 PM

Way to come with the hard facts there fool. Thanks.

Have you documented that 100% occupancy of the towers yet? How about the 100% of the elevators in service on 9/11?

psssst... the NIST report gives some numbers on that.

Do I need to do everything for you?

Alright you're turn. Let's here your unfunny fact less response.

What sort of playground taunting are you up to now. The towers were nearly 100% occuppied. YOU stated there were empty floors. I'm waiting for YOU TO PROVE IT.

You do not know the number of, condition of, sizes or capacity of the freight elevators in the WTC complex. You do not know that there were not just freight elevators, but also construction elevators, and that both had elevator operators, do you? (Add a few more people to the impossibly vast conspiracy.... various elevator operators for the construction elevators.)

So you have the work plans for WTC 1 and 2 for the two months prior to 9/11, then? You'll be posting them momentarily and showing us which elevators were supposedly out of service.

Alternate theory: You don't know what you're talking about and are flinging as much poop as possible hoping that some small amount will stick to the wall. This probably works real well in RPG forums of teenagers. You may not have noticed, but you're hanging out with adults, now.

We just demand that you prove a single word you're saying.

(Hey, how's it going with the Slate article by the lady who knows a guy who met a guy who said he knew all about K-9 security? Or did the inconvenient arrival of someone who actually knows the topic set you back onto another course?)

Foolmewunz

10th July 2009, 09:56 PM

Maybe it was that "nano" stuff they keep harping on about.

Yeah, but that's like so February, man! HI may still buy into it, but that's because he's on the lunatic fringe of the lunatic movement. The big boys have all run from sooperdoopernanothermiteate like it's carrying fleas. They're coming full circle to traditional explosives/cd.

My feeling is that they were getting migraines trying to make up sciencey sounding things about nanothermite and were getting distracted from their main goal: milking the sheep like HI out of their hard-earned lunch money. CD is so much simpler, and they can sell it more readily to these simpletons.

Bobert

10th July 2009, 09:59 PM

What sort of playground taunting are you up to now. The towers were nearly 100% occuppied. YOU stated there were empty floors. I'm waiting for YOU TO PROVE IT.

He can correct me if I am wrong but I think he is referring to how the WTC's were not as full as usual due to it being the start of the school year and people arriving late due to taking their kids to school.
Of course truthers look at this lower number of people there as a some sort of sign that 9-11 was an inside job.

stateofgrace

10th July 2009, 10:07 PM

Yeah, but that's like so February, man! HI may still buy into it, but that's because he's on the lunatic fringe of the lunatic movement. The big boys have all run from sooperdoopernanothermiteate like it's carrying fleas. They're coming full circle to traditional explosives/cd.

My feeling is that they were getting migraines trying to make up sciencey sounding things about nanothermite and were getting distracted from their main goal: milking the sheep like HI out of their hard-earned lunch money. CD is so much simpler, and they can sell it more readily to these simpletons.

I'm glad to see they have turned the corner and are now coming out with something more believable and sensible than superdubernanothermate. It makes far more sense that those nasty perps developed nanopocketsizedexplosives, just for the job.

Stick small amount in back pocket, enter building, empty pocket and bingo the building is ready for demolition. Brilliant, I wonder why nobody thought of it before.:rolleyes:

Foolmewunz

10th July 2009, 10:10 PM

He can correct me if I am wrong but I think he is referring to how the WTC's were not as full as usual due to it being the start of the school year and people arriving late due to taking their kids to school.
Of course truthers look at this lower number of people there as a some sort of sign that 9-11 was an inside job.

Nope, he said there were empty floors and out-of-service freight elevators IIRC. The implication being that one of those empty floors was likely where all the skullduggery took place. That's why I want HI to identify precisely which floors were empty so we can then see just how brilliant his unstated theory is.

Bobert

10th July 2009, 10:18 PM

Aaaah ok there you go.

cyclonic

10th July 2009, 10:20 PM

Where is he? i hope he's not reanacting 9/11 in his basement... again.

Homeland Insurgency

10th July 2009, 10:25 PM

He can correct me if I am wrong but I think he is referring to how the WTC's were not as full as usual due to it being the start of the school year and people arriving late due to taking their kids to school.
Of course truthers look at this lower number of people there as a some sort of sign that 9-11 was an inside job.

No I'm not talking about how it was early in the morning and most people weren't there yet. I'm talking about vacant space in the tower and "nearly 100%" ( as Foolmewunz refers) of two 110 story buildings leaves plenty of vacant space. There were vacant floors but more then that there were floors not fully occupied. Some of the out of service elevators are documented in the NIST report.

Some people can look it up themselves. I don't fetch.

Foolmewunz

10th July 2009, 10:27 PM

No I'm not talking about how it was early in the morning and most people weren't there yet. I'm talking about vacant space in the tower and "nearly 100%" ( as Foolmewunz refers) of two 110 story buildings leaves plenty of vacant space. There were vacant floors but more then that there were floors not fully occupied. Some of the out of service elevators are documented in the NIST report.

Some people can look it up themselves. I don't fetch.

If you don't fetch, then it doesn't exist. You made the statement. You provide the documentation.

Homeland Insurgency

10th July 2009, 10:33 PM

If you don't fetch, then it doesn't exist. You made the statement. You provide the documentation.

That's right fool. I made the statement. Prove me wrong.

Debunker logic...

Nearly 100% = 100%

That and unbreakable elevators.

Oscar

10th July 2009, 10:42 PM

HI:
That's right fool. I made the statement. Prove me wrong.

This is you all over. You make a silly statement, then call someone a fool, then say prove me wrong.

I might as well say the moon is made of cheese and I have a smorgasbord to back me up, fool. Prove me wrong.

It's just silly.

EventHorizon

10th July 2009, 10:46 PM

HI:

This is you all over. You make a silly statement, then call someone a fool, then say prove me wrong.

I might as well say the moon is made of cheese and I have a smorgasbord to back me up, fool. Prove me wrong.

It's just silly.

Ha! I was going to use the exact same example here.

Homeland Insurgency

10th July 2009, 10:50 PM

HI:

This is you all over. You make a silly statement, then call someone a fool,

Ummm... I abbreviated his logon name. Did you not get that? Well I guess that's not surprising.

then say prove me wrong.

I already proved him wrong about the occupancy with his own statement about nearly 100%. It can easily be found in other places. I mean how did he know it was only nearly? I also told him his own gospel documents out of service elevators. Again, easily found with a little effort. Why don't you try?

I might as well say the moon is made of cheese and I have a smorgasbord to back me up, fool. Prove me wrong.

It's just silly.

Well yeah that is silly. The moon is made of Capt'n Crunch.

Oscar

10th July 2009, 10:59 PM

HI:
I already proved him wrong about the occupancy with his own statement about nearly 100%.

You haven't proved anything. In your fantasy you have the twin towers crawling with employees and somehow assume this allows men in disguise to secretly charge it for demolition behind their backs, whereas in reality it would take months for experts with the building cleared.

Yes, you're making a whole lot of sense.

Homeland Insurgency

10th July 2009, 11:10 PM

HI:

You haven't proved anything. In your fantasy you have the twin towers crawling with employees and somehow assume this allows men in disguise to secretly charge it for demolition behind their backs,..

Did I say that? WOW! I don't even know what that means. I ROCK!

whereas whereas? WHAT?

in reality Thank God!

it would take months for experts with the building cleared.

Oh man... sigh. I thought you said reality? Did you mean REALLY incoherent?

Yes, you're making a whole lot of sense.

Well thanks. I'm really glad one of us is. You're not so bad yourself.

MIKILLINI

10th July 2009, 11:16 PM

Oh stop with the jet fuel and 500 mph crap already. Don't you even know your own story?

Whoa son! You do your own debunking, correct?

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_latest_findings_1004.htm

Post-impact capabilities of the WTC towers assessed. Demand to capacity ratios—the calculations indicating whether or not structures can support the loads put on them—showed that for the floors affected by the aircraft impacts, the majority of the core and perimeter columns in both towers continued to carry their loads after the impact. The loads from damaged or severed columns were carried by nearby undamaged columns. Although the additional loads strained the load-bearing capabilities of the affected columns, the results show that the columns could have carried them. This shows that the towers withstood the initial aircraft impacts and that they would have remained standing indefinitely

You have bolded the section above for your purpose? Let's look at the highlighted part below....

if not for another significant event such as the subsequent fires. NIST previously reported that the towers had significant reserve capacity after aircraft impact based on analysis of post-impact vibration data obtained from video evidence on WTC 2, the more severely damaged tower.

Conspiracy fantasists are always so "amateur hour."

dtugg

10th July 2009, 11:19 PM

Did you mean REALLY incoherent?

Being really incoherent is your specialty, remember. And I must say, you are very good at it. Do you have any tips? Because I don't think I could be as incoherent as you even if I tried really hard.

Homeland Insurgency

10th July 2009, 11:23 PM

Whoa son! You do your own debunking, correct?

You have bolded the section above for your purpose? Let's look at the highlighted part below....

Conspiracy fantasists are always so "amateur hour."

Well thanks for reinforcing my point. Yeah I hate those official conspiracy theorist too.

Hey?!! Wanna make fun of them with me? It'll be cool!

Homeland Insurgency

10th July 2009, 11:30 PM

Being really incoherent is your specialty, remember. And I must say, you are very good at it. Do you have any tips? Because I don't think I could be as incoherent as you even if I tried really hard.

Oh come on. Don't be modest. You are plenty incoherent. Not only that but you are fact less too. I see how you try and I really admire it. I've never said this to you before but you've been a real inspiration to me over the years. Don't get down on yourself. You'll get that Eye of the Tiger back soon.

Here's a little advice.. now don't get upset I'm not trying to say I'm more incoherent then you I'm just trying to point out your strengths.

Talk about 9/11.

You are never more incoherent then when you talk about 9/11.

Go for it buddy. I'm rooting for you.

snif

Justin39640

10th July 2009, 11:34 PM

Whoa son! You do your own debunking, correct?

You have bolded the section above for your purpose? Let's look at the highlighted part below....

Conspiracy fantasists are always so "amateur hour."

cmon man
you should know by now
context has no business with the "truth?"

UNLoVedRebel

10th July 2009, 11:40 PM

You are never more incoherent then when you talk about 9/11.
No one touch this. The stundie is all mine.

MIKILLINI

10th July 2009, 11:42 PM

Well thanks for reinforcing my point. Yeah I hate those official conspiracy theorist too.

Hey?!! Wanna make fun of them with me? It'll be cool!

You want to make a point? Taking your arguments into consideration creates an overall question; How could the government execute a flawless operation with a one and only chance to pull it off without fail?

Foolmewunz

10th July 2009, 11:43 PM

Ummm... I abbreviated his logon name. Did you not get that? Well I guess that's not surprising.

I already proved him wrong about the occupancy with his own statement about nearly 100%. It can easily be found in other places. I mean how did he know it was only nearly? I also told him his own gospel documents out of service elevators. Again, easily found with a little effort. Why don't you try?

Well yeah that is silly. The moon is made of Capt'n Crunch.

HI,
You've proved nothing. You've been here long enough to know the basic ground rule: You make the claim; you provide the proof.
Please show us the documentation and specify which units (entire floors, remember) were empty and which freight elevators were out of service and on which dates.
If you want to take it farther, then show us that those freight elevators were actually able to get to those empty units. A non-working freight or construction elevator in WTC1 is of no use in wiring a suite of offices in WTC 2, after all.

Oh, and if you're shortening my name, put in an upper case F, please. Otherwise fool, with a lower case, is an insult and I'd prefer not to be insulted, even half-heartedly by you.

Homeland Insurgency

10th July 2009, 11:43 PM

cmon man
you should know by now
context has no business with the "truth?"

HEY Buddy! You're not talking about me are you? That's not nice.

How about talking about 9/11?

Foolmewunz

10th July 2009, 11:44 PM

HEY Buddy! You're not talking about me are you? That's not nice.

