Debunker says what? [Archive] - Page 3

jaydeehess

17th July 2009, 06:32 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

Well then you should be able to see immediately that the 'more extrodinary' claim for the sounds heard would be that they were caused by bombs in the building and thus this claim requires much greater evidence than does the one that they were caused by falling bodies or the explosive ignition of other items on the fire floors.

Next we note the fact that there are eyewitness accounts of people falling and creating loud noises upon hitting the ground and the fact that we know for certain that major office fires often include the explosive ignition of items, both of which bode well for those being the source of the sounds heard. In addition there is no audio recording of anything resembling the type of explosive sound that would be created by the type and size of explosive used to sever large columns.

On the other hand the only evidence that these sounds were caused by explosives is the speculation of some people that this was the source of the sounds. There are no eyewitness accounts by anyone who saw an explosion occur, only characterizations of sounds as 'explosions'. Whereas a propane bottle, or even a fire extinguisher, cooking off is indeed an explosion it is not even close to that of a charge designed to cause structural damage. Failing floor sections hitting the next floor down make even louder sounds and can easily be described as 'explosive' sounds, and although they are indicative of structural damage they are not the sounds of actual explosive charges designed to cause structural damage. Both of these situations can and do occur in major office fires.
The office fires in the towers also had two charactersitics never seen in 'normal' office fires. They were large multifloor fires within seconds of impact,('normally' it takes several hours to get to this stage) AND that impact caused major structural damage to the floor pans of several floors. (obviously a characteristic rarely, if ever , encountered especially in combination with the afore mentioned immediate multifloor fire)

A true skeptic would weigh the evidence pro and con each claim and note that it is quite obvious that logic heavily favours one over the other.
A true skeptic acknowledges that there is a small percentage chance that the bulk of evidence is pointing to the wrong claim but that it is highly unlikely that the claim with the least evidence is the correct one.

jaydeehess

17th July 2009, 06:41 AM

I should add that I have been on holiday for a while and only recently came back to this thread and have not read the intervening pages. However Deep's insistence that explosives have not been disproved struck me as quite extrodinary especially as opposed to the commonly accepted history of the collapses.

johnny karate

17th July 2009, 09:00 AM

You're asking a loaded question - why in the world would I answer it?

To demonstrate you're not an intellectually dishonest fraud?

How about this, I'll rephrase the question:

Do you believe the explosions witnessed on 9/11 were most likely caused by bombs, or the "natural phenomena" of a collapsing skyscraper?

triforcharity

17th July 2009, 09:00 AM

Oh, Oh, here is another thing that goes boom in this incident.

After the first collapse, there were unknown firefighters missing. 99% of those firefighters had SCOTT packs on. Those pack have LARGE BOTTLES OF OXYGEN. Could THEY have gone boom??? ABSOLUTELY!!

I try to block out some of these things. Its disturbing. Like like the videos that I see that have the PASS device going off. KNowing what it is, and what it indicates, is very ehart wrenching for ANY firefighter.

BigAl

17th July 2009, 09:05 AM

Oh, Oh, here is another thing that goes boom in this incident.

After the first collapse, there were unknown firefighters missing. 99% of those firefighters had SCOTT packs on. Those pack have LARGE BOTTLES OF OXYGEN. Could THEY have gone boom??? ABSOLUTELY!!

Yup.

"The Scott cylinders and the oxygen cylinders were all letting go. They were blowing up left and right."
FDNY Firefighter Todd Heaney on 9/11 (FDNY oral testimony transcripts)

QUESTION: Are they really O2 bottles and not just compressed air? O2 can be dangerous.

lapman

17th July 2009, 09:31 AM

Yup.

QUESTION: Are they really O2 bottles and not just compressed air? O2 can be dangerous.
They would be air. Breathing only pure O2 would kill you.

BigAl

17th July 2009, 09:33 AM

They would be air. Breathing only pure O2 would kill you.

If it were pure O2, the breathing apparatus would mix it down.

triforcharity

17th July 2009, 07:13 PM

Homeland Insurgency

17th July 2009, 07:47 PM

Actually, most departments use something simmilar to Nitrus Oxide. The same stuff that divers use in their SCUBA tanks. The regulator doesn't mix it with anything, as the air around could contaminate the air.

Its not pure O2 though, but obviously it has a content of oxygen.

So, to answer you guys' questions, no. Its not pure O2. But, still VERY flameable, and WILL "cook off" in a fire like this. The newest tanks are Carbon Fiber, and will melt and burn if exposed to fire. Not just heat, but direct flame exposure. Or if they are punctured, they will also go flying off like a rocket.

And just compressed air would not sustain life too well. Its too weak, as ambient air is only 21% O2 content.

So when you were down at ground zero that day hearing all these different explosions and deciphering exactly what they were and weren't with your super human fireman dog ears how come some of your fellow firemen didn't have this same talent?

I mean some of them did report secondary explosions? They didn't say anything about Oxygen tanks.

Exploding rockets huh?

So I guess my question is if there were so many other available things to be exploding during the collapse of the WTC buildings that weren't bombs then where are the recordings of all these other things exploding?

And please... grace us with you expertise. Explain exactly for instance the difference between the sound of a bomb and say a power line or electrical transformer blowing up.

And how loud would it be in the middle (the core) of a collapsing 110 story building with acre wide floors? Who stood around to hear this?

And if people were close enough did hear such a sound then how many would still be alive?

BigAl

17th July 2009, 08:00 PM

So when you were down at ground zero that day hearing all these different explosions and deciphering exactly what they were and weren't with your super human fireman dog ears how come some of your fellow firemen didn't have this same talent?

I mean some of them did report secondary explosions? They didn't say anything about Oxygen tanks.

Exploding rockets huh?

So I guess my question is if there were so many other available things to be exploding during the collapse of the WTC buildings that weren't bombs then where are the recordings of all these other things exploding?

Because all the noises heard weren't as loud as man-made explosive demolition. No man-made demolition would be heard by only one person or a few people. Baed on experience with teh 1993 bombing, everyone at WTC would have heard the same explsion.

There is also something called "brisance", the sound explosives make. People that make been around real explosives know brisance associated with chemical explosives and know it doesn't sound the same and a steel beam hitting another steel beam.

Lots of people who were at WTC knew what real explosives sounds like. Anyone that had been in the military and lots of construction workers would know the difference. People the set off big fireworks would even know that stuff crashing on the ground isn't the same as jumbo M-80 firework.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisance

triforcharity

17th July 2009, 08:21 PM

So when you were down at ground zero that day hearing all these different explosions and deciphering exactly what they were and weren't with your super human fireman dog ears how come some of your fellow firemen didn't have this same talent??

Other fireman DID hear it. Some brought it up, some didn't during the Post-9/11 interviews. As I believe BigAl posted,

"The Scott cylinders and the oxygen cylinders were all letting go. They were blowing up left and right."
FDNY Firefighter Todd Heaney on 9/11 (FDNY oral testimony transcripts)"

Here is the link.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110255.PDF

Page 13 of 16 in the PDF.

This is by Todd Hearney, and is a good friend of mine. I still talk to him today.

I mean some of them did report secondary explosions? They didn't say anything about Oxygen tanks.

Exploding rockets huh??

Some of them also didn't say anything about falling bodies either. But, as we all know, there were loud bangs from people jumping out of the building.

So I guess my question is if there were so many other available things to be exploding during the collapse of the WTC buildings that weren't bombs then where are the recordings of all these other things exploding?

To answer this assinine question is going to be easy.

TNT-RDX etc. typically have a Db level of 140 decibels. This is just short of hearing damage, depending on the distance from the source. You won't understand this, but SCOTT packs going off are only around 90-100 db.

And please... grace us with you expertise. Explain exactly for instance the difference between the sound of a bomb and say a power line or electrical transformer blowing up.

I will be glad to. I'll even use small words for you so your brain can understand them easily.

Power line's don't blow up. Transformers do. Transistors do. Fuses do.

Arc?? Yes, but that is a whole different noise all together.

Again, bomb going off 140+ depending on the distance from source. Plus, the echo would have been heard EVERYWHERE, not just around a certain area. Plus, not to mention, a bomb going off is usually a very short, loud noise. Air tanks, etc, not so short, not so loud.

And how loud would it be in the middle (the core) of a collapsing 110 story building with acre wide floors? Who stood around to hear this?

And if people were close enough did hear such a sound then how many would still be alive?

Are you serious?? Could it be possible that you could present such a dirt-dumb question WITHOUT being a complete fool???

Anyway, I would imagine the decibel level would be well beyond the levels that your ear drum could sustain. (Which, BTW, is around 194.

Here is a site to use. Its easy to understand.

http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/loudness.html

BigAl

17th July 2009, 08:29 PM

To answer this assinine question is going to be easy.

TNT-RDX etc. typically have a Db level of 140 decibels. This is just short of hearing damage, depending on the distance from the source. You won't understand this, but SCOTT packs going off are only around 90-100 db.
....
Again, bomb going off 140+ depending on the distance from source. Plus, the echo would have been heard EVERYWHERE, not just around a certain area. Plus, not to mention, a bomb going off is usually a very short, loud noise. Air tanks, etc, not so short, not so loud.

You're new around here. This spring there was a thread that demonstrated that the usual suspects are completely incapable of understanding sound level perception and the Db scale.

The topic was a DoD paper on techniques that can muffle the sound of explosions and it was proposed that this was the much-sought-after hush-a-boom. One was massive mats filled with something kind of heavy. The loons thought that half the sound level (3Db) was a big deal.

As a side effect, these mats actually increased the seismic signature which made them even less likely to have been used at WTC.

Homeland Insurgency

17th July 2009, 08:44 PM

Hey twoofer, perhaps you'll explain why no very loud booms were recorded on any video? No, of course you won't. You're a twoofer.

I've asked the very same question of tryforcharity about all the explosions he apparently heard.

Are they on tape somewhere?

Glad we think alike on on some things buddy.

BigAl

17th July 2009, 08:48 PM

I've asked the very same question of tryforcharity about all the explosions he apparently heard.

And you got a very fact-filled answer. The noises made by the collapse of the towers was nowhere near as loud as the supersonic shock waves produced by chemical explosives.

It also wasn't timed to be a man-made demolition.

A noise heard minutes before a collapse isn't an indication of man-made demolition.

A noise heard while the building is collapsing isn't an indication of man-made demolition.

dtugg

17th July 2009, 08:49 PM

I've asked the very same question of tryforcharity about all the explosions he apparently heard.

Are they on tape somewhere?

Glad we think alike on on some things buddy.