How about talking about 9/11?

How about coming up with some evidence. Hand-waving and conjecture do not qualify.

dtugg

10th July 2009, 11:44 PM

Oh come on. Don't be modest. You are plenty incoherent. Not only that but you are fact less too. I see how you try and I really admire it. I've never said this to you before but you've been a real inspiration to me over the years. Don't get down on yourself. You'll get that Eye of the Tiger back soon.

Here's a little advice.. now don't get upset I'm not trying to say I'm more incoherent then you I'm just trying to point out your strengths.

Talk about 9/11.

You are never more incoherent then when you talk about 9/11.

Go for it buddy. I'm rooting for you.

snif

See that's what I'm talking about. How do you do it?

Justin39640

10th July 2009, 11:45 PM

HEY Buddy! You're not talking about me are you? That's not nice.

How about talking about 9/11?

i was talking about how you took that quote out of context

bud

Homeland Insurgency

10th July 2009, 11:46 PM

You want to make a point? Taking your arguments into consideration creates an overall question; How could the government execute a flawless operation with a one and only chance to pull it off without fail?

Did I claim the government did something?

But if they did was it really without fail if so many people question it?

Justin39640

10th July 2009, 11:48 PM

Did I claim the government did something?

But if they did was it really without fail if so many people question it?

3000 out of 300 million (at least here) isnt "a lot of people"

dtugg

10th July 2009, 11:52 PM

But if they did was it really without fail if so many people question it?

Who? Some morons on the Internet?

UNLoVedRebel

10th July 2009, 11:54 PM

NASA executed the Apollo moon missions flawlessly and people still "question" (make up stupid **** based on ignorance) the moon landings.

Truther logic at its finest.

Humanzee

11th July 2009, 12:53 AM

Yes, building fires started by a conflagration of jet fuel. A fire that heated and weakened steal beams stripped of their fire resistant coating by impact with a jet crash.

You dont just get to hand wave away the jet impact. It IS what caused the initial damage and eventual collapse.

:mad: is this some sort of game to you?

MikeW

11th July 2009, 01:29 AM

Wow, so many pages based on nothing at all. This thread is a perfect representation of the entire truth movement.

UNLoVedRebel

11th July 2009, 02:27 AM

Wow, so many pages based on nothing at all. This thread is a perfect representation of the entire truth movement.

And it's a perfect representation of the truth movement's target audience. They know they appeal to working class heroes like Homeland Insurgency. The problem is the higher education in the U.S. is so expensive, many people live paycheck to paycheck since they're sixteen and don't have an opportunity to gain any skills. Poor saps like HI end up being ignorant on just about every subject there is to be ignorant about. And they get suckered in by any YouTube video by Joe Blow. One can make a good case based on HI's posts that the U.S. should socialize higher education and make it mandatory so grown adults don't grow up to be so clueless. One might say that the taxes would be too high but I say it'd be worth it if you don't have to run into the sad and bizarre rants of the likes of Homeland Insurgency.

Reactor drone

11th July 2009, 02:30 AM

What shape charges?

You really seem to be flip flopping on whether there were explosives used on 9/11.Please, for clarity's sake, give us a quick rundown on what part, if any, you think smuggled explosive played in the destruction of the buildings on 9/11.

Did planes hit the building in your scenario,where were the initial collapse zones,how do explosives survive for an hour in a fire without burning or otherwise degrading,were the smuggled bombs incendiaries to help spread the fire,over what period were the bombs smuggled in,is there any evidence of explosives use in the remains of the buildings?

I think we'd all find it very helpful if you could clearly state your beliefs rather than just throwing around a confusingly random assortment of claims and questions.

ElMondoHummus

11th July 2009, 05:45 AM

Why so many responses dedicated to a trolling OP? Why?

CaptainHair

11th July 2009, 06:19 AM

You know, all this back and forth nonsense makes me almost miss the quaint psychotic ravings of Macolm K.

Almost.

Homeland Insurgency

11th July 2009, 06:21 AM

You really seem to be flip flopping on whether there were explosives used on 9/11.Please, for clarity's sake, give us a quick rundown on what part, if any, you think smuggled explosive played in the destruction of the buildings on 9/11.

Did planes hit the building in your scenario,where were the initial collapse zones,how do explosives survive for an hour in a fire without burning or otherwise degrading,were the smuggled bombs incendiaries to help spread the fire,over what period were the bombs smuggled in,is there any evidence of explosives use in the remains of the buildings?

I think we'd all find it very helpful if you could clearly state your beliefs rather than just throwing around a confusingly random assortment of claims and questions.

We're not talking about my beliefs. I don't claim to know what happened on 9/11. That would be you.

doobiedoright

11th July 2009, 07:01 AM

What sort of playground taunting are you up to now. The towers were nearly 100% occuppied. YOU stated there were empty floors. I'm waiting for YOU TO PROVE IT.

You do not know the number of, condition of, sizes or capacity of the freight elevators in the WTC complex. You do not know that there were not just freight elevators, but also construction elevators, and that both had elevator operators, do you? (Add a few more people to the impossibly vast conspiracy.... various elevator operators for the construction elevators.)

So you have the work plans for WTC 1 and 2 for the two months prior to 9/11, then? You'll be posting them momentarily and showing us which elevators were supposedly out of service.

Alternate theory: You don't know what you're talking about and are flinging as much poop as possible hoping that some small amount will stick to the wall. This probably works real well in RPG forums of teenagers. You may not have noticed, but you're hanging out with adults, now.

We just demand that you prove a single word you're saying.

(Hey, how's it going with the Slate article by the lady who knows a guy who met a guy who said he knew all about K-9 security? Or did the inconvenient arrival of someone who actually knows the topic set you back onto another course?)

It is interesting to me that not another peep about k9's has come forth out of him.
He certainly is not the first to pee his pants when faced off against my 4 legged friends!

Homeland Insurgency

11th July 2009, 07:12 AM

It is interesting to me that not another peep about k9's has come forth out of him.
He certainly is not the first to pee his pants when faced off against my 4 legged friends!

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Briefs/4884.htm

One of the most alarming attributes of TATP is that it cannot be detected by bomb-sniffing dogs, making it easier to smuggle into airports and onto airplanes. It is also very easy to synthesize in clandestine labs, using readily available chemicals.

Say whaaa....?

lol

johnny karate

11th July 2009, 08:10 AM

Homeland Insurgency thinks Interpol is involved in a global conspiracy to hide the truth of 9/11 from the masses. There is no arguing with such profound paranoia. It's best to leave his psychotic ravings echoing impotently in cyberspace rather than engage such sad, desperate attempts for attention.

MIKILLINI

11th July 2009, 08:19 AM

Did I claim the government did something?

But if they did was it really without fail if so many people question it?

Yes, you did.

How many answers did your questions find?

Homeland Insurgency

11th July 2009, 09:11 AM

Yes, you did.

Did I?

How many answers did your questions find?

None by the likes of you.

MIKILLINI

11th July 2009, 09:18 AM

Did I?[QUOTE]

Yes, you did.

[QUOTE]None by the likes of you.

Funny how that works, when you ignore things.

Justin39640

11th July 2009, 09:25 AM

you say
Do you ever wonder why you need to lie to support your faith?

It can't feel good.
but
We're not talking about my beliefs. I don't claim to know what happened on 9/11. That would be you.

so you KNOW hes lying about something you claim to know NOTHING about

OK....

Homeland Insurgency

11th July 2009, 09:32 AM

dtugg

11th July 2009, 09:41 AM

Homeland Insurgency

11th July 2009, 10:33 AM

HI is a no-claimer. He knows that he can't prove his inside jobby job fantasies so just claims that everybody else is as clueless as he is and asks really stupid questions pretending he has called the "official story" into question. I don't know if he manages to fool himself with this crap but he certainly doesn't fool anybody else.

See? There goes the debunkers contradicting themselves once again. I'm a no-planer who thinks Interpol was in on 9/11 but at the same time I'm a no-claimer.

Do you people ever make up your minds? Is there any kind of consensus amongst debunkers?

Justin39640

11th July 2009, 10:37 AM

See? There goes the debunkers contradicting themselves once again. I'm a no-planer who thinks Interpol was in on 9/11 but at the same time I'm a no-claimer.

Do you people ever make up your minds? Is there any kind of consensus amongst debunkers?

so whats your stance?

dtugg

11th July 2009, 10:38 AM

MIKILLINI

11th July 2009, 11:04 AM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/07/gao_finds_major_security_flaws.html?hpid=topnews

“In the past year, investigators successfully smuggled bomb-making materials into ten high-security federal buildings, constructed bombs and walked around the buildings undetected”

Wow.

I bet they could have put more then 10 in just one building in a years time.

I don't claim to know the government or Interpol were behind 9/11 and never said as much.

Why not quote me?

You're wagering they did.

Alt+F4

11th July 2009, 11:10 AM

Do you people ever make up your minds? Is there any kind of consensus amongst debunkers?

Why would there be? We are all individuals. I think the only issue that almost all posters to the JREF forums agreed upon was that the "octomom" was creepy, and wrong, wrong, wrong.

Justin39640

11th July 2009, 11:11 AM

You're wagering they did.

pointing out my contradictory statements proves you are a disinfo agent!!

duhhhhhhh

The Platypus

11th July 2009, 11:22 AM

Another typical 911 cult minion thread.

As usual all that is presented is wild accusations and assumptions backed up by nothing but an endless series of juvenile games and snake oil salesman tactics.

johnny karate

11th July 2009, 11:25 AM

The question:
If someone claims there hasn't been enough of an investigation to know what happened on 9/11 it means they haven't seen enough evidence. Why aren't Interpol or any other foreign intelligence agencies making this claim?

The answer:
Because they can only assume or pretend just like you. How sad. To do otherwise could only make waves and jepordize their funding or expansion in the Global War on Terror gravy train.

Full thread archived here (http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-124514.html) for context.

It should be noted that once Homeland Insurgency was cornered on this issue, he predictable ran away from the thread.

ETA: Sigged for easy reference.

johnny karate

11th July 2009, 11:26 AM

I think the only issue that almost all posters to the JREF forums agreed upon was that the "octomom" was creepy, and wrong, wrong, wrong.

A pretty bold criticism coming from someone sporting that particular avatar. ;)

Homeland Insurgency

11th July 2009, 11:53 AM

What is wrong with you? Seriously. Do you really think that we all should have exactly the same opinion about every twoofer?

I'm just trying to get you all to have a consensus about 9/11. You're all over the place. That story just keeps letting you all down time and time again.

Alt+F4

11th July 2009, 11:55 AM

I'm just trying to get you all to have a consensus about 9/11.

Why? Why does it matter to you what people on this particular sub-forum post?

Homeland Insurgency

11th July 2009, 11:59 AM

Why? Why does it matter to you what people on this particular sub-forum post?

Because I'm looking for the truth not a pacifier. All I ever find out here is how much people don't know what happened on 9/11.

dtugg

11th July 2009, 12:01 PM

I'm just trying to get you all to have a consensus about 9/11. You're all over the place. That story just keeps letting you all down time and time again.

I really don't know if you are actually this dumb, but in case you are: Us having a consensus about whatever your pathetic beliefs are (this is what you pointed out as a contradiction, genius) has nothing to do with a consensus about 9/11.

Alt+F4

11th July 2009, 12:06 PM

Because I'm looking for the truth not a pacifier. All I ever find out here is how much people don't know what happened on 9/11.

If you are not satisfied with the answers you get here you can search elsewhere on the Internet, or even better, contact people personally. A good place to start would be coming to NYC and speaking to FDNY members who were there that day.

In addition, there are thousands of living victims of 9/11 that are probably will to speak of their experiences.

I know some people curious about 9/11 have filed FOIA requests, you might also try that.

The Platypus

11th July 2009, 12:25 PM

I'm just trying to get you all to have a consensus about 9/11. You're all over the place. That story just keeps letting you all down time and time again.

Coming from someone in a cult that has so many factions at odds with each other, planers, no planers, space beams, mini nukes, thermite, nano-thermite, NWO, Illuminati, Joos, Jesuits, etc etc etc, and then you point the finger about how it is these people that are all over the place with no consensus ... LOL

The constant self projection game is hilarious and easy to see...

Homeland Insurgency

11th July 2009, 12:32 PM

Video of investigator getting through security.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2009/07/08/VI2009070802941.html

FineWine

11th July 2009, 12:55 PM

Wow, so many pages based on nothing at all. This thread is a perfect representation of the entire truth movement.

Bullseye! One of the most discredited frauds on the forum starts a thread about nothing. It is possible to smuggle bomb-making materials into a Federal building. Okay, what's next? It turns out that nothing is next. The fact remains that no demolition company has ever attempted a job as formidable as bringing down the twin towers. Experts in the field agree that such an undertaking would require teams working for months to place tons of charges. Nobody--absolutely nobody--in the demolition industry thinks that the collapses of the towers resemble contolled demolitions.

So Homeland Insurgency is off to the races again. After his ugly public breakdown following his humiliating beating on the serial numbers thread, he might have been expected to adopt a lower profile. No, he is braying loudly and flailing wildly, contending--what? Does anybody know what he is trying to claim here?

FineWine

11th July 2009, 01:00 PM

We're not talking about my beliefs. I don't claim to know what happened on 9/11. That would be you.

Wrong again, You claim, as someone with very little education, that experts in various fields are wrong. You never get around to explaining how you know they're wrong. Here's an example:

Tell us why all the demolition experts are wrong.

Bye.

Homeland Insurgency

11th July 2009, 01:03 PM

Wrong again, You claim, as someone with very little education, that experts in various fields are wrong. You never get around to explaining how you know they're wrong. Here's an example:

Tell us why all the demolition experts are wrong.

Bye.

Which demolition experts?

FineWine

11th July 2009, 01:04 PM

I'm just trying to get you all to have a consensus about 9/11. You're all over the place. That story just keeps letting you all down time and time again.

You've been caught lying again. You are as usual, unable to back up your dishonest claims. What do people on the sane side disagree about? Take your time.

Take a gander at 911myths.com. You want consensus among debunkers, you got consensus. All of us accept Mike Williams's invaluable resource as the place to go for accurate information.

Homeland Insurgency

11th July 2009, 01:12 PM

You've been caught lying again. You are as usual, unable to back up your dishonest claims. What do people on the sane side disagree about? Take your time.

Take a gander at 911myths.com. You want consensus among debunkers, you got consensus. All of us accept Mike Williams's invaluable resource as the place to go for accurate information.

The only one who debunks less then 911myths is Gravy and his googlepages.

I read that crap to get confidence.

FineWine

11th July 2009, 01:13 PM

Which demolition experts?

The Loizeaux family, the Protec people, Bouhouris, Inc., Vaccaro Construction, Bergen Electric & Demolition Company, Inc., Brandenburg Industrial Service Co., Jersey Shore Demolition, Bluegrass Companies, A-1 Affordable Construction Company, EJB Global Services, Cutting Technologies, Demolition Consultants, D.H. Griffin Companies, Robinette Demolition--this is fun. I just copy from an old thread.

As you know, your insane movement's poster boys--Hugo Bachmann, Jorgen Schneider, and Danny Jowenko-- all agree that the collapses of the towers don't resemble controlled demolitions.

Demolition experts who swallow your idiocy are nonexistent.

Homeland Insurgency

11th July 2009, 01:23 PM

The Loizeaux family, the Protec people, Bouhouris, Inc., Vaccaro Construction, Bergen Electric & Demolition Company, Inc., Brandenburg Industrial Service Co., Jersey Shore Demolition, Bluegrass Companies, A-1 Affordable Construction Company, EJB Global Services, Cutting Technologies, Demolition Consultants, D.H. Griffin Companies, Robinette Demolition--this is fun. I just copy from an old thread.

As you know, your insane movement's poster boys--Hugo Bachmann, Jorgen Schneider, and Danny Jowenko-- all agree that the collapses of the towers don't resemble controlled demolitions.

Demolition experts who swallow your idiocy are nonexistent.

I notice you are not posting any statements from any of them. I wonder why? lol

And please I use a Loizeaux right in this thread to discredit the likes of you.

You have nothing. What does Danny Jowenko say about WTC-7 btw? Is he not an expert in your book? Do the experts have a consensus or not?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2319605&postcount=67

lol

HeyLeroy

11th July 2009, 01:25 PM

Say whaaa...?

According to your story one hour and no explosives at all are needed to demolish a skyscraper.

Or is it tons and tons of explosives and months of preparation?

Some people need to make up their mind.

The towers were hit with gigantic molotov cocktails filled with kerosene and, yes, people.

If you're to continue with the mindless 'hidden explosives' drivel, please feel free to take a swing at some questions: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2311113&postcount=2

dtugg

11th July 2009, 01:30 PM

And please I use a Loizeaux right in this thread to discredit the likes of you.

Do you actually believe your own lies, liar? She said they use the smallest amount necessary. So? Rational people realize that the smallest amount neccesary doesn't mean a small amount, especially for buildings much larger than have ever been destroyed using explosives.

The Platypus

11th July 2009, 01:31 PM

~enigma~

11th July 2009, 01:34 PM

And please I use a Loizeaux right in this thread to discredit the likes of you.
I spoke to Stacy Loiseaux 2 years ago and would gladly tell you what she said about the subterranean morons know as the truth movement but the MA forbids me from using such language but the gist of it was you guys are wrong and show such disrespect for human life that she would be glad to see you living on Europa where the world is made of ice just like your blood is.

FineWine

11th July 2009, 01:36 PM

I notice you are not posting any statements from any of them. I wonder why? lol

And please I use a Loizeaux right in this thread to discredit the likes of you.

You have nothing. What does Danny Jowenko say about WTC-7 btw? Is he not an expert in your book? Do the experts have a consensus or not?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2319605&postcount=67

lol

You are using Stacey Loizeaux, a person who despises you ridiculous frauds. She has totally destroyed your lunatic myths about demolition. How on earth can anything Stacey Loizeaux says discredit the sane side? You were caught lying about her meaning. She stated that many tons of explosives would be required and no demolition company has ever attempted a job so formidable.

You may be ill, but even you must confront harsh realities occasionally.

No, Danny Jowenko has never demolished a tall building. His expertise doesn't begin to compare with, say, the Loizeaux family or Ron Dokell.

You "wonder" why I'm not posting statements from the companies cited in the old thread? No, you don't wonder at all. They all say the same thing--as you know. If you really "wondered," you'd call a few of them. But, you're a "truther." You never ever do anything.

FineWine

11th July 2009, 02:17 PM

We were talking about consensus and from what I already posted of Stacy Loizeaux and her opinion from BEFORE 9/11 some people couldn't have picked a worse name to bring up to make their case.

Typical pretend debunking. Good job.

Is this your Ultima1 impression? Remember how you were behaving before your ugly meltdown on the serial numbers thread?

Let's go slowly...

Stacey Loizeaux is an expert in demolition.

She hates you frauds for your dishonesty, your stupidity, and for your obscene disrespect toward the victims of the terrorists you enable.

She has stated in interviews before and after 9/11 that the goal of a demolition company is to control the collapse by using the smallest amount of explosives necessary to do the job.

She estimated the amount of explosives necessary to take down the towers as "many tons."

She stated that prepping such an enormous building would involve teams of demolition professionals working for months.

You CANNOT POSSIBLY derive any comfort from Stacey Loizeaux. She loathes your insane movement. Nothing she has ever said helps you one iota.

Stop this madness.

johnny karate

11th July 2009, 03:39 PM

You made the baseless accusation.

Your words are right there for everyone to see.

Disenchanted

11th July 2009, 03:43 PM

What does that mean? Her post 9/11 opinion is slanted?

Why would her view be slanted? Maybe she holds people like you in contempt for things like misrepresenting what she said, as you have done in this thread.

jeeez... don't have an aneurysm. And yeah it does contradict. Sorry.

What contradiction? The smallest amount needed would be tons of explosives.

Reactor drone

11th July 2009, 03:45 PM

Video of investigator getting through security.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2009/07/08/VI2009070802941.html

As you've already stated that you don't know what happened on 9/11 what do you think this has to do with the events on that day?

Seems like a completely unrelated story to me and therefore off topic in the 9/11 sub forum....unless you believe that 9/11 somehow involved bombs being smuggled into buildings.

:boggled:

triforcharity

11th July 2009, 08:44 PM

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html

NOVA: I understand that you try to use the smallest amount of explosives possible.

SL: Right.

NOVA: Can you explain why?

SL: Well, the explosives are really just the catalyst. Largely what we use is gravity. And we're dealing with Class A explosives that are embedded into concrete—and that concrete flies. So, let's say your explosive is 17,000 feet per second—you've got a piece of concrete moving at that speed when you remove it from the structure. So we try to use the minimal amount to keep down the fly of debris for a safe operation. Other than that, it comes down to cost effectiveness. You know, the more holes you have to drill, it's more labor, more time, and it's more expensive. So, obviously, the smallest amount of work is best.

KABOOM!

lol

Concrete structure V steel framed structure. So now your saying that someone DRILLED HOLES into the floors and such to cause this?? This is assinine at best. It didn't happen. Plus, there was very little concrete in WTC than in other buildings.

Go play with your crayons son.

Corsair 115

11th July 2009, 08:49 PM

Oh stop with the jet fuel and 500 mph crap already.

You are aware that the kinetic energy alone involved in the impact of each jet into each of the respective WTC towers was the equivalent of a 2,000 lb bomb, aren't you? Do you think a 2,000 lb bomb strike on a building might cause some significant structural damage?

You need not believe me in terms of the TNT equivalent of the kinetic energy involved; you could do the calculations yourself. But you need not do so, because forum member X has already performed the calculations in this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4346806&postcount=58) post.

He arrived at figures of 549.7 kg of TNT equivalent for the first impact and 764.8 kg of TNT for the second. That converts to 1,212 lbs and 1,686 lbs of TNT, respectively. The U.S. Mk 84 GP 2,000 lb bomb has a warhead containing 945 lbs (429 kg) of high explosive. So, in other words, each of the WTC towers was hit by the equivalent of a bomb more powerful than the Mk 84. For simplicity's sake, however, call each impact the equivalent of a 2,000 lb bomb hit.

Of course, Homeland Insurgency is also the same fellow who, in this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4513328#post4513328) thread asked the following:

Didn't kamikazes also pack the nose of their planes with explosives?

How single-engined aircraft like the Zero, Oscar, Kate, Val, or Judy used for a kamikaze attack would replace its engine in the nose with a bomb and then go on its mission is something of a mystery...

UNLoVedRebel

11th July 2009, 08:56 PM

Homeland doesn't exactly pride himself with his vast knowledge of physics. His reading comprehension skills aren't that great either. If it's not a YouTube video you're not going to get through to him. But maybe, just maybe he might be able to understand this.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Energy911.jpg

triforcharity

11th July 2009, 09:25 PM

I bet if Chuck Norris did a round house onto the 100th floor, it would bring the whole thing down. And it would fall in 5 seconds. FAASTER THAN FREEFALL!!!

Can we put that on the scale you just posted???

MIKILLINI

12th July 2009, 10:10 PM

Say whaaa...?

According to your story one hour and no explosives at all are needed to demolish a skyscraper.

Investigations had been carried out and conclusions made to determine the catalyst that caused the WTC buildings to collapse. Those initial investigations and future subsequent ones have not come up with anything of significance that would overshadow the already known evidence. Did you miss this?

Or is it tons and tons of explosives and months of preparation?

That's the truther claim: David Ray Griffith, Steven Jones, Alex Jones, etc.

Some people need to make up their mind.