I know you aren't the sharpest tool in the shed so I'll make this as simple as possible: They weren't recorded on any videos because they weren't loud enough. Therefore they couldn't have been explosives because explosives make very louds sounds which would have been recorded and heard by everybody in the lower Manhattan area. I hope this clears up any issues that you may have. I doubt it though, you have proven time and time again that you are unable to understand very simple concepts.

UNLoVedRebel

17th July 2009, 08:51 PM

And how loud would it be in the middle (the core) of a collapsing 110 story building with acre wide floors?
http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt332/JREFImages/dB.jpg

Grizzly Bear

17th July 2009, 08:55 PM

http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt332/JREFImages/dB.jpg

In laymen terms that's loud enough to completely devastate a person's eardrums, incurring either temporary or permanent hearing loss.

Homeland Insurgency

17th July 2009, 08:55 PM

I know you aren't the sharpest tool in the shed so I'll make this as simple as possible: They weren't recorded on any videos because they weren't loud enough. Therefore they couldn't have been explosives because explosives make very louds sounds which would have been recorded and heard by everybody in the lower Manhattan area. I hope this clears up any issues that you may have. I doubt it though, you have proven time and time again that you are unable to understand very simple concepts.

Thanks for the attempted debunking.

Debunker: "Only OUR explosions can be hush-a booms you crazy moonbat Twoofer!"

Congratulations debunkers. I think you've all come full circle.

lol

UNLoVedRebel

17th July 2009, 08:57 PM

dtugg

17th July 2009, 09:05 PM

Thanks for the attempted debunking.

Debunker: "Only OUR explosions can be hush-a booms you crazy moonbat Twoofer!"

Congratulations debunkers. I think you've all come full circle.

lol

Shockingly, you missed the point entirely and came up with a totally incoherent response.

Even simpler:

Explosions or sounds described as explosions are not always created by explosives.
Explosions created by explosives are always extremely loud.
Therefore, any explosions or sounds described as explosions that are not extremely loud (ie not heard by everybody within a mile and recorded on video cameras) were not created by explosives.

Are you really unable to understand this very simple concept or are you just pretending not to for your trolling puproses? I honestly cannot tell.

triforcharity

17th July 2009, 09:57 PM

Justin, you like my new avaatar?? Cool eh????

Gaspode

18th July 2009, 03:43 AM

Some posts moved to AAH (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=58).

Back on topic please. And keep it civil.

Stellafane

18th July 2009, 01:27 PM

Justin, you like my new avaatar?? Cool eh????

Outstanding avatar -- only coming up short of perfection by neglecting to also include "2007."

Justin39640

18th July 2009, 01:45 PM

Justin, you like my new avaatar?? Cool eh????

hehe i was gonna make a rebuttal avatar but there was no room for the interlocking NY with all those years ;)

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/7453/yanks.jpg

triforcharity

18th July 2009, 01:49 PM

Stella,

I borrowed it from a website that is pretty cool. This guy tells it how it is.

www.m4040.com I believe. He's an engineer, and he thinks the truthers are scum. Go figure!!

Justin, har har har, Touche sir. Touche.

Disenchanted

18th July 2009, 04:54 PM

Thanks for the attempted debunking.

Debunker: "Only OUR explosions can be hush-a booms you crazy moonbat Twoofer!"

Congratulations debunkers. I think you've all come full circle.

lol

It is your misrepresenting what debunkers are saying that has come full circle. Why do you continue to lie about what debunkers mean by hush-a-booms?

Questions you have so far 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?

johnny karate

19th July 2009, 10:08 AM

How about this, I'll rephrase the question:

Do you believe an explosion witnessed on 9/11 was most likely caused by bombs, or the "natural phenomena" of a collapsing skyscraper?

Bump for deep44.

bio

19th July 2009, 01:20 PM

Shockingly, you missed the point entirely and came up with a totally incoherent response.

Even simpler:

Explosions or sounds described as explosions are not always created by explosives.
Explosions created by explosives are always extremely loud.
Therefore, any explosions or sounds described as explosions that are not extremely loud (ie not heard by everybody within a mile and recorded on video cameras) were not created by explosives.

Are you really unable to understand this very simple concept or are you just pretending not to for your trolling puproses? I honestly cannot tell.

Do you just want to say us, that an explosion does not necessarily need be caused by explosives? If yes - you are right.

BigAl

19th July 2009, 01:26 PM

What do you want? You debunk yourself into nonsense.

When there is an explosion, then we hear an explosion.
When a skyscraper collapse, then we hear a skycraper collapsing.

And what we have on the audio tracks of from the many video cameras are the sounds of skyscrapers collapsing.

bio

19th July 2009, 01:32 PM

And what we have on the audio tracks of from the many video cameras are the sounds of skyscrapers collapsing.

of course, but there are also witness accounts of explosions "like a bomb" and recorded sounds of explosions, which -could be caused by bombs-.

stateofgrace

19th July 2009, 01:32 PM

What do you want? You debunk yourself into nonsense.

When there is an explosion, then we hear an explosion.
When a skyscraper collapse, then we hear a skycraper collapsing.

And when there is an earthquake, then we hear an earthquake, right?
Oh wait.............

Sounded like loud explosion, off in distance
Sounded like loud explosion, nearby.
Sounded like loud explosion
The first sound is low and muffled, followed by a big BOOM
Like an explosion

http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~pgore/daculaquakedata.html

( which could have been caused by bombs )

dtugg

19th July 2009, 01:35 PM

of course, but there are also witness accounts of explosions "like a bomb" and recorded sounds of explosions, which -could be caused by bombs-.

There were no recorded sounds of explosions.

Homeland Insurgency

19th July 2009, 01:45 PM

There were no recorded sounds of explosions.

There were plenty of explosions reported by witnesses. More than can just be accounted for by the initial crashes. Debunkers will then claim to know what the explosions were or weren't. Regardless of what the were or weren't debunkers don't have any recordings either.

Sam.I.Am

19th July 2009, 01:48 PM

of course, but there are also witness accounts of explosions "like a bomb" and recorded sounds of explosions, which -could be caused by bombs-.

Similes and metaphors aren't evidence of anything other than proof that someone knows how to use similes and metaphors.

BigAl

19th July 2009, 01:55 PM

There were plenty of explosions reported by witnesses. More then can just be accounted by the initial crashes. Debunkers will then claim to know what the explosions were or weren't. Regardless of what the were or weren't debunkers don't have any recordings either.

Nobody at WTC said they witnessed man-made demolition except as a metaphor or in reference to the 1993 bombing.

Homeland Insurgency

19th July 2009, 01:55 PM

"The Scott cylinders and the oxygen cylinders were all letting go. They were blowing up left and right."
FDNY Firefighter Todd Heaney on 9/11 (FDNY oral testimony transcripts)"

Left and right but no recordings? I don't believe him.

BigAl

19th July 2009, 02:04 PM

Left and right but no recordings? I don't believe him.

Try tossing a small cylinder of compressed gas in your hypothetical fireplace and see what happens.

In the US we can get small (12 gram) C02 cylinders at hobby shops and other places.

(FOR THE RECORD, DON'T REALLY DO THIS)

BigAl

19th July 2009, 02:08 PM

Left and right but no recordings? I don't believe him.

HI is oblivious to the Db scale of sound perception and the inverse-square law which applies to how sound levels fall off at distance.

MIKILLINI

19th July 2009, 02:52 PM

How far of a distance are we talking about and how do you know?

Come on. Learn me something.

lol

Come on HI, you're using some of the eyewitnesses' testimony to the "it sounded like bombs." Where were your eyewitnesses located? Once you find that out, the distance isn't hard to figure.

So, in terms of distance, how far from the building were your eyewitnesses?

Homeland Insurgency

19th July 2009, 02:58 PM

Come on HI, you're using some of the eyewitnesses' testimony to the "it sounded like bombs." Where were your eyewitnesses located? Once you find that out, the distance isn't hard to figure.

So, in terms of distance, how far from the building were your eyewitnesses?

All over the place.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_firefighters.html

johnny karate

19th July 2009, 03:01 PM

How about the Truthers in this thread coming up with witnesses who believe there actually were bombs and/or controlled demolitions on 9/11 instead of torturing their words to fit your predetermined conclusions.

I'll get you started:
1) Willie Rodriguez

Who else have you got?

johnny karate

19th July 2009, 03:04 PM

All over the place.

How many of these witnesses are on record reporting they believe they witnessed actual bombs and/or explosives?

MIKILLINI

19th July 2009, 03:08 PM

All over the place.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_firefighters.html

Step 2). Have you found what contents inside these skyscrapers would have the potential to explode under heat, pressure or collapse HI?

BigAl

19th July 2009, 03:32 PM

Read it. And unless you can debunk it all instead of just cherry pick like Gravey then don't bother at all. There are plenty.

Here are the full transcripts. For a couple years I read the transcript for every name given me by someone like you. None of them describe man-made demolition.

Transcripts of NYFD responders at WTC on 911
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/
20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html
http://preview.tinyurl.com/7e62l

Homeland Insurgency

19th July 2009, 03:35 PM

Here are the full transcripts. For a couple years I read the transcript for every name given me by someone like you. None of them describe man-made demolition.

Transcripts of NYFD responders at WTC on 911
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/
20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html
http://preview.tinyurl.com/7e62l

So? Explain them all away with presumption.

But does it mean anything?

BigAl

19th July 2009, 03:37 PM

So? Explain them all away with presumption.

But does it mean anything?

None of them describe man-made demolition.

BigAl

19th July 2009, 03:45 PM

You don't know what they heard and what they didn't. You don't even know if they knew.

You debunk nothing.

None of the full transcripts describe man-made demolition.

MIKILLINI

19th July 2009, 03:54 PM

Step 2). Have you found what contents inside these skyscrapers would have the potential to explode under heat, pressure or collapse HI?

Bump for you HI. :popcorn1

Homeland Insurgency

19th July 2009, 03:56 PM

Bump for you HI. :popcorn1
Have you found what contents inside these skyscrapers would have the potential to explode under heat, pressure or collapse HI?

Apparently nothing caught on tape according to you.

MIKILLINI

19th July 2009, 04:14 PM

Apparently nothing caught on tape according to you.

Obviously you missed or misunderstood the question, so I'll clarify it for you. In your quest to find answers, here is your premise: It took an airliner and subsequent fires to cause the collapse of the towers...The debunker story as you deem it.

Now we have the truther claim: Controlled demolition

So you are arguing semantics in a manner of "Ok debunkers, why would it take tons of explosives for CD when it took just one airliner?"

So before we go to step 3, in what manner will you proceed to distinguish facts?

Homeland Insurgency

19th July 2009, 04:28 PM

Let's get to the meat(strawman) of your post.