People like you, for instance.

doobiedoright

13th July 2009, 04:59 PM

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Briefs/4884.htm

One of the most alarming attributes of TATP is that it cannot be detected by bomb-sniffing dogs, making it easier to smuggle into airports and onto airplanes. It is also very easy to synthesize in clandestine labs, using readily available chemicals.

Say whaaa....?

lol

I dont think you will find many people willing to run around with this very unstable explosive!

There are currently not any k9's trained to detect this compound,however that may not be the case 6 months from now.
It would not take much to train for this compound as well!
Just goes to show you have no clue what your talking about!
Training can be towards any scent known to man..........you lose!

triforcharity

13th July 2009, 08:19 PM

I don't claim to know the government or Interpol were behind 9/11 and never said as much.

I claim debunkers don't know what happened on 9/11 anymore then I do they just pretend they do.

Now I just wonder why someone would lie about what I said to support their faith. Bitter?

Why not quote me?

Ok HI, here you go, I am quoting you directly from Page nine.

I was there. You were not. I, by default, know vastly more than you do about 9/11. If you were in NYC, I would still know more about 9/11 than you do. I worked that site every day for 17 days straight, took one day off, then went back to GZ for another 42 days. I took other people's shifts so they could attend funerals I wasn't able to attend. (IE: Out of town)

Now, what would you like to discuss. I would love to hear this.

PS, you should start a new thread, as it would be off topic. Put up or shut up.

UNLoVedRebel

13th July 2009, 08:26 PM

This is the same person who compared a skyscraper to a barbecue. We don't need to point out that he's wrong. It's understood that he's wrong just like it's understood the crazy street preacher is crazy. Let the troll starve to death. Or at the very least, start replying to his posts when he learns the difference between then and than.

beachnut

13th July 2009, 09:35 PM

UNLoVedRebel

14th July 2009, 07:20 PM

This thread is stupid. Don't bump it Homeland.

Just delete your post and log back off. Learn the difference between then and than, THEN try to have an adult discussion.

Homeland Insurgency

14th July 2009, 07:22 PM

Gee whiz, why are there zero noises of explosives on 911?

Gee whiz, was there zero people who claim to have heard explosions on 9/11? I mean out of all the people who died who actually would of been close enough to witness explosions it's a wonder there is anyone left to claim as much.

But there is isn't there? There are witnesses who survived who claim to have heard explosions. Why do you ignore this?

Failure comes in many ways when you lack knowledge, evidence, facts, logic, sound judgment, and rational thinking; why do you fail to understand 911?

Sounds like you have a lot of experience with failure. Is that why you are so happy?

After 7 years why have you not earned an engineering degree so you would not be fooled by idiots who spew the same ideas you have on 911?

Don't worry about what I've earned. How would you know? Besides don't you have an engineering degree? Why doesn't it help you?

UNLoVedRebel

14th July 2009, 07:27 PM

If anyone is thinking it is possible to have a discussion with a grown man who thinks "would of" makes a stitch of sense, please don't waste your time. It is not possible.

Homeland Insurgency

14th July 2009, 07:38 PM

If anyone is thinking it is possible to have a discussion with a grown man who thinks "would of" makes a stitch of sense, please don't waste your time. It is not possible.

Well there you have it folks. 9/11 conspiracy has been debunked because of grammar.

Thanks UNLoVedRebel. I guess you can retire now.

Wow... it's finally over.

I just wonder why all the new debunkers keep signing up here this year. Don't they know Twoofers have no grammar? Maybe you should send out a newsletter UNLoVedRebel. I don't think all these newbies got the message that the Twoof is dead and has been for a long time.

Twoof... that is how you spell it isn't it? I couldn't find it in my spell check. I hope it's not name calling. Nah... the moderators never would have let that go on for so long.

Not around here.

Disenchanted

14th July 2009, 07:44 PM

Gee whiz, was there zero people who claim to have heard explosions on 9/11? I mean out of all the people who died who actually would of been close enough to witness explosions it's a wonder there is anyone left to claim as much.

But there is isn't there? There are witnesses who survived who claim to have heard explosions. Why do you ignore this?

Why are you lying that this has been ignored or are you incapable of finding the thousands of time this has been addressed?

If those explosions were bombs capable of bringing down a building then a lot more people would have heard them.

Do you know what a simile is?

BigAl

14th July 2009, 07:44 PM

Well there you have it folks. 9/11 conspiracy has been debunked because of grammar.

Yup, and you can add the fact that the entire "Truth Movement" hasn't figured out the role of metaphor, simile and hyperbole in the reports from 9/11.

triforcharity

14th July 2009, 07:49 PM

Homeland Insurgency

14th July 2009, 07:58 PM

HI,

I was there on 9/11, saw both towers collapse, and never not once heard anything like a bomb going off. Hell, I was in the lobby of WTC 1&2 that day, and never heaard a bomb. I did however hear things like computer monitors, electricaal transformers, and the like blowing up, but never a bomb.

Care to prove me wrong??

Care to tell me how other first responders and witnesses that day got it wrong?

"I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions." -Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)"

How many should I post that you will just claim to know better what they were?

And who are you?

Shalamar

14th July 2009, 08:07 PM

deep

14th July 2009, 08:09 PM

Do explosions always = explosives?

No. Does that prove that Carlsen didn't hear explosives?

Shalamar

14th July 2009, 08:11 PM

No. Does that prove that Carlsen didn't hear explosives?

Does it prove that he DID? Considering that there was no evidence of explosives, I'm willing to accept other causes.

UNLoVedRebel

14th July 2009, 08:13 PM

No. Does that prove that Carlsen didn't hear explosives?

deep44 take, this test. Most truthers find it difficult. Let's see how you stack up against your truther brethren.

1tCBB8fthFg&feature=channel_page

Grizzly Bear

14th July 2009, 08:15 PM

Explosions are common in all large fires... To see this still being peddled years later as if it's a brand new phenomenon is rather old :\

deep

14th July 2009, 08:15 PM

Does it prove that he DID? Considering that there was no evidence of explosives, I'm willing to accept other causes.

It was a yes or no question. You'll notice that I didn't respond to yours with another question.

progge

14th July 2009, 08:16 PM

Care to tell me how other first responders and witnesses that day got it wrong?

"I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions." -Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)"

How many should I post that you will just claim to know better what they were?

And who are you?

This is the full quote:
I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110505.PDF (p. 6)

triforcharity

14th July 2009, 08:20 PM

HI,

What other word is there to describe a very loud noise coming from a damaged building that is on fire?? I have personally heard explosion-like noises coming from buildings thata are on fire. Some things that sound like explosions:

Transformers
Computer monitors
Large banks of UPSs (Uninterrupted power supplys) that cover entire floors.
Elevators failing and dropping 20 floors
Floors crashing down
Your head when someone tries to explain something to you.

Now, did people here explosions?? Sure. Did anyone see a bomb go off?? Nope.
Did people find bombs in the building?? Nope.
Did I see a 767 crash into a building that I had seen every single day for the past 4 years?? Yep.
Have you interviewed any of the firefighters that were there?? Most likely not.

I know from personal experience that stress and chaos can and will play mind games with you. Heck, I can tell you where I was standing when the towers collapsed. Could I tell you what I did after that??? Nope, sure can't!1 Because I ran my ass off. I don't know where I was exactly at for the rest of the day, other than a few little details. Some major, but not many.

Anyway, I am a firefighter who lost 343 of my friends on 9/11, who worked at 10 house, who had gotten off of work that morning, and spend the next 13 weeks intimately involved in the S&R operations that were taking place at GZ.

Now, I have explained who I am, who are you?? (No, I will not give you my name, because I don't want you harassing me at my home)

ElMondoHummus

14th July 2009, 08:23 PM

Sounds of explosions? Again?? Jesus, there truly isn't anything new among conspiracy peddlers, is there?
http://debunking911.com/explosions.htm
http://911myths.com/html/accounts_of_explosions.html
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard

triforcharity

14th July 2009, 08:30 PM

Here are some neat linkys for you of electrical transformers exploding.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpvwuBUH5xU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sngiPk6sTBs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy6UXxhzYlk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY72athcwvA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNHdW3ZOEWA&NR=1

See what I mean?? Explosions in a building like this do not suprise me at all.

Homeland Insurgency

14th July 2009, 08:32 PM

This is the full quote:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110505.PDF (p. 6)

"We realized later?" Who is we?

It doesn't matter.

Is the claim from debunkers that no one heard explosions and still to this day don't blame the explosions on the collapse of the buildings? Please.

I want to know what they thought at the time it happened. That includes Van Romero...

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse,"

"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that,"

Now before you tell me what he says after the fact tell me what other evidence he examined to come to his revisionism.

Was it his Presidential appointment?

Homeland Insurgency

14th July 2009, 08:36 PM

Homeland Insurgency

14th July 2009, 08:39 PM

UNLoVedRebel

14th July 2009, 08:45 PM

Really? So then why do debunkers claim there were no explosions or sounds of explosions?
Because debunkers don't claim there were no explosions or sounds of explosions.

triforcharity

14th July 2009, 08:46 PM

When they are talking to you dolts about explosions, it is usually about CD or bombs.

Follow along here son. Try to pay attention......

ElMondoHummus

14th July 2009, 08:51 PM

Bumping for posterities sake:

Sounds of explosions? Again?? Jesus, there truly isn't anything new among conspiracy peddlers, is there?
http://debunking911.com/explosions.htm
http://911myths.com/html/accounts_of_explosions.html
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard

triforcharity

14th July 2009, 08:54 PM

So why didn't very experienced first responders come to these conclusions at the time they were happening?

I am guessing that you have never once been in a hectic and chaotic event before. Getting caught with dirty magazines does NOT count. Have you ever been in a situation where there was absolutely NO guarantee that you would make it home that night?? I have. More than once. Heck, I didn't think I was going to survive 9/11 after the second plane hit.

Chaos and stress can play dirty tricks on you. Heck, I thought at one point that day I thought I saw more planes coming into Manhattan. I wasn't obviously. I even thought that it was all a bad dream. I had to remind myself that my friends lives depended on me to remain focused and vigilant.
A few times that day I thought I head voices of my family in the piles of rubble. I obviously didn't, as they were at home when all this was going down. So, obviously, you have no clue what stress can do to a person's mind. I didn't realize that the entire building collapsed untill about 45 minutes after it happend, and I could see that it from where I was.

Now, again, what is your point in all of this? Do you like making a mockery of the deaths of 343 of my friends, whom all gave their lives so "That Others May Live"???

Homeland Insurgency

14th July 2009, 08:56 PM

Because debunkers don't claim there were no explosions or sounds of explosions.

So there were explosions and sounds of explosions now?

UNLoVedRebel

14th July 2009, 08:56 PM

Could transformers or other electrical equipment explain some of what the firemen saw and heard? What about an acre of concrete floor slamming into another? Would steel bolts snapping under tremendous tension make a pop or explosive sound? Assuming the towers weren't in the vacuum of space, we can be fairly safe to say the things I mentioned are good candidates to explain what the firemen heard. Even they think so..
Really? So then why do debunkers claim there were no explosions or sounds of explosions?
http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/12/picdump57-18.jpg

Homeland Insurgency

14th July 2009, 08:58 PM

I am guessing that you have never once been in a hectic and chaotic event before. Getting caught with dirty magazines does NOT count. Have you ever been in a situation where there was absolutely NO guarantee that you would make it home that night?? I have. More than once. Heck, I didn't think I was going to survive 9/11 after the second plane hit.

Chaos and stress can play dirty tricks on you. Heck, I thought at one point that day I thought I saw more planes coming into Manhattan. I wasn't obviously. I even thought that it was all a bad dream. I had to remind myself that my friends lives depended on me to remain focused and vigilant.
A few times that day I thought I head voices of my family in the piles of rubble. I obviously didn't, as they were at home when all this was going down. So, obviously, you have no clue what stress can do to a person's mind. I didn't realize that the entire building collapsed untill about 45 minutes after it happend, and I could see that it from where I was.

Now, again, what is your point in all of this? Do you like making a mockery of the deaths of 343 of my friends, whom all gave their lives so "That Others May Live"???

I thought you claimed to know exactly what was going to happen and it was no surprise when the buildings collapsed?

Was it too chaotic or did you know?

UNLoVedRebel

14th July 2009, 09:00 PM

These "explosion" sounds could have been all sorts of things, such as elevators crashing down the shafts, and there are also quotes from firefighters where they say the people jumping from the buildings and crashing to the ground "sounded like explosions", not to mention debris that rained down, and the initial plane impacts.
So there were explosions and sounds of explosions now?
Now or always?

:wackygoofy:

Macgyver1968

14th July 2009, 09:02 PM

HI...are you real? or just someone's online persona pretending to be a obnoxious truther trying to cheese people off? It's an honest question...I really don't know.

deep

14th July 2009, 09:04 PM

Sounds of explosions? Again?? Jesus, there truly isn't anything new among conspiracy peddlers, is there?

Well, it shouldn't be a surprise, since you can't really debunk many of the eyewitness accounts. If someone says they definitely heard a bomb go off, you can't debunk it by saying, "they were mistaken, it was a body hitting the ground". That can't be proven, nor can it be proven that they heard a bomb.

The eyewitnesses I'm referring to above heard a very loud noise (or noises). Nobody knows for sure what they were.

triforcharity

14th July 2009, 09:05 PM

Oscar

14th July 2009, 09:24 PM

Why hasn't Homeland been banned?

His last reply to triforcharity made me feel ill.

Wouldn't you just love to stick Homeland in a New York Firehouse after informing them of his opinions.

progge

14th July 2009, 09:29 PM

"We realized later?" Who is we?

It doesn't matter.

Carlsen is precise on that, you just have to read the whole document. "We" is Carlsen and the lieutenant he was with.

Is the claim from debunkers that no one heard explosions and still to this day don't blame the explosions on the collapse of the buildings? Please.

I want to know what they thought at the time it happened.

I see.
I´m fine with your personal way of handling the explosion issues (only accepting the immediate impressions people had), as long as you do not expect or force other people to handle these issues in a similar fashion.
So I´ll leave it to that: I do NOT only want to know what the first responders thought at the time it happened. Nor does the firefighter you cited. I want to examine the whole body of "explosion" statements in what I hold to be the relevant contexts, which includes comparing the explosion statements with the avaiable videos, seeing how reliable the witness himself holds his impression to be, putting all this in the context of a chaotic and traumatic day, and the like.
Craig Carlsen corrected his immediate impression, as many did. And he would have good reasons not to do, if he actually heard explosions.
343 reasons, to be precise.

That includes Van Romero...

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse,"

"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that,"

Now before you tell me what he says after the fact tell me what other evidence he examined to come to his revisionism.

Don´t know, but probably more than a few videos.

Was it his Presidential appointment?

I´m not fine with this statement, since it includes discreditation (albeit in an interrogative form). Romero was the vice president of the bureau for Research and Economic Development at New Mexico´s Institute of Mining and Technology since 1997, and he supported national education programms since then, e.g. against terrorism.
http://web.archive.org/web/20021001042254/http://infohost.nmt.edu/mainpage/news/2001/15feb01.html

So there is absolutely no need to connect his White House appointment with his revised statements on the WTC collapses.

Shalamar

14th July 2009, 09:33 PM

Ok. 'Bombs' going off in the towers is circumstantial evidence only. IF that. The evidence? People heard explosions. Those sounds can also be attributed to other things. Metal snapping suddenly. Transformers blowing up. If you want explosives in the towers, then you need to FIND those explosives. Debris, remains, statements from the people that would have planted them.

Homeland Insurgency

14th July 2009, 09:33 PM

Ok, I knew WTC 7 was going to come down. Yes.

I however did not know that the S. Tower would collapse. I figured that we could get some headway, but obviously this didn't happen. I knew, after the S tower fell, that the N. Tower would fall also. My job after the first collapse was to get people out of the N. Tower and away from the building ASAP.

So, your trying to trip me up and put words into my mouth, and its wrong. I will never contradict myself son. You can take that to the bank.

So why were the towers unexpected to fall? And does every debunker claim this? Is this the debunker consensus now?

No one should have expected the towers to have collapsed by intentionally being slammed by jetliners?

Why not?

Supposedly it's elementary these days.

How do I turn you people around every time?

lol

deep

14th July 2009, 09:37 PM

Oscar

14th July 2009, 09:38 PM

Homeland:
So why were the towers unexpected to fall? And does every debunker claim this? Is this the debunker consensus now?

No one should have expected the towers to have collapsed by intentionally being slammed by jetliners?

Why not?

Supposedly it's elementary these days.

How do I turn you people around every time?

lol

Why don't you try answering questions for a change rather than asking inane ones and putting lol at the end.

If you're not a 14 year old troll who needs a clip round the ear, but an adult, you should be ashamed of yourself.

dtugg

14th July 2009, 09:41 PM

HI, is your goal to become the most pathetic troll on the internet? If so, it looks as though your hard work may pay off. You are well on your way.

SezMe

14th July 2009, 09:43 PM

I am guessing that you have never once been in a hectic and chaotic event before. Getting caught with dirty magazines does NOT count.
See, I try to get in at least one good chuckle a day. Thanks, triforcharity, for filling my quota today. Especially in a thread where HI subsequently brought up a little bile.

johnny karate

14th July 2009, 09:53 PM

Yes, that what I was saying earlier. They were "loud sounds from an unknown source". There's no way to identify them at this point.

Well, we certainly know what they weren't, and that's the very loud and very distinctive detonation charges of a controlled demolition since not a single person in the vicinity reported hearing them, and not a single recording device recorded them.

Now, if you want to pretend that these "mysterious" explosions have some kind of sinister source, you go right ahead. But out here in reality, there is nothing remotely mysterious about "loud sounds from an unknown source" during the collapse of a skyscraper.

triforcharity

14th July 2009, 09:54 PM

Sezme,

Your welcome. I bet there was a few times he experienced this. Possibly even as recently as last week.

Justin39640

14th July 2009, 09:56 PM

Well, we certainly know what they weren't, and that's the very loud and very distinctive detonation charges of a controlled demolition since not a single person in the vicinity reported hearing them, and not a single recording device recorded them.

Now, if you want to pretend that these "mysterious" explosions have some kind of sinister source, you go right ahead. But out here in reality, there is nothing remotely mysterious about "loud sounds from an unknown source" during the collapse of a skyscraper.

they would have heard demolition charges that big in jersey city and brooklyn

triforcharity

14th July 2009, 10:03 PM

So why were the towers unexpected to fall?

I personally didn't expect them to fall. I cannot speak for everyone there, but me and my crew personally, no. Did others?? Maybe.

And does every debunker claim this?

I only speak for myself. I cannot and will not speak for anyone else. Nor should you assume that I do.

Is this the debunker consensus now? I only speak for myself.

No one should have expected the towers to have collapsed by intentionally being slammed by jetliners?

Why not?

Supposedly it's elementary these days.

How do I turn you people around every time?

lol

Take the ESB for example. (I know, different construction, different plane, blah blah blah ) It didn't fall.

Plus, not to mention (IIRC) no firefighters made it to the floors that were the seat of the fire. I could be wrong, as I have said before, things get hazy sometimes.

Yes, now we know for a fact that if a 767 is hijacked and crashed into a building simmilar to WTC 1&2, that it very well may fail. Maybe not. But, should we just let anyone who is in the building parrish?? Nope. I took an oath, as did every other firefighter, to save lives. That is what we do.

HOW FREAKING HARD IS THIS TO UNDERSTAND!?!?!?!?!?!? Really??? Is it that hard of a concept to grasp??? Or is it that you can't imagine anyone doing that because you are a coward, and would run away from a wastebasket fire if it was in your house?? I am guessing that I am correct.

BTW, you will never trip me up. I am too good for the likes of you.

johnny karate

14th July 2009, 10:08 PM

I want to know what they thought at the time it happened. That includes Van Romero...

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse,"

"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that,"

Now before you tell me what he says after the fact tell me what other evidence he examined to come to his revisionism.

Was it his Presidential appointment?

HI, do you believe Van Romero was at all connected to Interpol, who you've also accused of being coerced into silence? Or do you think that these are merely separate pieces to one big puzzle?

johnny karate

14th July 2009, 10:12 PM

So why didn't very experienced first responders come to these conclusions at the time they were happening?

Since these same first responders have not come forward in the intervening eight years to proclaim what they experienced was the result of bombs and/or a controlled demolition, do you believe they were coerced into silence? Do you believe the coercion was performed by agents of Interpol in exchange for that agency to be allowed to remain on board the "Global War on Terror gravy train"?

Oscar

14th July 2009, 10:15 PM

Tri:
Is it that hard of a concept to grasp??? Or is it that you can't imagine anyone doing that because you are a coward, and would run away from a wastebasket fire if it was in your house??

Don't mistake trolls on the internet for real life. In real life they can be ignored or pushed away. On the internet they get their moment. It's hard to know who is being genuine and who is being deceitful. I try to be optimistic about people, but Homeland has worn out his truth card, his moral card and his 'I'm not going to be an ********' card a long time ago.

He's bankrupt. Don't throw him pennies.

triforcharity

14th July 2009, 10:22 PM

Yes, that what I was saying earlier. They were "loud sounds from an unknown source". There's no way to identify them at this point.

Yes, but deductive reasoning is telling me that if there were 15 different events in that building that COULD have made that noise, and one of those is a bomb, I am going with the 14 others, considering the 14 other ones seem more logical.

triforcharity

14th July 2009, 10:25 PM

I'd like to throw him something, but it wouldn't end well for him. Something along the lines of a CD device.

Brainache

14th July 2009, 10:37 PM

they would have heard demolition charges that big in jersey city and brooklyn

let's not forget that millions of windows all over lower Manhattan would have been shattered by these demolition charges as well.

SezMe

15th July 2009, 12:56 AM

He's bankrupt. Don't throw him pennies.
Words to the wise.

triforcharity

15th July 2009, 01:12 AM

But its fun sometimes. I mean, is 4:10 AM my time, and I am working a double shift. I gotta be up anyway, so why not have a little fun with him.

Haven't you ever played mindless video games, or played with pointless toys before?? Ie: Rubiex cube, or whatever the correct spelling is?? How about Legos?? (SORRY JUSTIN!!) Its fun, and consumes time. Plus, what else could I be doing?? Watching TV?? Not nearly as fun, and I usually fall asleep and get yelled at. OOPS!!

T.A.M.

15th July 2009, 04:16 AM

Justin39640

15th July 2009, 06:24 AM

Word terminology for the mentally impaired.

EXPLOSION does not always (or even often) equal EXPLOSIVES

got it truthers.

No one here has ever denied the presents of "EXPLOSIONS" or sounds of "EXPLOSIONS". What has been consistently said here, is there is no evidence of EXPLOSIVES used on 9/11.

we now return you to home room.

TAM:)

last night as i went to bed i heard a loud sharp noise that could be described as an "explosion" as it was very loud and very sharp

in reality it was a garbage truck picking up and putting down dumpsters in the neighborhood (i could hear him revving his engine to get more flow in the hydraulics)

deep

15th July 2009, 06:44 AM

No one here has ever denied the presents of "EXPLOSIONS" or sounds of "EXPLOSIONS". What has been consistently said here, is there is no evidence of EXPLOSIVES used on 9/11.

So the sound of unknown explosions, which could potentially be evidence of explosives, could not possibly be caused by explosives.. because there's no evidence of explosives?

Justin39640

15th July 2009, 06:50 AM

So the sound of unknown explosions, which could potentially be evidence of explosives, could not possibly be caused by explosives.. because there's no evidence of explosives?

like people pointed out
windows from the SI ferry terminal to the holland tunnel whoulda been blown out
they would have heard them in jersey and brooklyn

the auditory evidence supports no explosives
so does the lack of a shockwave

so no they couldnt potentially be explosives at all
nothing supports that "idea"

dtugg

15th July 2009, 06:50 AM

So the sound of unknown explosions, which could potentially be evidence of explosives, could not possibly be caused by explosives.. because there's no evidence of explosives?