Now we have the truther claim: Controlled demolition

I didn't claim that. If it was a controlled demolition it wasn't in the traditional sense of the term. I do believe it was mostly a gravity driven collapse (like a lot of cd's). I just find it hard to believe the upper so-called block had no help with the resistance it encountered during the collapse. Which wasn't covered by NIST.

Explosive devices could have been in the building. Maybe even put there by the boogeyman terrorists themselves for a followup attack to kill first responders and compromise the core. They tried in 93 to get a bomb by a structural support. They knew what it took.

But again maybe by someone else other then the boogeymen.

In any case it wasn't investigated and physical evidence was systematically destroyed.

Disenchanted

19th July 2009, 05:02 PM

of course, but there are also witness accounts of explosions "like a bomb" and recorded sounds of explosions, which -could be caused by bombs-.

Do you know what a simile is?

Also if they were bombs that could take down a building then they would have been heard by a lot more people.

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?

I have asked these questions of Homeland Insurgency, but so far he has been unable to answer them.

A W Smith

19th July 2009, 05:38 PM

The maximum distance any alleged explosive CD device could be placed from an external building face was 104 feet. 60 feet of which was uninterrupted clear span.

Here are the core column cross sections as shown on the blueprints in plan view

95th floor (impact level north tower)
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/docs/core95th.png

80th floor (impact level south tower)
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/docs/core80th.png

NIST column section data
http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/nist-core-column-data

For a CD, Charges would have to be sufficient to cut column sections that were strong enough at that level to carry a 15 or 30 story buildings. Compare the decibel level to CD explosions needed for 15 or 20 story buildings at their base

2873871255585611926

There were no forceful ejections of debris consistent with CD charges seen in any videos preceding the collapse wave.

Here is a sideshow/video of debris being "systematically destroyed" :rolleyes:

U37j8G6J9Z0

GZ and fresh kills sites

In addition to the estimated 10,000 Fire Department of New York (FDNY) personnel, an estimated 30,000 other workers and volunteers potentially were exposed to numerous psychological stressors, environmental toxins, and other physical hazards. http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5335a1.htm
*****
Because of ongoing fire activity and the large numbers of civilians and rescue workers who were killed during the attacks, approximately 11,000 FDNY firefighters and many emergency medical service (EMS) personnel worked on or directly adjacent to the rubble and incurred substantial exposures. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12238534&dopt=Abstract)
*****
OSHA calculates that in over 3.7 million work hours, only 57 non-life threatening injuries were recorded at the WTC site. http://www.pdhealth.mil/library/down...Health%20Admin (http://www.pdhealth.mil/library/downloads/The%20Occupational%20Safety%20and%20Health%20Admin ) istration%20Response.pdf
*****
You’re dealing with a work scene that, in the first week or two, had probably two to three thousand, if not more, emergency responders on the scene. Pretty much 24 hours a day. All of them with various backgrounds and training. You had construction workers, you had heavy-equipment operators, you had medical workers, firefighters, police officers, hygienists, military personnel. All of them with different levels of training, different types of equipment. So you had to try and logistically bring in all of the equipment for these people. You’re bringing in multiple manufacturers and vendors. —Firefighter-special operations panel member http://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_procee.../CF176.ch2.pdf (http://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF176/CF176.ch2.pdf)
*****
Fresh Kills Crime Scene Info * The site covered 175 acres. * 24 local, state, and federal agencies participated, with as many as 1,000 workers a day * 17,000 tons of material were processed daily. * 55 FBI Evidence Response Teams worked the site -- over 1,000 agents -- plus FBI medics, safety officers, and other specialists. * New York Evidence Response Team members worked over 8,000 hours at the site, at the morgue, and at Ground Zero -- and one, Special Agent Gerry Fornino, personally worked over 1,818 hours at the vehicle recovery operation with the Port Authority and NYPD. Source: http://www.fbi.gov/page2/nov03/nyhs112703.htm
*****
Number of U.S. Customs Agency Volunteers working search and inspection at Fresh Kills Landfill: at least 193 http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2...y_location.xml (http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2002/March/custoday_location.xml)
*****
from RECOVERY: THE WORLD TRADE CENTER RECOVERY OPERATION AT FRESH KILLS (PDF of Traveling Exhibit) The exhibition chronicles the quiet history after September 11. The days at Fresh Kills ended as discreetly as they began. Debris removal at Ground Zero ended on June 28, 2002. The sorting at Fresh Kills officially ended on July 2 at 1:02 p.m. Recovered from the 1.8 million tons of material inspected: 4,257 human remains helped bring closure to hundreds of families; 54,000 personal items and 4,000 photographs, many returned to their owners; 1,358 personal and departmental vehicles; and thousands of tons of steel. The numbers are difficult to process, but these images begin to tell the story. The Police, FBI, City Sanitation workers, and the thousands who worked there made history “on the hill.” The hill that overlooks downtown Manhattan where the towers once stood is now changed forever – Mark Schaming Director of Exhibitions and Programs New York State Museum Above exhibit thanks to these organizations working at Fresh Kills: The New York Police Department The New York Fire Department The Federal Bureau of Investigation New York City Department of Sanitation Phillips and Jordan, Inc. The Fresh Kills Incident Commander, NYPD Inspector James Luongo, Lt. Bruce Bovino, FBI Special Agents Richard Marx and Gerry Fornino, the FBI Evidence Response Team, the NYPD Recovery Team, the Port Authority Police Department, NYC Department of Sanitation, and all the people from the World Trade Center Recovery Operation
*****
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers receives Fresh Kills debris management contract http://sept11.wasteage.com/ar/waste_...resh/index.htm (http://sept11.wasteage.com/ar/waste_fema_assigns_fresh/index.htm)
*****
400 FBI Agents working at Fresh Kills (and some taking souvenirs?) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4373627/
*****
As you know, on September 11, 2001, Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and New York Police Department (NYPD) detectives were dispatched to the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island, New York to process the debris of the World Trade Center (WTC) for physical evidence and human remains. This recovery effort, the largest and longest in the FBI's history, resulted in 1.8 million tons of debris being collected and examined by twenty-four federal, state, and local agencies. On September 12, 2001, I was designated to lead and coordinate this effort as an Evidence Response Team (ERT) Leader. This operation ceased in August 2002. –Richard B. Marx, Special Agent http://www.ussartf.org/news.htm Engineer salvage yard visits for steel inspection As of March 15, 2002, a total of 131 engineer visits had been made to these yards on 57 separate days. An engineer visit typically ranged from a few hours to an entire day at a salvage yard. The duration of the visits, number of visits per yard, and the dates the yards were visited varied, depending on the volume of steel being processed, the potential significance of the steel pieces being found, salvage yard activities, weather, and other factors. Sixty-two engineer trips were made to Jersey City, 38 to Keasbey, 15 to Fresh Kills, and 16 to Newark. Three trips made in October included several ASCE engineers. Eleven engineer trips were made in November, 41 in December, 43 in January, 28 in February, and 5 through March 15, 2002. Source: FEMA WTC report, Appendix D
*****With all the teams of investigators at both fresh kills and GZ. no evidence of controlled demolition devices were found as they literally combed through the debris.

Tricky

19th July 2009, 06:31 PM

A number of you don't seem to have read the mod box earlier in this thread to to be civil and polite, either that or you ignored it.

So this one is a bit harsher. Cut out the personal attacks right now or face infractions and possibly suspensions. All of you, on both sides of the issue. Consider that fact that I'm not infracting anyone right now my little gift to you. Don't make it a parting gift.

triforcharity

19th July 2009, 06:35 PM

Let's get to the meat(strawman) of your post.

I didn't claim that. If it was a controlled demolition it wasn't in the traditional sense of the term. I do believe it was mostly a gravity driven collapse (like a lot of cd's). I just find it hard to believe the upper so-called block had no help with the resistance it encountered during the collapse. Which wasn't covered by NIST.

Explosive devices could have been in the building. Maybe even put there by the boogeyman terrorists themselves for a followup attack to kill first responders and compromise the core. They tried in 93 to get a bomb by a structural support. They knew what it took.

But again maybe by someone else other then the boogeymen.

In any case it wasn't investigated and physical evidence was systematically destroyed.

They DID get a bomb by a structural support. But, the supports were too strong for the bomb.

Bombs did not go off that day. I was there, I heard what happened, and it wasn't bombs going off.

Homeland Insurgency

19th July 2009, 06:37 PM

The maximum distance any alleged explosive CD device could be placed from an external building face was 104 feet. 60 feet of which was uninterrupted clear span.

So 44 feet of interrupted by what? Thanks.

Here are the core column cross sections as shown on the blueprints in plan view

95th floor (impact level north tower)
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/docs/core95th.png

80th floor (impact level south tower)
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/docs/core80th.png

NIST column section data
http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/nist-core-column-data

For a CD, Charges would have to be sufficient to cut column sections that were strong enough at that level to carry a 15 or 30 story buildings. Compare the decibel level to CD explosions needed for 15 or 20 story buildings at their base

2873871255585611926

There were no forceful ejections of debris consistent with CD charges seen in any videos preceding the collapse wave.

I didn't claim CD in your sense :rolleyes: of the term.

Here is a sideshow/video of debris being "systematically destroyed" :rolleyes:

U37j8G6J9Z0

GZ and fresh kills sites

With all the teams of investigators at both fresh kills and GZ. no evidence of controlled demolition devices were found as they literally combed through the debris.

No one also found over a thousand victims, black boxes, and most of the aircraft's claimed to have hit the towers.

And those things were being looked for. Supposedly according to debunkers very thoroughly.

Who was looking for explosives evidence? And even if they were why would it have been found in light of everything else still not accounted for?

Disenchanted

19th July 2009, 07:29 PM

I didn't claim CD in your sense :rolleyes: of the term.

You have invented a new sense of the term?

No one also found over a thousand victims, black boxes, and most of the aircraft's claimed to have hit the towers.

And those things were being looked for. Supposedly according to debunkers very thoroughly.

Who was looking for explosives evidence? And even if they were why would it have been found in light of everything else still not accounted for?

Many victims and pieces of the aircraft that hit the towers were found, not all, but many. However not one piece of evidence for a bomb and with all the people there at least one piece would have been found.

triforcharity

19th July 2009, 07:58 PM

So 44 feet of interrupted by what? Thanks.

I didn't claim CD in your sense :rolleyes: of the term.

No one also found over a thousand victims, black boxes, and most of the aircraft's claimed to have hit the towers.

And those things were being looked for. Supposedly according to debunkers very thoroughly.

Who was looking for explosives evidence? And even if they were why would it have been found in light of everything else still not accounted for?

I also didn't see that many computer monitors, or keyboards, or things of that nature. Then again, when any of these things were found, I rarely payed attention to it. As I was looking for survivors and such.