If explosives were used in the WTC (especially the hundreds of tons that whackos like Niels Harritt say were there) the extremely loud noises would have been recorded on video. There are no such sounds on any video, therefore there were no explosives. Plus there was no evidence found in the rubble.

Grizzly Bear

15th July 2009, 06:55 AM

So the sound of unknown explosions, which could potentially be evidence of explosives, could not possibly be caused by explosives.. because there's no evidence of explosives?

There were those massive multistory & multi-acre fires though. Oh and the debris that was on fire igniting vehicles at street level. Just in case anyone here has forgotten... I don't know... gigantic fire igniting immense volumes of combustibles and as obvious as the sun, or invisible explosive devices? My bet's on the fire... There is also that little issue about the "hush-a-boom" effect...

newton3376

15th July 2009, 06:57 AM

So the sound of unknown explosions, which could potentially be evidence of explosives, could not possibly be caused by explosives.. because there's no evidence of explosives?

The problem is the truther argument is something like this...

TROOFER: We KNOW that there were explosives in the building.

SANE PERSON: How do you know that?

TROOFER: People heard explosions!!!

SANE PERSON: But how do you know those sounds were caused by explosives?

TROOFER: Because there were explosives planted in the buildings.

Justin39640

15th July 2009, 07:01 AM

The problem is the truther argument is something like this...

TROOFER: We KNOW that there were explosives in the building.

SANE PERSON: How do you know that?

TROOFER: People heard explosions!!!

SANE PERSON: But how do you know those sounds were caused by explosives?

TROOFER: Because there were explosives planted in the buildings.

i like the "My Cousin Vinny" brick analogy
Vinny: Look, maybe I could have handled the preliminary a little better, okay? I admit it. But what's most important is winning the case. I could do it. I really could. Let me tell you how, okay? The D.A.'s got to build a case. Building a case is like building a house. Each piece of evidence is just another building block. He wants to make a brick bunker of a building. He wants to use serious, solid-looking bricks, like, like these, right? (puts his hand on the wall)
Bill: Right.
Vinny: Let me show you something. (he holds up a playing card, with the face toward Billy) He's going to show you the bricks. He'll show you they got straight sides. He'll show you how they got the right shape. He'll show them to you in a very special way, so that they appear to have everything a brick should have. But there's one thing he's not gonna show you. (turns the card, so that its edge is toward Billy) When you look at the bricks from the right angle, they're as thin as this playing card. His whole case is an illusion, a magic trick. It has to be an illusion, 'cause you're innocent. Nobody, I mean nobody, pulls the wool over the eyes of a Gambini, especially this one. Give me a chance, one chance. Let me question the first witness. If after that point, you don't think that I'm the best man for the job, fire me then and there. I'll leave quietly, no grudges. All I ask is for that one chance. I think you should give it to me.

AJM8125

15th July 2009, 07:54 AM

How does that fairytale go again? You know, the one about how explosives could never have gotten close to the WTC because of all the security and people who would have witnessed it?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/08/national/main5143545.shtml?tag=stack

Bomb Materials Smuggled into Fed Buildings

Whaaa...?

How did that happen?

Dumbest. Thread. EVER.

So let me get this straight, HI finds an article about a bunch of lazy security guards getting busted and this somehow makes a case for explosives being planted on 9/11?

I work in property management. Let me clear up a few things:

I could drive a tank past my security staff if I wanted to. This is why there are others measures taken in a properly managed building. Most tenants have their own security measures, building staff such as housekeeping, engineering, valets and such have their own security routines they follow. Elevator techs are fiercely protective of their cars and hoistways becuase tampering with elevator equipment is often fatal on the rare occassion when it happens.

So why even hire uniformed guards to begin with? My insurance requires it.

What you wind up with is layers of security that prevent people from doing things like, you know, ripping down walls in the middle of the night or having nefarious agents scurrying about in elevator shafts. There's other measures we take too, but I'll play those close to chest for the moment.

Hope that clears things up, but I doubt it. HI will go on thinking that building managers rely on one level of security and a poor one at that. This is the same guy that wonders why his barbeque won't melt like the "steel in the towers did", need I remind you.

lol

ElMondoHummus

15th July 2009, 08:10 AM

Well, it shouldn't be a surprise, since you can't really debunk many of the eyewitness accounts. If someone says they definitely heard a bomb go off, you can't debunk it by saying, "they were mistaken, it was a body hitting the ground". That can't be proven, nor can it be proven that they heard a bomb.

The eyewitnesses I'm referring to above heard a very loud noise (or noises). Nobody knows for sure what they were.

Yes, it can be proven. We have explicit evidence of people jumping, including but not limited to video and witness testimony. Hell, four of the first ten Oral Histories at the NYTimes (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html) contains such testimonies from first responders. And in some of those testimonies, such as firefighter Gerard Gorman's, the jumpers impacting the roof were explicitly noted as the source of the explosive noises.

... Also, while I was there in the lobby, the guy who was looking up when the bodies were jumping, the bodies would jump and you'd hear a huge explosion and you'd see just blood splatter on the windows. It was like gruesome.

On top of that, logic dictates that, in the complete absence of any evidence of explosives, from the columns showing zero signs of explosive destruction and many signs of shear and other mechanical stress (NCSTAR 1-3C), from no victims being reported as having been shredded by fragments (various sources, including CDC "Morbidity and Mortality Weekly" reports and surveillance summaries, to studies published in journals like European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery to Topics in Emergency Medicine), from the complete lack of first responders and others reporting other components like det cord (NYTimes Oral Histories), to the complete lack of signs inside the building of any sort of work to implant explosives (multiple testimonies from various sites. And no, single instances of people people smuggling in explosives in briefcases don't work; a whole damn truck bomb didn't work in '93), you cannot propose explosives as the source of the sounds. That's elementary logic. The fact of the matter is that you cannot separate individual testimonies from the entire context of the event. Even when one witness is unsure of what he/she heard, others are, and even when the noise is unsourced, explosives are still eliminated as a possibility on the strength of all the other existent evidence. It defies logic and simple intelligence to write off all the converging and mutual supporting evidence in favor of a proposal that not only has no positive proof, but is contraindicated. The one explanation for the testimonies that has no proof behind it is the one citing explosives being present. You have no proof. That is the bottom line. Welcome to ignore for blatant logic abuse and no ability to comprehend the totality of the evidence presented. I'm happy to be patient with new people, but you've been here long enough and have had the evidence presented to you enough times to understand the utter lunacy of proposing explosives when no proof of such exists.

T.A.M.

15th July 2009, 08:13 AM

In the ABSENCE OF PROOF, one goes with what is more likely.

In this case, given the other more common sources (falling bodies, transformers, collapsing structure, etc...) that could explain said explosions, and given THE ABSENCE OF PROOF or EVIDENCE indicating the use of Explosives, the LOGICAL conclusion, the SANE conclusion, is that the "explosions" were caused by one of the more common sources, NOT explosives.

Why is this so hard for people with IQ's presumably above 100, to understand?

TAM:)

lapman

15th July 2009, 08:44 AM

So the sound of unknown explosions, which could potentially be evidence of explosives, could not possibly be caused by explosives.. because there's no evidence of explosives?
“The sight was amazing. I was just totally awestruck. I reported to the command post, showed my ID and asked if I could be of use. They said ‘Absolutely. Stand off on the side with the other medical people.’ I couldn’t fight any fires because I did not have that kind of gear with me, but would have done it if asked.

“I decided to walk closer to the South Tower. I was about 100 ft from the South Tower looking up when the bodies started coming down. I counted 35. They were just piling up on the Marriott Marquis hotel. They were 10 to 15 thick piling up one after another. You could hear them hitting on the side streets. They were hitting cars, and there were lots of explosions.

“I have seen plenty of death in my life, and burned bodies and so forth, but this was incredible. As I was looking up, I saw a body coming down, hit a lamppost and explode like a paint ball. Its arms and legs got torn off and the head ripped off and bounced right by me.”

http://september11.ceenews.com/ar/
electric_broadway_electrical_supplys/The sounds would be explosives if there was evidence of explosives. Since there has been no evidence of explosives, the sounds are absolutely not explosives. Please provide even one video of the towers and/or WTC 7 with these sounds.
79sJ1bMR6VQ

JimBenArm

15th July 2009, 08:45 AM

"...with IQ's presumably above 100..."

That's a big assumption, considering who we're talking about.

deep

15th July 2009, 08:54 AM

On top of that, logic dictates that, in the complete absence of any evidence of explosives, from the columns showing zero signs of explosive destruction and many signs of shear and other mechanical stress (NCSTAR 1-3C), from no victims being reported as having been shredded by fragments (various sources, including CDC "Morbidity and Mortality Weekly" reports and surveillance summaries, to studies published in journals like European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery to Topics in Emergency Medicine), from the complete lack of first responders and others reporting other components like det cord (NYTimes Oral Histories), to the complete lack of signs inside the building of any sort of work to implant explosives (multiple testimonies from various sites. And no, single instances of people people smuggling in explosives in briefcases don't work; a whole damn truck bomb didn't work in '93), you cannot propose explosives as the source of the sounds. That's elementary logic. The fact of the matter is that you cannot separate individual testimonies from the entire context of the event. Even when one witness is unsure of what he/she heard, others are, and even when the noise is unsourced, explosives are still eliminated as a possibility on the strength of all the other existent evidence. It defies logic and simple intelligence to write off all the converging and mutual supporting evidence in favor of a proposal that not only has no positive proof, but is contraindicated. The one explanation for the testimonies that has no proof behind it is the one citing explosives being present. You have no proof. That is the bottom line. Welcome to ignore for blatant logic abuse and no ability to comprehend the totality of the evidence presented. I'm happy to be patient with new people, but you've been here long enough and have had the evidence presented to you enough times to understand the utter lunacy of proposing explosives when no proof of such exists.

Umm, I haven't said that explosives were present - I have no proof of that. I said that you cannot prove that they were not present by telling us what certain eyewitnesses really heard (as opposed to what they reported).

Your assertion that certain eyewitnesses were all mistaken is an unsubstantiated counterclaim. You think you can pass off all kinds of assumptions about what else should have happened in order for a bomb to have been present - but those are not facts.

The worst part is, people in this forum will use that unsubstantiated counterclaim as "proof" in other arguments.

It is what it is - lots of witnesses heard what they believed were bombs and/or loud, unidentified explosions. That doesn't prove that bombs were present, and it doesn't disprove it.

lapman

15th July 2009, 09:02 AM

Umm, I haven't said that explosives were present - I have no proof of that. I said that you cannot prove that they were not present by telling us what certain eyewitnesses really heard (as opposed to what they reported).

Your assertion that certain eyewitnesses were all mistaken is an unsubstantiated counterclaim. You think you can pass off all kinds of assumptions about what else should have happened in order for a bomb to have been present - but those are not facts.

The worst part is, people in this forum will use that unsubstantiated counterclaim as "proof" in other arguments.

It is what it is - lots of witnesses heard what they believed were bombs and/or loud, unidentified explosions. That doesn't prove that bombs were present, and it doesn't disprove it.
All audio of the collapses substantiate our counterclaim. That is the absolute proof that no explosives were used.

BigAl

15th July 2009, 09:04 AM

Umm, I haven't said that explosives were present - I have no proof of that. I said that you cannot prove that they were not present by telling us what certain eyewitnesses really heard (as opposed to what they reported).

Based on experience with the 1993 bombing, on 9/11 there were no man-made explosives large enough or numerous enough to cause the collapse.

There is no technical evidence (seismic records, audio, etc) that indicates man-made explosives.

There is no eyewitness that says he saw man-made explosives in any way that isn't explained by the use of simile, hyperbole or metaphor or by a big piece of steel or a human body hitting the ground.

Here's an eyewitness architect that knew the explosive noises he was hearing was the building coming apart. Steel buildings make explosive noises in a fire.

"... On the 56th floor, an architect believes the building was failing structurally. Architect Bob Shelton had his foot in a cast; he'd broken it falling off a curb two weeks ago. He heard the explosion of the first plane hitting the north tower from his 56th-floor office in the south tower. As he made his way down the stairwell, his building came under attack as well. "You could hear the building cracking. It sounded like when you have a bunch of spaghetti, and you break it in half to boil it." Shelton knew that what he was hearing was bad. "It was structural failure," Shelton says. "Once a building like that is off center, that's it."

http://911stories.googlepages.com/accountsoftowerstructuralinstabilityande

Dave Rogers

15th July 2009, 09:27 AM

I haven't said that explosives were present - I have no proof of that.

Good. Then we can dismiss the argument that there is proof that the Twin Towers were demolished by explosives.

What's next?

Dave

ElMondoHummus

15th July 2009, 09:36 AM

There is nothing unsubstantiated about anything I said. For starters, as I noted above, witnesses explicitly reported jumpers, and first responders explicitly noted they were the cause of the sounds they heard. Furthermore, the fact that the steel showed zero signs of explosive damage and multiple, repeated signs of mechanically induced defomations is absolutely, positively substantiated; again, NCSTAR 1-3C is devoted to such damage and failure modes. So are the injury and death reports regarding traumatic injuries at thhe WTC that I noted were published in the journals I listed. So is the fact that no first responder in the NYTimes Oral Histories, or cleanup workers in any published report ever reported materials found consistent with explosives use; read the histories.

The fact is that the witness testimonies of explosions cannot be divorced from the totality of evidence. And the totality of evidence stands: There were no explosives used. Attempting to argue otherwise is to evade the established facts of that day and to ignore the plethora of evidence that exists.

----

People, this is exactly why Deep has eared a spot on my ignore list. He's been around long enough to understand what the totality of the evidence is, and that's apparent by his attempt some of you written responses for to isolate individual aspects from the context of the remaining evidence. There is no "no one knows what really happened", not when you examine the mass of evidence as a whole. A person can be confused about what he heard, but when the rest of the evidence rules out a possibility, it takes real, intentional dishonesty to try to argue the statement in isolation of all that other evidence. He's got nothing substantial to add. I suggest others consider putting him on your ignore list as well.

triforcharity

15th July 2009, 09:37 AM

So the sound of unknown explosions, which could potentially be evidence of explosives, could not possibly be caused by explosives.. because there's no evidence of explosives?

Der. Now your getting it!!! Only one piece of evidence for explosive devices, and 1000 other pieces of evidence of something else. Get it???

Jonnyclueless

15th July 2009, 09:42 AM

Every fourth of july there should be a massive gun shot investigation since all those explosions could be evidence of gun fire. Good work Deep. It's no wonder the world listens to you!

Explosions sounds in a building collapse? Who wouldn't be stumped by that?

triforcharity

15th July 2009, 10:00 AM

My five year old was watching a movie with me last night (9/11-The Directors Cut) and as the first building collapsed, he said, "Daddy, if your friends could have put the fire out, the big building wouldn't have fallen, would it?"

HOLY LOGIC BATMAN!!! This is my five year old, who WASN'T EVEN ALIVE AT THE TIME!!!

Now, my 11 year old remebers Daddy being gone for a long time, but that is about it.

Maybe HE should come on here and explain it to these idiot "Truthers". Heck, he understands what happened that day.

ElMondoHummus

15th July 2009, 10:04 AM

Der. Now your getting it!!! Only one piece of evidence for explosive devices, and 1000 other pieces of evidence of something else. Get it???

I wouldn't even call it "one piece of evidence". He has to deliberately remove context from witness statements in order to present them as arguments in favor of explosives. In reality, they're testminonials on the audible aspects of a building disintegrating. But conspiracy peddlers routinely separate context from individual pieces of evidence in order to make them sound the way they want them to sound like. Gravy has examples on one of his pages (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard) that show this exact method of distortion.

deep

15th July 2009, 10:06 AM

Good. Then we can dismiss the argument that there is proof that the Twin Towers were demolished by explosives.

Of course you can - that's certainly not a proven fact.

lapman

15th July 2009, 10:09 AM

Of course you can - that's certainly not a proven fact.
By George, I think you've got it. If actual proof of explosives is given, I will change my stance on the subject.

triforcharity

15th July 2009, 10:24 AM

Believe me, if there was ONE firefighter that thought that CD took down the towers, there would be a HUGE uproar!! Heck, we have ridiculed the top brass of FDNY because of radio issues. We have ridiculed FDNY top brass because of problems with certain equipment failure. You think that we would just keep quiet because we could loose our jobs?? BS, pure, unfiltered BS. We lost 343 friends that day. We wouldn't just sit by idle while the death of our Brothers goes by the wayside.

Plus, were union, we wouldn't loose our jobs. We have contracts. If we are a whistleblower, the union protects us.

deep

15th July 2009, 10:41 AM

I wouldn't even call it "one piece of evidence". He has to deliberately remove context from witness statements in order to present them as arguments in favor of explosives. In reality, they're testminonials on the audible aspects of a building disintegrating. But conspiracy peddlers routinely separate context from individual pieces of evidence in order to make them sound the way they want them to sound like. Gravy has examples on one of his pages (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard) that show this exact method of distortion.

Yes, that webpage you provided is the source of the unsubstantiated counterclaims. Following eyewitness accounts from 16 first responders who heard bombs, explosions, or loud noises (please see the webpage for the exact quotes), we're told that they were all hearing bodies hit the ground.

You may suspect that they were hearing bodies, for whatever reason, but there is no proof provided.

Now, this is important: that does not prove that bombs were going off. Furthermore, I'm not suggesting that bombs went off.

Please read the bolded text before you reply and accuse me of "peddling conspiracies", or whatever else.

deep

15th July 2009, 10:47 AM

Believe me, if there was ONE firefighter that thought that CD took down the towers, there would be a HUGE uproar!!

Right. Please understand: if (HYPOTHETICALLY) one of these eyewitnesses really did hear a bomb, would that prove the CD hypothesis? No, of course not. Bombs come in all shapes & sizes, with varying levels of destructive ability. The presence of one bomb does not prove the presence of multiple-tons of explosives, or anything like that.

Please stop associating my argument with the CD hypothesis.

NoZed Avenger

15th July 2009, 10:50 AM

By George, I think you've got it.

No. His reply was deliberately and carefully framed in a particular matter to make it look like agreement, but leave room for semantic quibbling.

I don't see that any further effort at communication under those circumstances is warranted.

johnny karate

15th July 2009, 12:12 PM

Right. Please understand: if (HYPOTHETICALLY) one of these eyewitnesses really did hear a bomb, would that prove the CD hypothesis? No, of course not. Bombs come in all shapes & sizes, with varying levels of destructive ability. The presence of one bomb does not prove the presence of multiple-tons of explosives, or anything like that.

Please stop associating my argument with the CD hypothesis.

Given the information we have, which do you think is more likely:

1) Ultimately useless bombs were randomly planted in the towers by persons unknown for reasons unknown.

2) Loud explosions occurred as an expected result of two 110-story buildings crashing to the ground.

triforcharity

15th July 2009, 12:24 PM

I don't recall addressing that statement to anyone in praticular there Sparkplug.

I do recall making a general statement though, addressing it to nobody really. Am I wrong???

deep

15th July 2009, 12:30 PM

Given the information we have, which do you think is more likely:

1) Ultimately useless bombs were randomly planted in the towers by persons unknown for reasons unknown.

2) Loud explosions occurred as an expected result of two 110-story buildings crashing to the ground.

Your two options are not mutually exclusive.

I will say, again, that there is no proof that bombs or explosives were in any of the three buildings.

triforcharity

15th July 2009, 12:41 PM

Ok, so why are you here deep??? Please explain what you are arguing here for???

Justin39640

15th July 2009, 12:54 PM

Ok, so why are you here deep??? Please explain what you are arguing here for???

yeah good question

dont say you still have unanswered questions deep
you just dont like the answers

johnny karate

15th July 2009, 01:05 PM

Your two options are not mutually exclusive.

Yes they are in that option 2 would preclude the existence of any explosive devices. With that in mind, please make your selection.

deep

15th July 2009, 01:42 PM

Ok, so why are you here deep??? Please explain what you are arguing here for???

Why am I here, in this thread? Because there's obviously a misunderstanding about certain eyewitness accounts, and I'm here to discuss that - in a friendly and lively way.

triforcharity

15th July 2009, 01:46 PM

Ok, what's your stance??

Were there bombs in the building?? Were the eyewitnesses statements taaken out of context??

MIKILLINI

15th July 2009, 02:04 PM

How do I turn you people around every time?

It's all in your mind HI. You're just a legend in your own mind.

The buildings collapsed HI, that's a fact. They really did. Now after 7+ years, the alleged explosions during the towers collapse have not been linked with demolition material in terms of anything substantial. There's no evidence.

Disenchanted

15th July 2009, 04:22 PM

So there were explosions and sounds of explosions now?

Please show a post by a debunker here saying there were not explosions inside the buildings.

If the explosions were from bombs why were they not heard by more people from outside?

Why did the producers of truther videos need to add fake explosion sounds to their videos?

triforcharity

15th July 2009, 05:40 PM

Because there wen't huge explosions going off that they claim were......... Der......

;)

BigAl

15th July 2009, 05:49 PM

Your two options are not mutually exclusive.

I will say, again, that there is no proof that bombs or explosives were in any of the three buildings.

The fact that none of the countless video cameras recorded any explosions consitant with any man-made explosions, let alone explosions synchronized with the collapse of any building is proof.

The 1993 bombing was heard by all the occupants of the two towers and all over the 16+ acres of the plaza. It wasn't large enough to do any structural damage. Any man-made demolition explosive would have to be even louder.

The re was no such explosion heard or recorded.

Homeland Insurgency

15th July 2009, 07:17 PM

Dumbest. Thread. EVER.

So let me get this straight, HI finds an article about a bunch of lazy security guards getting busted and this somehow makes a case for explosives being planted on 9/11?

I work in property management. Let me clear up a few things:

I could drive a tank past my security staff if I wanted to. This is why there are others measures taken in a properly managed building. Most tenants have their own security measures, building staff such as housekeeping, engineering, valets and such have their own security routines they follow. Elevator techs are fiercely protective of their cars and hoistways becuase tampering with elevator equipment is often fatal on the rare occassion when it happens.

So why even hire uniformed guards to begin with? My insurance requires it.

What you wind up with is layers of security that prevent people from doing things like, you know, ripping down walls in the middle of the night or having nefarious agents scurrying about in elevator shafts. There's other measures we take too, but I'll play those close to chest for the moment.

Hope that clears things up, but I doubt it. HI will go on thinking that building managers rely on one level of security and a poor one at that. This is the same guy that wonders why his barbeque won't melt like the "steel in the towers did", need I remind you. lol

The people in the investigation I posted didn't just get past the guards. And it wasn't in just one building.

What happened to all the layers of security beyond the guard in these post 9/11 cases?

See how you never clear anything up?

See how you never debunk anything?

Homeland Insurgency

15th July 2009, 07:19 PM

Please show a post by a debunker here saying there were not explosions inside the buildings.

Try searching the debunker term hush-a-boom.

Homeland Insurgency

15th July 2009, 07:22 PM

Your two options are not mutually exclusive.

I will say, again, that there is no proof that bombs or explosives were in any of the three buildings.

That is correct deep44. Just like there is no proof of removed fire-proofing or thermal expansion.

BigAl

15th July 2009, 07:34 PM

That is correct deep44. Just like there is no proof of removed fire-proofing or thermal expansion.