Also, when there is a severed arm laying next to a chair, I didn't notice the chair, but I could tell you exactly what color the person was, and if it waas female, if it was a left or right arm, and the like. I couldn't tell you the color of the chair though.

I only wish you knew the pain that people still go through to this day because of this tragedy. But, you would most likely think its funny.

MIKILLINI

19th July 2009, 08:19 PM

Let's get to the meat(strawman) of your post.

I didn't claim that. If it was a controlled demolition it wasn't in the traditional sense of the term. I do believe it was mostly a gravity driven collapse (like a lot of cd's). I just find it hard to believe the upper so-called block had no help with the resistance it encountered during the collapse. Which wasn't covered by NIST.

In regards to the NIST report, can you explain why they would have had to check for explosives?

Explosive devices could have been in the building. Maybe even put there by the boogeyman terrorists themselves for a followup attack to kill first responders and compromise the core. They tried in 93 to get a bomb by a structural support. They knew what it took.

Yes, they figured it had to be something larger than a truck carrying explosives to be more effective. Can you think of anything larger than a truck HI?

In any case it wasn't investigated and physical evidence was systematically destroyed.

Again, can you give a reason why NIST had to specifically look for explosives?

A W Smith

19th July 2009, 08:43 PM

So 44 feet of interrupted by what? Thanks.

your welcome

Gypsum board non load bearing partitions. which I can punch through with my fist. But I suppose you believe it would be sufficient to silence an explosive CD device cutting through box and "H" columns made of steel 2 or more inches thick at that level.

By the way I had already linked to floor plans typical for that level in the post you quoted. But apparently you cant read prints.

triforcharity

19th July 2009, 09:17 PM

Some of the truthers have a hard time with simple english. How could you POSSIBLY expect them to understand complex blueprints???

I had an argument with some truther the other day, wish I knew which board it was on, but he saw some "clouds" on a blueprint, and claimed that was where the demolition charges were to be set later on. he believed this was a conspiracy dating back to when the building was designed!! I had to laugh at THAT blunder!!!!

funk de fino

20th July 2009, 01:15 AM

Who was looking for explosives evidence? And even if they were why would it have been found in light of everything else still not accounted for?

Page 8, Assertion 6. Page 7, Assertion 5, Point 3

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

JimBenArm

20th July 2009, 06:21 AM

Justin39640

20th July 2009, 06:34 AM

Corsair 115

20th July 2009, 08:57 AM

HI is oblivious to the Db scale of sound perception and the inverse-square law which applies to how sound levels fall off at distance.

He's also oblivious to the physical qualities of an explosive detonating, such as the (layman's term) blast wave. Curiously, explosives powerful enough to sever steel columns in the WTC towers did not generate a blast wave that shattered every window on the floors where the explosives detonated, and did not create a spray of shrapnel from out said windows.

Strange explosives indeed...

jaydeehess

20th July 2009, 10:20 AM

Back from holidays and on lunch, so I don't have time to read much that occured in this thread since I was away.

However, HI keeps saying that tons of explosives are the construct of the debunkers.

this is untrue except in that the TM simply cannot admit that THEIR senario does require a lot of explosives.

The TM conjecture is that the towers could not have come down in the fashion or at the rate they did without explosives severing supporting columns on the way down throughout the collapse.

This requires then that a multitude of esxplosives be in place , on those coulmns and many places in the structures. It may not be a calculation that the TM wishes to make but some debunkers have done so and this is what comes about. If HI has a problem with the conjecture then he should take it up with those who propose it.

There is ONE way that a small amount of explosives could in fact have accomplished this. That would be in a senario in which collapse initiation is brought about be the severing of a few columns, on the fire floors at the approx 1 hour mark of the fire duration.

The TM, and HI , are unlikely to care much for such a senario because it then requires that NIST be correct in stating that once collapse intitiation occured that gravity alone would suffice to bring about global collapse. It also means that the rate of collapse and the fashion by which the debris scattered are the direct result of gravity, and only incidentally related to the supposed explosives used.
This senario also begs the question of how it was arranged for the small amopunt of explosives to be on the floors that were hit by aircraft and thus on fire. (which would lead to a no-planes senario as one solution) and the question of how one arranges for explosives to not go off prematurely in a uncontrolled office fire situation.

HI calls for us to supply the audio of the loud sounds described as 'explosive' by several witnesses. However HI fails to understand that if he and the TM wish to conjecture the use of explosives and the debunkers state that they have not heard anything that resembles the sound made by explosives, then it is up to the TM(and HI) to give examples of the sounds that THEY are claiming suffice for this. This has been called for many times and the examples given have been shown to be insufficient to be explosives capable of severing large columns(and I recall one case of actually having been sufficient but the audio portion of the recording was shown to have been faked by the TM member pushing it)

jaydeehess

20th July 2009, 10:23 AM

Well then you should be able to see immediately that the 'more extrodinary' claim for the sounds heard would be that they were caused by bombs in the building and thus this claim requires much greater evidence than does the one that they were caused by falling bodies or the explosive ignition of other items on the fire floors.

Next we note the fact that there are eyewitness accounts of people falling and creating loud noises upon hitting the ground and the fact that we know for certain that major office fires often include the explosive ignition of items, both of which bode well for those being the source of the sounds heard. In addition there is no audio recording of anything resembling the type of explosive sound that would be created by the type and size of explosive used to sever large columns.

On the other hand the only evidence that these sounds were caused by explosives is the speculation of some people that this was the source of the sounds. There are no eyewitness accounts by anyone who saw an explosion occur, only characterizations of sounds as 'explosions'. Whereas a propane bottle, or even a fire extinguisher, cooking off is indeed an explosion it is not even close to that of a charge designed to cause structural damage. Failing floor sections hitting the next floor down make even louder sounds and can easily be described as 'explosive' sounds, and although they are indicative of structural damage they are not the sounds of actual explosive charges designed to cause structural damage. Both of these situations can and do occur in major office fires.
The office fires in the towers also had two charactersitics never seen in 'normal' office fires. They were large multifloor fires within seconds of impact,('normally' it takes several hours to get to this stage) AND that impact caused major structural damage to the floor pans of several floors. (obviously a characteristic rarely, if ever , encountered especially in combination with the afore mentioned immediate multifloor fire)

A true skeptic would weigh the evidence pro and con each claim and note that it is quite obvious that logic heavily favours one over the other.
A true skeptic acknowledges that there is a small percentage chance that the bulk of evidence is pointing to the wrong claim but that it is highly unlikely that the claim with the least evidence is the correct one.

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.

bump for deep

Blender Head

20th July 2009, 11:35 AM

jaydeehess

20th July 2009, 02:25 PM

HI,

Do you believe, as Truthers such as Richard Gage do, that ACE elevator operators had rigged the Towers nine months prior to 9/11? Or, as implied but not stated in the OP, do you believe that the explosives were planted in the so-called "security stand-down" the days prior to 9/11?

Be consistent, please.

In this thread HI claimed that over the course of a year a lot of explosives could be smuggled into the building. When it was pointed out to him that bomb sniffing dogs were employed at the WTC towers he pointed out that they had been removed days before the attacks. However HI seems not to have noticed the disconnect between his two statements.

Justin39640

20th July 2009, 02:33 PM

jaydeehess

20th July 2009, 03:08 PM

Smuggling materials to make a small bomb isn't comparable with smuggling tons and tons of high explosives. Not to mention actually installing them.

And how many of these office buildings had bomb sniffing dogs?

Keep going, HI, failing is what you do best.

yes
please explain exactly how they got 10 to 100 tonnes (source: Niels Harrit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o)) past all of that security?

i would love to hear what you think :)

Good. Glad you got that about your so-called debunking of explosives.

Now. Why couldn't enough explosives have been put in the WTC buildings before 9/11?

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.

Hey genius, here is a question that you will no doubt ignore (again):

Did the WTC have bomb sniffing dogs? Did any of these federal buildings? Quick, twoofer, pwn me!

When?

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-nyaler122362178sep12,0,1255660.story

Heightened Security Alert Had Just Been Lifted

By Curtis L. Taylor and Sean Gardiner | STAFF WRITERS
September 12, 2001

Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.

I don't see what it maters either way. Especially in a case where guards even at federal buildings post 9/11 are found sleeping and people who just smuggled inside and constructed a bomb are walking around undetected.

Do the dogs work independently?

dogs were always there
they had extra teams during the alert

one of those dogs died on 9/11

http://www.muttart.com/stonebraker/sirius-tribute.htm

just stupid

I see. In your fantasy world five days is plenty enough to covertly set up the controlled demolition of the three largest buildings ever destroyed in this manner. Makes perfect sense.

Never mind that they were just removing extra security. There were always dogs there.

so now you take the word of the media you cant ever trust?
they also said planes hit the towers in the story

there were always dogs

you fail yet again

not really
you said there was no dogs
i proved you were wrong

you fail
get over it

lol @ "not like its important"
OF COURSE IT IS YOU BROUGHT IT UP!!!!!!

You'll need to remind me where you proved anything.
Thanks.Hi dances about demonstrating his desire to be on "Dancing with the Stars" and I eventually throw in my 2 cents worth including the direct question bolded below.
Hold on HI, did they smuggle your explosives into the towers over the course of a year(while the dogs were there) or in the few days when the dogs were not there?

In effect, yes the official story does indeed involve accessing elevator shafts and other areas not open to the public.
Fire does not respect "No Public Access" signs nor would the hundred tons of aircraft that hit the building at 450+ MPH.

Excuse me? Explosives in the building is NOT any part of any debunker's 'story'? When CT's claim that explosives were used debunkers then point out what amount of explosives would be required to accomplish the task of bringing the towers down. Now go back and research the explosive equivalent of the aircraft's kintetic energy, and the multi floor fires.

So how big a device were the ones smuggled in as part of the security tests HI? How effective would a bomb fitting that physical description (Volume and mass) be in cutting the columns of the towers? Do you suppose that all bombs are created equal?

What does the fact that the black boxes were not recovered have to do with any evidence that there were explosives in the towers? Do you suppose that the FDR/CVR recorded some evidence of bombs in the towers? :D

Actually you really seem to be attempting to make 'bombs in the buildings' a debunker idea. It isn't. We simply try to assist the Ct's who make the claim in understanding that IF there were bombs that did the deed there would have to be a lot of them in place, they would not be quiet explosives, and to do the job they would HAVE to be placed ON the columns.

The truck bomb attack 10 years prior was supposed to have been placed so as to destroy the foundation wall. They could not get a parking spot where they wanted it and ended up having all that explosive power do little more than collapse several floors of the basement. But you seem to be saying that in a few days, a few guys could walk into the towers with enough explosives to cause columns to fail but that it would not really be neccessary to place these smallish bombs all that close to , let alone on, the columns in order to have this effect. furthermore they would have been all rigged together somehow(wirelessly I suppose) such that they would go off in sequence.