Fireproofing wasn't "removed". It was inadequate in the first place.

Source: Building collapse - V Dunn
http://snurl.com/j54ud [books_google_com]

Robertson didn't consider gas fuel load
http://snurl.com/j54gc [books_google_com]

Expansion.

Question from FDNY Lieutenant's test: "how much does a 100 ft bam expand at 1200 degF
http://snurl.com/j5434 [books_google_com]

triforcharity

15th July 2009, 08:24 PM

HI, welcome back.

Now, please direct your attention to http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4905353#post4905353 this post of mine. Would you care to address any of the fine points I made??

BenBurch

15th July 2009, 08:30 PM

tsig

15th July 2009, 08:45 PM

Why am I here, in this thread? Because there's obviously a misunderstanding about certain eyewitness accounts, and I'm here to discuss that - in a friendly and lively way.

Foot covering alert.

Disenchanted

15th July 2009, 08:47 PM

Try searching the debunker term hush-a-boom.

Are you lying about is meant by hush-a-boom or do you not understand it?

Also questions from my previous post that you ignored:

If the explosions were from bombs why were they not heard by more people from outside?

Why did the producers of truther videos need to add fake explosion sounds to their videos?

Disbelief

16th July 2009, 05:13 AM

Ok, what's your stance??

Were there bombs in the building?? Were the eyewitnesses statements taaken out of context??

Deep is a no-claimer. He will dance and dodge, not taking a stance on anything, but he will try to point out minor inconsistencies and make them larger. When that goes nowhere, he will fall back on his no-claim stance and go back to JAQing.

deep

16th July 2009, 05:25 AM

Deep is a no-claimer. He will dance and dodge, not taking a stance on anything, but he will try to point out minor inconsistencies and make them larger. When that goes nowhere, he will fall back on his no-claim stance and go back to JAQing.

Let me share a quote with you (reposted from Wikipedia: "Marcello Truzzi"):

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

– Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987

BigAl

16th July 2009, 05:29 AM

Why am I here, in this thread? Because there's obviously a misunderstanding about certain eyewitness accounts, and I'm here to discuss that - in a friendly and lively way.

The "misunderstanding" would be the inability or unwillingness on the part of Twoofers to understand the use of metaphor, simile, and hyperbole as used by the people that were at WTC on 9/11 as well as the inevitable confusion and uncertainty demonstrated by statements made as the events of the day evolved.

You may find that the people here that had some eyewitness and/or professional involvement with the events of 9/11 are deficient in the sense-of-humor department when presented with your silly claims.

BigAl

16th July 2009, 05:35 AM

Let me share a quote with you (reposted from Wikipedia: "Marcello Truzzi"):

[I][SIZE="2"]In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded.

And for those with relevant expertise and knowledge of relevant aspects of the events of 9/11, the burden has been made and made and made.

[I]All the people that say otherwise demonstrate a failure to understand the facts on the public record for the events related to 9/11 and/or fail to demonstrate expertise in the relevant topic.

Richard Gage, I'm talking about you.

deep

16th July 2009, 05:38 AM

You may find that the people here that had some eyewitness and/or professional involvement with the events of 9/11 are deficient in the sense-of-humor department when presented with your silly claims.

My only "claim" in this thread is that you (collectively) haven't offered any proof for your negative hypothesis - please see above quote.

It's fine for someone to believe that those eyewitnesses were hearing bodies hit the ground, but there's certainly no proof of that.

BigAl

16th July 2009, 05:44 AM

My only "claim" in this thread is that you (collectively) haven't offered any proof for your negative hypothesis - please see above quote.

It's fine for someone to believe that those eyewitnesses were hearing bodies hit the ground, but there's certainly no proof of that.

The eyewitnesses saw the bodies fall and heard the resulting noise. It's on video. (The Naudet film). How much evidence do you need?

Your ignorance of the facts and the professional literature and public record and any single area of relevant professional expertise is your problem.

deep

16th July 2009, 05:47 AM

The eyewitnesses saw the bodies fall and heard the resulting noise. It's on video. (The Naudet film). How much evidence do you need?

Your ignorance of the facts and the professional literature and public record and any single area of relevant professional expertise is your problem.

I'm referring to the people who claimed that they heard something else entirely, and certainly didn't see a body fall. The negative hypothesis I'm referring to is that those people were mistaken, and what they really heard were bodies hitting the ground.

BigAl

16th July 2009, 05:56 AM

I'm referring to the people who claimed that they heard something else entirely, and certainly didn't see a body fall. The negative hypothesis I'm referring to is that those people were mistaken, and what they really heard were bodies hitting the ground.

There are hundreds of kinds of things that make loud noises, frequently called "explosions" in a fire in any steel structure. People with any familiarity with those fires know this. This training predates 2001. You apparently are not one of these people.

Nobody that was an eyewitness to WTC says they saw anything that isn't explained by simile, metaphor and hyperbole.

Here's an architect that was in one of the towers who heard "explosions" and knew they were not man-made. Buried in my notes I have dozens of other reports of explosions in steel buildings that were made by something other than man-made explosives.

On the 56th floor, an architect believes the building was failing structurally. Architect Bob Shelton had his foot in a cast; he'd broken it falling off a curb two weeks ago. He heard the explosion of the first plane hitting the north tower from his 56th-floor
office in the south tower. As he made his way down the stairwell, his building came under attack as well. "You could hear the building cracking. It sounded like when you have a bunch of spaghetti, and you break it in half to boil it." Shelton knew that what he was hearing was bad. "It was structural failure," Shelton says. "Once a
building like that is off center, that's it." http://911stories.googlepages.com/accountsoftowerstructuralinstabilityande

deep

16th July 2009, 06:11 AM

There are hundreds of kinds of things that make loud noises, frequently called "explosions" in a fire in any steel structure. People with any familiarity with those fires know this. This training predates 2001. You apparently are not one of these people.

Where have I denied that lots of things make loud noises in a situation like that?

I'm saying that there is no proof that specific eyewitnesses who said they heard "a bomb" or "an explosion" were actually hearing bodies hit the ground. There's also no proof that they were hearing bombs go off, given all the loud noises in the building at that time.

BigAl

16th July 2009, 06:16 AM

Where have I denied that lots of things make loud noises in a situation like that?

I'm saying that there is no proof that specific eyewitnesses who said they heard "a bomb" or "an explosion" were actually hearing bodies hit the ground. There's also no proof that they were hearing bombs go off, given all the loud noises in the building at that time.

There is no technical evidence, no audio recording on any video camera or any eyewitness account that is consistent in timing and loudness with man-made demolition.

All the claims of man-made demolition are based on cherry-picked out-of-context quotes that take on a different meaning when read in full and in the context of everything we now know about what happened.

AJM8125

16th July 2009, 06:28 AM

The people in the investigation I posted didn't just get past the guards. And it wasn't in just one building.

They got past building security. Would you show where the article states that they were able to plant their bombs behind walls without nobody noticing?

What happened to all the layers of security beyond the guard in these post 9/11 cases?

Since your OP is nothing but an arguement from ignorance, I doubt explaining it to you would accomplish anything. It would be like you trying to show me the difference between the regular and the super-value combo. You'd be wasting your time trying sell me on something I'm not likely buying.

See how you never clear anything up?

See how you never debunk anything?

See how you never really say anything? Snark away, that's all you have.

funk de fino

16th July 2009, 06:42 AM

So the sound of unknown explosions, which could potentially be evidence of explosives, could not possibly be caused by explosives.. because there's no evidence of explosives?

NIST studied the evidence for those explosion noises and re interviewed some of the claimants. They found nothing to suggest CD.

johnny karate

16th July 2009, 07:11 AM

Given the information we have, which do you think is more likely:

1) Ultimately useless bombs were randomly planted in the towers by persons unknown for reasons unknown.

2) Loud explosions occurred as an expected result of two 110-story buildings crashing to the ground.

Yes they are in that option 2 would preclude the existence of any explosive devices. With that in mind, please make your selection.

Bump for deep44.

triforcharity

16th July 2009, 07:16 AM

Deep, I undeerstand what you are saying. There is no way to determine what exactly every person heard on that day. There isn't enough evidence to decipher what they did hear. However, there IS enough evidence to come to the conclusion that it WASN'T A FREAKING BOMB!! There are hundreds of other things that go boom in a huge structure that is ONE FIRE!!

Now, could it have been large beams failing??? Sure
How about entire floor sections falling?? Possibly
Could it have been, I dunno, huge battery bank exploding?? Absolutely.
How about some poor souls body, traveling at terminal velocity hitting an aluminum structure?? Sure

Don't start on the faalling bodies thing. I will tear you up and spit you out like old Copenhagen in 1 post. Don't do it.

Disbelief

16th July 2009, 08:52 AM

Let me share a quote with you (reposted from Wikipedia: "Marcello Truzzi"):

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

– Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987

You can continue to act like you are skeptical, but those who know your posting history understand that it is a smokescreen. If there ever is another investigation, even though there have been many independent ones, you will continue to act like you are always looking for more information because you are skeptical. Don't worry, all the regulars (and probably most lurkers) know you are really a truther.

stilicho

16th July 2009, 12:28 PM

Deep is a no-claimer. He will dance and dodge, not taking a stance on anything, but he will try to point out minor inconsistencies and make them larger. When that goes nowhere, he will fall back on his no-claim stance and go back to JAQing.

That's what makes this type of thread at once entertaining and a frightful bore. Thirteen pages of stuff and not a single claim made either by HI or by deep.

This happens on plenty of other threads, too, and ultimately you have to conclude that the OPs aren't serious.

I suspect that the OP is trying to insinuate something but why not say what it is? I'd be more inclined to respect the 'truthers' if they simply said something like this:

"Security guards were fooled by agents smuggling contraband into a building the other day. I think this is what happened on 9/11, too."

At least that's something you can debate. This isn't a debate or even a discussion.

FineWine

16th July 2009, 12:41 PM

Homeland Insecurity - The fact that you or I could smuggle a few ounces of ANYTHING into ANYWHERE does not mean that it was even remotely possible to smuggle MANY TONS of explosive and then CUT WALLS to install them, and WIRE THEM TO DETONATORS, and blow up a major occupied building without being detected and stopped.

If you think that's possible, you are not really in touch with reality on any level.

HI's mad premise was destroyed instantly. He has pranced, danced, and blown smoke ever since in a desperate attempt to obscure that fact. We get the idea that it is possible to smuggle a tiny amount of bomb-making material past security guards. We also get the idea that demolition experts state that many tons of charges would have had to be placed by teams working for months to bring down the towers. HI made a total fool of himself, yet again, by invoking Stacey Loizeaux, a top demolition pro who despises "truthers" for their dishonesty and stupidity.

He can't understand a word you're saying. His eyes are closed and his ears are plugged.

stilicho

16th July 2009, 01:33 PM

HI's mad premise was destroyed instantly.

Another point missing from the story (but probably included in the audit) was the number of incidents in which the investigators were caught or observed during the exercises. If the audit report is mired somewhere in the middle of this thirteen pages maybe you could tell me if that aspect is included. If we don't have the audit report itself, we are arguing on the basis what a senator told a news service about what he heard.

deep

16th July 2009, 06:12 PM

That's what makes this type of thread at once entertaining and a frightful bore. Thirteen pages of stuff and not a single claim made either by HI or by deep.

This happens on plenty of other threads, too, and ultimately you have to conclude that the OPs aren't serious.

I'm sorry it's boring, but that's because nobody in this thread seems to understand the importance of proving a negative hypothesis. There's also a very fundamental misunderstanding about what constitutes "evidence".

Take, for example, the eyewitnesses from earlier in this thread - we can't prove what they were hearing (or not hearing), so we must accept that they heard unidentified sounds that were perceived as an "explosion" (paraphrasing). I would classify that as very weak evidence in support of bombs going off.

Evidence should be measured in degrees (strong, weak, etc), and just because there's evidence to support something doesn't mean there's adequate evidence for you to believe it.