Furthermore I addressed HI's contention that tons of explosives are a senario of debunkers in my post #570 above. I await HI's acknowledgement that NIST was correct in that after initial collapse that gravity would accomplish the task of a global collapse as seen having occured to the towers.

MIKILLINI

20th July 2009, 03:24 PM

Justin39640

20th July 2009, 03:29 PM

the real question is:
how does a thread with such a (insert your adjective here) title get to almost 600 posts?
lol

MIKILLINI

20th July 2009, 03:45 PM

the real question is:
how does a thread with such a (insert your adjective here) title get to almost 600 posts?
lol

Because we keep on trying to show those with closed minds an open door to reality.

Homeland Insurgency

20th July 2009, 04:25 PM

In this thread HI claimed that over the course of a year a lot of explosives could be smuggled into the building. When it was pointed out to him that bomb sniffing dogs were employed at the WTC towers he pointed out that they had been removed days before the attacks. However HI seems not to have noticed the disconnect between his two statements.

Actually I also pointed out and sourced an article that claimed bomb sniffing dogs don't work well in places like subway stations. The WTC which had a path train stop underneath it also employed thousands of people.

This was after bomb sniffing dogs were brought up to me.

On top of that I also don't know why it would have taken more then a couple days when in the initial investigation I posted in the OP any given building didn't take more then a few hours to smuggle explosives inside.

Homeland Insurgency

20th July 2009, 04:39 PM

Hi dances about demonstrating his desire to be on "Dancing with the Stars" and I eventually throw in my 2 cents worth including the direct question bolded below.

Furthermore I addressed HI's contention that tons of explosives are a senario of debunkers in my post #570 above. I await HI's acknowledgement that NIST was correct in that after initial collapse that gravity would accomplish the task of a global collapse as seen having occured to the towers.

Anyway you want to look at it jaydees the debunkers debunk themselves every time they claim it would have taken tons of explosives strategically placed on every floor to get a building the size of the towers to collapse, then out of the other side of their mouth claim for instance that flight 175 randomly striking between the 78th to 84th floors, randomly hitting different columns, caused every floor above it to come down.

So even if just your NIST collapse initiation hypothesis is correct then it must also be true that explosive like the aircraft on just a few floors could collapse up to twenty floors above it.

It does not however mean it would continue below the impact or explosives zone, or if it did for how long.

That's why NIST never touched that part.

And none of this even gets near the main conspiracy I've also heard which is thermite. Thermite that debunkers are quick to point out doesn't explode.

The fire that supposedly caused the collapse initiation by weakening steel in the NIST version also made no noise after the impact of the plane. But according to NIST caused at least in the case of the flight 175 impact zone about 20 floors above it to collapse.

So keep talking. You debunk yourself.

Homeland Insurgency

20th July 2009, 04:55 PM

HI,

Do you believe, as Truthers such as Richard Gage do, that ACE elevator operators had rigged the Towers nine months prior to 9/11? Or, as implied but not stated in the OP, do you believe that the explosives were planted in the so-called "security stand-down" the days prior to 9/11?

Be consistent, please.

My consistent claim is that 9/11 was not properly investigated and debunkers don't know what happened anymore then anyone else.

And when you get them talking for pages and pages it's painfully obvious how true this is by how all over there place and easily turnaround they can get in their so-called debunking when trying to cover all the bases when none of the bases have been properly investigated.

The debunking here is all bull.

dtugg

20th July 2009, 05:15 PM

My consistent claim is that 9/11 was not properly investigated and debunkers don't know what happened anymore then anyone else.

And when you get them talking for pages and pages it's painfully obvious how true this is by how all over there place and easily turnaround they can get in their so-called debunking when trying to cover all the bases when none of the bases have been properly investigated.

The debunking here is all bull.

Do you manage to convince yourself of this by saying it over and over again? Because nobody else here is fooled by you.

triforcharity

20th July 2009, 05:20 PM

Homeland Insurgency

20th July 2009, 05:42 PM

Um, it WOULD take tons and tons of explosives if you DIDN'T CRASH A F***** Plane into it!!

Then out of the other side of his mouth...

It wasn't the plane crash that caused the buildings to collapse. It was the plane crash and the UNFOUGHT fires that burned in the building, over many floors.

BRAVO! What did I say about debunkers trying to cover all the bases? lol

And how loud was the fire?

It didn't collapse 20 floors, it collapsed a few floors, which caused the global collapse. If you had read the NIST report, you would know this. The collapse was not caused by the plane crash alone. That is evident by the fact that the towers stood for some time even after the initial inpact.

Oh please you read it. Still talking out of both sides of your mouth. Your version claims the towers took the impacts and would have remained standing if not for the fires. It was the fires that caused how many floors in your so-called falling block to collapse? Were they not all falling?

Once the collapse started, it was not able to be stopped. The WTC was not designed to hold the top 30 floors on a single floor.

So it WAS 30 floors now collapsing because of the fires? Taking out ONE floor can bring down 30 floors? So why the need to wire every floor? Make up your mind DEBUNKER.

Der.

That's some vocabulary you got there.

It doesn't explode. Plus, not to mention, the amount of therm*te that would have been required would have been astronomical!! Well beyond 500,000 pounds. Don't go there, it's a sinking ship.

Really? What amount equates the heat of building content fire?

BS. Just BS. Fire DOES make noise. No matter how small, it will ALWAYS make noise. This is just a dumb*** assumption. Almost as bad as Heiwa's assertion that fire will not heat the air around it.

Really? Louder then your exploding rockets that also wasn't recorded by anyone? lol Keep talking debunker.

How did you turn out to be a complete failure in regards to logical thinking?

What does that make you?

Oh yeah.... Der

Homeland Insurgency

20th July 2009, 05:44 PM

Do you manage to convince yourself of this by saying it over and over again? Because nobody else here is fooled by you.

No. I'm convinced by posts like yours. Triforcharity is pretty good too. Did you read his last dribble?

It was classic pretend debunking.

Sam.I.Am

20th July 2009, 05:48 PM

It does not however mean it would continue below the impact or explosives zone, or if it did for how long.

That's why NIST never touched that part.

1. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the World Trade Center Towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why was the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 not arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm

Once again you show your ignorance on this matter. Do some reading please.

triforcharity

20th July 2009, 05:53 PM

The fire was loud enough that I personally heard it.

Therm*te, in its common form, will only burn for a few seconds. Not nearly enough time to equate to an unfought fire that covered MANY floors.

The initial collapse was a few floors. Not 30 floors. Look at the thousands of upclose videos. You can see the intial collapse starting at a few floors.

You logic is rediculous!!

Homeland Insurgency

20th July 2009, 05:55 PM

1. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the World Trade Center Towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why was the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 not arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm

Once again you show your ignorance on this matter. Do some reading please.

Ignorance? Did you ignore that's from the frequently asked questions part in their supplement?

Gee I wonder why people were frequently asking that after the report came out?

hmmmm....

Could it be BECAUSE THE NIST REPORT STOPS AT COLLAPSE INITIATION??????

ya think?

dtugg

20th July 2009, 05:58 PM

No. I'm convinced my posts like yours. Triforcharity is pretty good too. Did you read his last dribble?

It was classic pretend debunking.

Sure. Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. Twoofers must need some comfort after eights years of complete and total failure. Just realize that saying it over and over and over again will not make it come true and that you will fool exactly zero rational people with your faux confidence.

UNLoVedRebel

20th July 2009, 05:59 PM

The fire that supposedly caused the collapse initiation by weakening steel in the NIST version also made no noise after the impact of the plane.
http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt332/JREFImages/NCSTAR1-6B.jpg
I know what the NIST report says.
:rolleyes:

FineWine

20th July 2009, 06:02 PM

Then out of the other side of his mouth...

BRAVO! What did I say about debunkers trying to cover all the bases? lol

And how loud was the fire?

Oh please you read it. Still talking out of both sides of your mouth. Your version claims the towers took the impacts and would have remained standing if not for the fires. It was the fires that caused how many floors in your so-called falling block to collapse? Were they not all falling?

So it WAS 30 floors now collapsing because of the fires? Taking out ONE floor can bring down 30 floors? So why the need to wire every floor? Make up your mind DEBUNKER.

That's some vocabulary you got there.

Really? What amount equates the heat of building content fire?

Really? Louder then your exploding rockets that also wasn't recorded by anyone? lol Keep talking debunker.

What does that make you?

Oh yeah.... Der

You thrash and babble and squirm and flail and twist yourself into knots, all to avoid acknowledging the brute FACT that planes hit the towers causing extensive, unfought fires. In those fires, as in all office fires, things blew up. You cannot acknowledge this indisputable FACT, as doing so would cause your house of cards to fall down. Yet, refusing to acknowledge it makes you appear insane. What is an agenda-driven liar to do?

Try as you might, you can't hope to find any contradictions in what the sane side is saying. There are none.

Homeland Insurgency

20th July 2009, 06:03 PM

The fire was loud enough that I personally heard it.

Really? Did you record it? Because if not I might have a problem believing how loud you claim it was.

Therm*te, in its common form, will only burn for a few seconds. Not nearly enough time to equate to an unfought fire that covered MANY floors.

A match only burns for a short time on it's own too. But I bet it could start a hell of a building content fire. Didn't they teach you that in firefighter kindergarten?

The initial collapse was a few floors. Not 30 floors. Look at the thousands of upclose videos. You can see the intial collapse starting at a few floors.

Did it bring down the 30 floors above it or not? Maybe you don't believe the official version huh?

You logic is rediculous!!

Well we can't all be "Der". BTW did you mean "ridiculous"?

Sam.I.Am

20th July 2009, 06:06 PM

Ignorance? Did you ignore that's from the frequently asked questions part in their supplement?

Gee I wonder why people were frequently asking that after the report came out?

hmmmm....

Could it be BECAUSE THE NIST REPORT STOPS AT COLLAPSE INITIATION??????

ya think?

You said "That's why NIST never touched that part.".

I showed you that they did. You didn't say "That's why NIST REPORT never touched that part." There you go moving the goal posts yet again. They addressed it in the FAQ, and not in the report, because to them, and any reasonable person, the results after it started dropping were glaringly obvious to (again) reasonable people.

FineWine

20th July 2009, 06:07 PM

Really? Did you record it? Because if not I might have a problem believing how loud you claim it was.

A match only burns for a short time on it's own too. But I bet it could start a hell of a building content fire. Didn't they teach you that in firefighter kindergarten?

Did it bring down the 30 floors above it or not? Maybe you don't believe the official version huh?

Well we can't all be "Der". BTW did you mean "ridiculous"?

You made up mad, utterly baseless claims to argue about serial-numbered parts with air crash investigators. You flaunt your total ignorance of the NIST Report in comical pseudo-debates with real engineers. Now, you are arguing about firefighting with a firefighter.

Shhh. Listen. Do you hear it? No, not those voices. Do you hear the laughter? Listen harder.

UNLoVedRebel

20th July 2009, 06:08 PM

Could it be BECAUSE THE NIST REPORT STOPS AT COLLAPSE INITIATION??????
http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt332/JREFImages/NIST.jpg
I know what the NIST report says.
:rolleyes:

triforcharity

20th July 2009, 06:11 PM

I am absolutely done with HI. He is trying to get me to lash out at him, but I am better than that.

YOU HEAR THAT HI!!! I AM BETTER THAN YOU!! DEBUNK THAT SON!!!!

Homeland Insurgency

20th July 2009, 06:13 PM

You said "That's why NIST never touched that part.".

I showed you that they did. You didn't say "That's why NIST REPORT never touched that part." There you go moving the goal posts yet again. They addressed it in the FAQ, and not in the report, because to them, and any reasonable person, the results after it started dropping were glaringly obvious to (again) reasonable people.

Oh give it up...

http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse".

But you can right debunker?

UNLoVedRebel

20th July 2009, 06:16 PM

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse".

But you can right?
http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt332/JREFImages/Bazant.jpg

dtugg

20th July 2009, 06:19 PM

Oh give it up...

http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse".

But you can right debunker?

Nobody is impressed by your cherry picking and lack of reading comprehension.

DavidJames

20th July 2009, 06:21 PM

I am absolutely done with HI. He is trying to get me to lash out at him, but I am better than that.Good for you! I know it will be hard, but I hope you can stick to it. I wish others would reach the same conclusion, if so, without the responses to feed his ego, trolls like HI will disappear from the site.

Don't worry about the lurkers, anyone persuaded by HI won't respond to intelligent arguments anyway.

Homeland Insurgency

20th July 2009, 06:25 PM

I am absolutely done with HI. He is trying to get me to lash out at him, but I am better than that.

Then out of the other side of his mouth...

YOU HEAR THAT HI!!! I AM BETTER THAN YOU!! DEBUNK THAT SON!!!!

Are you even beginning to see a pattern in your behavior?

Times up.

Justin39640

20th July 2009, 06:29 PM

Then out of the other side of his mouth...

Are you even beginning to see a pattern in your behavior?

Times up.

maybe you should pay attention to your own behavior :rolleyes:

Homeland Insurgency

20th July 2009, 06:33 PM

maybe you should pay attention to your own behavior :rolleyes:

Is that like... "I know you are but what am I"?

You should have used the tongue sticking out instead of the rolling eyes.

Sam.I.Am

20th July 2009, 06:36 PM

Oh give it up...

http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse".

But you can right debunker?

Just because they didn't waste their time and money (Twoofers were clamoring for the WTC 7 report at the time, remember?) giving a floor by floor description of the failures doesn't mean that they didn't know the mechanisms for those failures. They demonstrated that just a few months after that letter was dated by releasing the FAQ that I linked to that gave a more detailed explanation of why the floors immediately below couldn't arrest the movement. They even used smaller, non technical words as much as possible, so that the average person could follow the reasoning. I guess they didn't dumb it down enough though...

Homeland Insurgency

20th July 2009, 06:45 PM

Just because they didn't waste their time and money (Twoofers were clamoring for the WTC 7 report at the time, remember?) giving a floor by floor description of the failures doesn't mean that they didn't know the mechanisms for those failures. They demonstrated that just a few months after that letter was dated by releasing the FAQ that I linked to that gave a more detailed explanation of why the floors immediately below couldn't arrest the movement. They even used smaller, non technical words as much as possible, so that the average person could follow the reasoning. I guess they didn't dumb it down enough though...

Because they didn't take the time or money giving a floor by floor description of the failures means that they can't claim to now know the mechanisms for those failures.

They demonstrated that just a few months after that letter was dated by releasing the FAQ that I linked to that gave a more detailed explanation of why the floors immediately below couldn't arrest the movement.

They demonstrated what? How do they come to that conclusion if they didn't investigate it because they didn't have the time or money? How did they go from not being able to explain to explaining with no investigation?

They even used smaller, non technical words as much as possible, so that the average person could follow the reasoning. I guess they didn't dumb it down enough though...

I guess not. You are obviously having trouble.

Stellafane

20th July 2009, 06:46 PM

I am absolutely done with HI. He is trying to get me to lash out at him, but I am better than that.

Absolutely true, you are better than that. But I'm not. Thus I am free to offer the observation that HI seems to be of that particular Truther breed that subscribes to the "pissing in the pool" school of debate. Just keep pissing into the pool (and our boy appears to have an endless supply) and sooner or later everyone just gets out in disgust. Then declare victory. It takes a particularly diseased sort of infantile mind to stoop to such tactics (never mind actually take pride in it) but for some people, that's all they've got going for them I guess.

Let's face it, it's been years since I've seen a Truther say anything that was even particularly cogent, never mind logical or original. So by now they're strictly a source of low comedy for me. I suppose I should feel ashamed of myself for deriving amusement out of a few pathetic and deluded people, and were I a better person I probably would. But as I said I'm not, so I don't.

Justin39640

20th July 2009, 06:48 PM

Is that like... "I know you are but what am I"?

You should have used the tongue sticking out instead of the rolling eyes.

nope not really

Sam.I.Am

20th July 2009, 07:04 PM

Because they didn't take the time or money giving a floor by floor description of the failures means that they can't claim to now know the mechanisms for those failures.

Do you read what you type? It's simple maths. Connection type A has a load capacity of (X), There are 208 type A connections 208* (X) = (Y). Each floor weighs (Z). (Z) * 12 = > (Y) when static. (Z) * 6 = > (Y) when dynamic. Both collapses were >12 floors and dynamic.

They demonstrated what? How do they come to that conclusion if they didn't investigate it because they didn't have the time or money? How did they go from not being able to explain to explaining with no investigation?

Seriously. Do you read what you type? It's simple maths. Connection type A has a load capacity of (X), There are 208 type A connections 208*(X) = (Y). Each floor weighs (Z). (Z)*12 = > (Y) when static. (Z)*6 = > (Y) when dynamic. Both collapses were >12 floors and dynamic.

I guess not. You are obviously having trouble.

Apparently not seeing as I understand the concept of what they were talking about and you apparently do not.

funk de fino

21st July 2009, 01:48 AM

Oh give it up...

http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse".

But you can right debunker?

That was prior to the FAQ that was linked earlier. Try again.

funk de fino

21st July 2009, 01:51 AM

Page 8, Assertion 6. Page 7, Assertion 5, Point 3

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

HI has avoided this one funnily enough.

Homeland Insurgency

21st July 2009, 04:18 AM

HI has avoided this one funnily enough.

Jeez not with the photographer again.

http://www.forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4895005&postcount=362

Homeland Insurgency

21st July 2009, 04:19 AM

That was prior to the FAQ that was linked earlier. Try again.

So what?

jaydeehess

21st July 2009, 04:57 AM

Actually I also pointed out and sourced an article that claimed bomb sniffing dogs don't work well in places like subway stations. The WTC which had a path train stop underneath it also employed thousands of people.

This was after bomb sniffing dogs were brought up to me.
The dogs were brought up because unlike the other buildings in the test you brought up , the WTC had bomb sniffing dogs.

The supposed explosives were not in a subway tunnel, they were in the building were they not? They were responsible for the initiation of collapse and the continuation of collapse as it progressed from its initial point 1000 feet above the subway, right?

On top of that I also don't know why it would have taken more then a couple days when in the initial investigation I posted in the OP any given building didn't take more then a few hours to smuggle explosives inside.

Then why did you opine that a lot of explosives could be carried into a building over the course of a year?

Try to stick to one story there HI rather than changing it constantly and contradictorily.

A W Smith

21st July 2009, 06:25 AM

This "subway" he speaks of was separated from the towers by a wall of glass doors which served to separate the conditioned space (air) from the tower lobby and shopping concourse, And a bank of escalators that descended below the shopping concourse to the station below which were quite a distance from the tower footprints themselves as seen in this map below. I suspect the bomb sniffing dogs ears would perk up from the cinnamon buns baking at Au Bon Pain before they would catch any hint of a subway below.

http://www.labelscar.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/wtcconcoursezk3.png

funk de fino

21st July 2009, 08:27 AM

Jeez not with the photographer again.

http://www.forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4895005&postcount=362

Have you contaced any of the people to query whether the claims made by Blanchard were correct? The steel was investigated by forensic examiners. it was witnessed and documented. There was a chain of custody.

funk de fino

21st July 2009, 08:30 AM

So what?

So NIST has since clarified and your dishonest attempt to muddy the waters has failed again.

They have explained why the collapse continued and have given calculations for it.

jaydeehess

21st July 2009, 10:43 AM

Anyway you want to look at it jaydees the debunkers debunk themselves every time they claim it would have taken tons of explosives strategically placed on every floor to get a building the size of the towers to collapse, then out of the other side of their mouth claim for instance that flight 175 randomly striking between the 78th to 84th floors, randomly hitting different columns, caused every floor above it to come down.

A muddled view as is common for you HI.
the explosives contention IS NOT that of the debunkers. The amount of explosives used, calculated by debunkers relies on the contentions of the TM regarding the condition of the structure, the manner in which it collapsed and the description by the TM of events occuring during collapse.

The TM contends:
- the buildings were in good shape as far as load carrying capacity after the aircraft impacts. YOU attempted to illustrate this notion by your out-of-context quoting of NIST's description of this.
-the buildings could only have been brought down in their own footprint as much as they were, by the planting of explosives in order to fail each floor in succession. YOU have ignored this contention by the TM thus far in this thread.
-the buildings could only have collapsed at the rate they did by planting explosives within the building to fail each floor. YOU have ignored this contention by the TM thus far in this thread.
-the so called 'squibs' are the direct evidence of explosives being detonated ahead of the outwardly visible collapse zone. YOU have ignored this contention by the TM thus far in this thread.

So even if just your NIST collapse initiation hypothesis is correct then it must also be true that explosive like the aircraft on just a few floors could collapse up to twenty floors above it.

Incorrect again. NIST stated that the aircraft impact weakened the load carrying capacity of the building but that the building still stood. It was the further weakening by the resultant , immediatly ignited, widespread, multi-floor fires that caused initial collapse. You used the example of the Murrah building. It also did not collapse despite the 4 tons of anfo explosive used. It was a wreck surely, but it still stood even a week later and had to be brought down.

Collapse initiation I remind you, came a hour after the impact and that if YOUR contention of explosive use is correct then it occured then, and affected a building , at the level of the impacts, which was already weakened by the impacts. The aircraft impacts then of course were inflicted on a structure that was , at that time, still in pristine condition.

It does not however mean it would continue below the impact or explosives zone, or if it did for how long.

The NIST and debunker contention is, and the math that shows this (see Bazant for eg.), contend that gravity alone would account for global collapse after initial collapse. YOU contend that explosives are neccessary. YOU cite the fact that they are required in all 'normal' CD's by explosives. In those 'normal' CD's by explosive means there are indeed a lot of explosives loaded ONTO the columns AND there is significant pre-weakening of key structural members which again all leads to a TM requirement for more explosives(since pre-weakening is out of the question). The debunkers simply carry forth on the TM contention, and illustrate that this contention would require a lot of explosives.
You are welcome.I did hear you say thank you , right?

YOU cannot have it both ways HI. You cannot claim that few explosives would be required but also that NIST is incorrect in stating that once initial collapse had taken place as it did that global collapse would ensue. If NIST is incorrect on that point then YOUR contention requires more explosives.

And none of this even gets near the main conspiracy I've also heard which is thermite. Thermite that debunkers are quick to point out doesn't explode.

Again we come to the TM contention of co-ordinated failing of the columns. Thermite is unreliable as far as timing goes. It is also unreliable in causing a quick and accuratecutting of large cross section , vertical columns. Thermite also has its own markers. First of all the amount required to significantly weaken, let alone cut through a thick, vertical column is quite large. YOUR contention is that little material would have to be smuggled in in the preceeding few days(or a year if bomb sniffing dogs are as useless as you wish them to be). Thermite would also absolutly have to be mounted ON the columns. Your contention previous to this page was that this was not neccessary(since you would have to explain how this was accomplished).

The fire that supposedly caused the collapse initiation by weakening steel in the NIST version also made no noise after the impact of the plane. But according to NIST caused at least in the case of the flight 175 impact zone about 20 floors above it to collapse..

NIST and many other fire engineering tests illustrate that office fires can and do weaken stell to the point of causing significant deformations of load carrying members. In addition, the impacts had already compromised the capacity of the structure, AND in 'normal office fores the conflagration begins small, spreads about one floor, eventually spreads to adjacent floors again starting small on those floors and spreading to larger areas WHEREAS IN THE TOWERS, it was within seconds of impact a large area fire on each of several adjacent floors.

So keep talking. You debunk yourself.

In short it was the cumulative effect of several insults to the impact floors that caused initiation and the manner of construction(long span, trusses and tube in tube) that allowed this initial collapse to keep progressing.

MIKILLINI

21st July 2009, 07:27 PM

A muddled view as is common for you HI.
the explosives contention IS NOT that of the debunkers. The amount of explosives used, calculated by debunkers relies on the contentions of the TM regarding the condition of the structure, the manner in which it collapsed and the description by the TM of events occuring during collapse.

The TM contends:
- the buildings were in good shape as far as load carrying capacity after the aircraft impacts. YOU attempted to illustrate this notion by your out-of-context quoting of NIST's description of this.
-the buildings could only have been brought down in their own footprint as much as they were, by the planting of explosives in order to fail each floor in succession. YOU have ignored this contention by the TM thus far in this thread.
-the buildings could only have collapsed at the rate they did by planting explosives within the building to fail each floor. YOU have ignored this contention by the TM thus far in this thread.
-the so called 'squibs' are the direct evidence of explosives being detonated ahead of the outwardly visible collapse zone. YOU have ignored this contention by the TM thus far in this thread.

Incorrect again. NIST stated that the aircraft impact weakened the load carrying capacity of the building but that the building still stood. It was the further weakening by the resultant , immediatly ignited, widespread, multi-floor fires that caused initial collapse. You used the example of the Murrah building. It also did not collapse despite the 4 tons of anfo explosive used. It was a wreck surely, but it still stood even a week later and had to be brought down.

Collapse initiation I remind you, came a hour after the impact and that if YOUR contention of explosive use is correct then it occured then, and affected a building , at the level of the impacts, which was already weakened by the impacts. The aircraft impacts then of course were inflicted on a structure that was , at that time, still in pristine condition.

The NIST and debunker contention is, and the math that shows this (see Bazant for eg.), contend that gravity alone would account for global collapse after initial collapse. YOU contend that explosives are neccessary. YOU cite the fact that they are required in all 'normal' CD's by explosives. In those 'normal' CD's by explosive means there are indeed a lot of explosives loaded ONTO the columns AND there is significant pre-weakening of key structural members which again all leads to a TM requirement for more explosives(since pre-weakening is out of the question). The debunkers simply carry forth on the TM contention, and illustrate that this contention would require a lot of explosives.
You are welcome.I did hear you say thank you , right?

YOU cannot have it both ways HI. You cannot claim that few explosives would be required but also that NIST is incorrect in stating that once initial collapse had taken place as it did that global collapse would ensue. If NIST is incorrect on that point then YOUR contention requires more explosives.

Again we come to the TM contention of co-ordinated failing of the columns. Thermite is unreliable as far as timing goes. It is also unreliable in causing a quick and accuratecutting of large cross section , vertical columns. Thermite also has its own markers. First of all the amount required to significantly weaken, let alone cut through a thick, vertical column is quite large. YOUR contention is that little material would have to be smuggled in in the preceeding few days(or a year if bomb sniffing dogs are as useless as you wish them to be). Thermite would also absolutly have to be mounted ON the columns. Your contention previous to this page was that this was not neccessary(since you would have to explain how this was accomplished).

NIST and many other fire engineering tests illustrate that office fires can and do weaken stell to the point of causing significant deformations of load carrying members. In addition, the impacts had already compromised the capacity of the structure, AND in 'normal office fores the conflagration begins small, spreads about one floor, eventually spreads to adjacent floors again starting small on those floors and spreading to larger areas WHEREAS IN THE TOWERS, it was within seconds of impact a large area fire on each of several adjacent floors.

So keep talking. You debunk yourself.

In short it was the cumulative effect of several insults to the impact floors that caused initiation and the manner of construction(long span, trusses and tube in tube) that allowed this initial collapse to keep progressing.

Excellent summarization, Jaydee

Homeland Insurgency

21st July 2009, 10:28 PM

The contention of the debunkers on this thread and in this forum from time to time has been that for explosives to have been involved in the collapse of the towers then tons and tons of them would have been needed. These explosives according to debunkers would have needed to have been strategically placed on structural supports on EVERY floor. This process according to debunkers could take as long as a year. So there is no way according to debunkers that this could have gone on without being witnessed. It is further contented in this thread by debunkers that because of the amount of explosives needed it would have easily been discovered by things like bomb sniffing dogs and security. Even though I sourced how an investigation got explosives into 10 federal buildings post 9/11 and another article where an expert claims bomb sniffing dogs are not dependable in busy populated areas. Debunkers also claim because of the amount of detonator charges needed and how loud they are the sound would have been heard by everyone in Manhattan if not upstate NY.

Some truthers also have claimed explosives and CD, but the conspiracy theory I have always heard the most is thermite. Supposedly according to debunkers though, tons and tons of thermite would also have been needed to take down the towers.

The problem with debunkers is that after they make all the proclamations about just how many explosives would be needed to bring down the towers in a CD and how long it would take in preparation, in the very next breathe they claim a plane randomly hitting the towers anywhere near the top on one side will bring the towers straight down in an hour. Even when according to their official version it’s not really the plane, the impact, or the jet fuel primarily that caused the collapse of the towers. It’s plain old building content fire.

Well then. So much for TONS and TONS of explosives huh?

So much for months and months of preparation needed.

Well not always with debunkers. Because when you point out to them that building content fire has never caused the collapse of a steel structured high rise in the history of high rise fires then they go back to the plane impacts.

That is until the WTC-7 report. That is sometimes. Like I said they are all over the place. You corner them and then they start spouting off the same crap from 3 years ago that their own official version doesn’t even endorse. Go figure.

Because now theoretically these days since the release of the NIST WTC-7 report according to debunkers to globally collapse a steel structured high-rise building there is absolutely no need for any kind of explosives at all on even one structural support.

There is no need for such a freak thing like an intentional plane crash going 500 miles an hour, or jet fuel ignited fires to structural supports that knocks off fire-proofing.

Nope.

There is no need at all for anything like that according to debunkers these days.

This is of course after they shot off their snotty mouths for years and years about oil tanks and 10 story gashes.

Theoretically according to debunkers all you need these days is one match to start a building content fire and then thermal expansion can set in to one column and the entire structure will fall down like a house of cards.

One day. That’s it. No preparation at all.

I can’t tell anymore what a debunker believes. Depending on which one you talk to and even which day it is you talk to them you can get any one or all of these excuses.

Just as long as it doesn’t involve an inside job or any kind of cover-up it’s okay by debunkers. Doesn’t matter what it is. Any excuse will do.

Or not?

I can’t tell anymore.

Make up your minds.

Debunker says what?

UNLoVedRebel

21st July 2009, 10:32 PM

alienentity

21st July 2009, 10:41 PM

The contention of the debunkers on ...snip... long rant

Debunker says what?

Unfortunately for you, the debunkers are correct, and your CD theory is not.

Instead of getting mad at them, you ought to give up your delusions and accept reality, even if it isn't what you wanted.

You can always find another criticism of your government, there's plenty of areas left....don't despair!!

dtugg

21st July 2009, 11:01 PM

jaydeehess

22nd July 2009, 05:40 AM

Hi, do you actually read anything?

The large quantity of explosives senario is A DIRECT RESULT OF THE CONTENTIONS OF THE TM.

I addressed your contention of thermite(why are you now changing the story you started with in this thread?---again)
Thermite is unreliable as far as timing goes. It is also unreliable in causing a quick and accuratecutting of large cross section , vertical columns. Thermite also has its own markers. First of all the amount required to significantly weaken, let alone cut through a thick, vertical column is quite large. YOUR contention is that little material would have to be smuggled in in the preceeding few days(or a year if bomb sniffing dogs are as useless as you wish them to be). Thermite would also absolutly have to be mounted ON the columns. Your contention previous to this page was that this was not neccessary(since you would have to explain how this was accomplished).

The show "MYTHBUSTERS" placed 2000 pounds of thermite on a car and it failed to sever the car into two pieces. That thermite was placed on top of the car. Your contention requires the cutting , horizontally, of a vertical column and an amount of metal similar to that of the car in the TV show.
Even if, somehow, the MIB managed to get a 50% better efficiency in using thermite on the coilumns of the WTC structures than Mythbusters had with the automobile, it would require the placing of 1000 pounds of thermite on every column they wished to sever.
Thermite also takes quite a bit of time to do its job and if it is placed on several columns it is impossible to time them to act in co-ordination.

WTC 7 fell victim to several things that contributed to its demise.

First it had fires on several floors,,,
,,,it also had no fire fighting action ,,,
,, it also was built with not only long span floorspaces (similar to the towers) but the construction had the floor beams and girders assymettrically placed,,,
,,,this led to thermal expansion that caused the floor beams to push a girder off its column seat,,,a situation that is resisted by structures in which the beams are symettrically placed.

(Why are you now changing the topic to WTC 7?)

BigAl

22nd July 2009, 05:58 AM

The problem with debunkers is that after they make all the proclamations about just how many explosives would be needed to bring down the towers in a CD and how long it would take in preparation, in the very next breathe they claim a plane randomly hitting the towers anywhere near the top on one side will bring the towers straight down in an hour. Even when according to their official version it’s not really the plane, the impact, or the jet fuel primarily that caused the collapse of the towers. It’s plain old building content fire.

Mr. Guthard says you are wrong.

Recently, Henry Guthard, 70, one of Yamasaki's original partners who also worked as the project manager at the [WTC] site, said, "To hit the building, to disappear, to have pieces come out the other side, it was amazing the building stood. To defend against 5,000 (sic) gallons of ignited fuel in a building of 1350 feet is just not possible.

Report from Ground Zero
http://snurl.com/j54gc (Bottom of page 188)

jaydeehess

22nd July 2009, 06:44 AM

HI, this is incredibly simple. We say that IF WTC was destroyed using explosives it would have taken literally tons of them and months of preparation. But that is not what happened. I honestly cannot tell if you are unable to understand this or if you are simply trolling.

We of course make these statements based on the senario which the TM itself says existed(as I outlined in a previous post) and yet the TM refuses to thank the debunkers for doing the work of determining the quantity of explosive for them.;)

jaydeehess

22nd July 2009, 06:55 AM

The dogs were brought up because unlike the other buildings in the test you brought up , the WTC had bomb sniffing dogs.

The supposed explosives were not in a subway tunnel, they were in the building were they not? They were responsible for the initiation of collapse and the continuation of collapse as it progressed from its initial point 1000 feet above the subway, right?

Then why did you opine that a lot of explosives could be carried into a building over the course of a year?

Try to stick to one story there HI rather than changing it constantly and contradictorily.

Tell us HI, where were the explosives, if explosives were used? In the subway or in the building? On the impact floors only or throughout the building? Attached to structural members or not?

Tell us HI, where was the thermite, if thermite was used? In the subway or in the building? On the impact floors only or throughout the building? Attached to structural members or not? (vertical members or horizontal?)

Once you actually get around to sticking to one or two senarios then you can get around to determining the quantity of either explosives or thermite you will need.

You keep wanting to have several mutually exclusive things in play at once.
If there was a small quantity of explosives/thermite used then it stands to reason they would be ON the impact floors and NIST is correct in that once initial collapse began it was going to progress to global collapse.

If gravity acting on the upper section as a catalyst for global collapse is impossible then you now require more explosives or thermite.

You simply cannot have it both ways at once.

'truther' says what?

FineWine

22nd July 2009, 11:20 AM

The contention of the debunkers on this thread and in this forum from time to time has been that for explosives to have been involved in the collapse of the towers then tons and tons of them would have been needed. These explosives according to debunkers would have needed to have been strategically placed on structural supports on EVERY floor. This process according to debunkers could take as long as a year. So there is no way according to debunkers that this could have gone on without being witnessed. It is further contented in this thread by debunkers that because of the amount of explosives needed it would have easily been discovered by things like bomb sniffing dogs and security. Even though I sourced how an investigation got explosives into 10 federal buildings post 9/11 and another article where an expert claims bomb sniffing dogs are not dependable in busy populated areas. Debunkers also claim because of the amount of detonator charges needed and how loud they are the sound would have been heard by everyone in Manhattan if not upstate NY.

Some truthers also have claimed explosives and CD, but the conspiracy theory I have always heard the most is thermite. Supposedly according to debunkers though, tons and tons of thermite would also have been needed to take down the towers.

Slaves to your delusion invented the silly thermite hypothesis in desperation, as the difficulties in finding soundless explosives proved insuperable. There is a reason why thermite and thermate are not used by demolition companies, but your side has no interest in learning it.

The problem with debunkers is that after they make all the proclamations about just how many explosives would be needed to bring down the towers in a CD and how long it would take in preparation, in the very next breathe they claim a plane randomly hitting the towers anywhere near the top on one side will bring the towers straight down in an hour. Even when according to their official version it’s not really the plane, the impact, or the jet fuel primarily that caused the collapse of the towers. It’s plain old building content fire.

Well then. So much for TONS and TONS of explosives huh?

So much for months and months of preparation needed.

Well not always with debunkers. Because when you point out to them that building content fire has never caused the collapse of a steel structured high rise in the history of high rise fires then they go back to the plane impacts.

That is until the WTC-7 report. That is sometimes. Like I said they are all over the place. You corner them and then they start spouting off the same crap from 3 years ago that their own official version doesn’t even endorse. Go figure.

It's very easy to figure: you've been caught lying again. You lie constantly. Tell us more about about that "plain old building content fire." Were any plane crashes involved? C'mon, don't be shy.

Because now theoretically these days since the release of the NIST WTC-7 report according to debunkers to globally collapse a steel structured high-rise building there is absolutely no need for any kind of explosives at all on even one structural support.

There is no need for such a freak thing like an intentional plane crash going 500 miles an hour, or jet fuel ignited fires to structural supports that knocks off fire-proofing.

Nope.

There is no need at all for anything like that according to debunkers these days.

This is of course after they shot off their snotty mouths for years and years about oil tanks and 10 story gashes.

So, on your world, people imagine that tons of debris falling on WTC 7 had nothing to do with its collapse?

Theoretically according to debunkers all you need these days is one match to start a building content fire and then thermal expansion can set in to one column and the entire structure will fall down like a house of cards.

One day. That’s it. No preparation at all.

I can’t tell anymore what a debunker believes. Depending on which one you talk to and even which day it is you talk to them you can get any one or all of these excuses.

Just as long as it doesn’t involve an inside job or any kind of cover-up it’s okay by debunkers. Doesn’t matter what it is. Any excuse will do.

Or not?

I can’t tell anymore.

Make up your minds.

Debunker says what?

Debunker says frauds are lying. The towers collapsed because FULLY-FUELED COMMERCIAL AIRLINERS CRASHED INTO THEM, SEVERING PERIMETER AND CORE COLUMNS AND STARTING EXTENSIVE FIRES THAT WEAKENED STRUCTURAL STEEL. Your embarrassingly crude and dishonest attempts to distort reality have not advanced your insane cause.

Oscar

22nd July 2009, 03:54 PM

Oh, good lord, is HI still not banned yet? What does a troll like him have to do to pull at the the panties of the mods around here? It's unbelievable.

The guy's a troll. A boring one. And is about as interesting as sick on toast.

1337m4n

22nd July 2009, 06:48 PM

Why are we still spoon-feeding HI? It's clear he has no intention of ever doing research, contacting experts, or making any effort whatsoever to understand 9/11.

FACT: There is zero evidence of explosives having destroyed the WTC buildings. None, zero, zip, nada.

FACT: There is countless evidence AGAINST (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=121182) the idea of explosives having destroyed the WTC buildings.

Please PM me when HI refutes either of these facts, kthx.

MIKILLINI

22nd July 2009, 07:32 PM

<Snip>

I can’t tell anymore.

HI says what?

Homeland Insurgency

22nd July 2009, 10:30 PM

The point of the article I posted about bomb sniffing dogs wasn’t that they were ineffective in a subway just because it was a subway.

It was because of how busy and populated a subway is.

I pointed out that not only was the WTC busier than a subway it actually had a path train that stopped underneath it.

If you got off at that stop and wanted to walk out to the street you would come out right where WTC workers were walking in.

But it doesn’t matter. Debunkers know that the point wasn’t that it was specifically a subway stop. They just had nothing else to respond with.

Round and round the debunker goes. Where it stops? Nobody knows. Not even the debunker. Confused about what their argument even is anymore. So then they try semantics.

BRAVO

Continue.

Oscar

23rd July 2009, 12:20 AM

Edited for civility

Stellafane

23rd July 2009, 03:03 PM

Hi HI. (Umm, that was weird...) Guess what? You convinced me. I now believe 9/11 was an inside job, and all that other stuff you guys have been saying for the past 8 years (can't say I understand just what it is you think actually happened, but I'm sure it'll all get sorted out eventually). So here I am, ready to help the movement in any way I can.

Now what?

Homeland Insurgency

23rd July 2009, 06:48 PM

“Don't go changing, to try and please me
You never let me down before
Don't imagine you're too familiar...

I'll take you just the way you are”

Please continue.

Stellafane

23rd July 2009, 08:56 PM

Please continue.

So in other words, you're really not interested in changing anybody's mind here, or getting them to agree with you. OK, gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up (not that there was a great deal of doubt). You see, when most normal, well-adjusted adults engage in discussions -- those whose emotional makeups have advanced beyond infantile -- they do so to exchange ideas. And when those ideas differ, they present evidence in support of their ideas and consider the evidence presented by those with whom they disagree. In some cases, perhaps you'll change their minds. In other cases, perhaps it'll be your mind that changes. And perhaps nobody's mind is changed, you just agree to disagree. But at a minimum each side should learn something from the other, through good-faith discussion and debate.

Of course, in any forum there will be those few who demonstrate that they have no interest in any of this -- just as you have now done. Instead, they attempt to compenate for their inadequacies and failures by simply disrupting the discussions of others. Such people are called trolls, and they are the online equivalent of vandals, akin to children who make prank phone calls. Now most normal people don't want to be considered trolls, since it really is a very sad and pathetic way to spend your time. The thing is, in addition to being emotionally stunted, trolls often tend to be very, very stupid. Therefore they usually don't even realize how utterly ridiculous they are -- indeed, they often revel in it, heaping humiliation after humiliation on themselves while cluelessly thinking that somehow they're being clever. Unfortunately such people seldom have any real life or friends to tell them how wrong they are.

I used to find trolls irritating, but really, I can't even summon that amount of effort anymore, because it's hard to do so while simultaneously feeling sorry for them for being such immature losers. It's kind of like the movie Casablanca, where the Peter Lorre character says to Humphrey Bogart, "You despise me, don't you Rick?" To which Bogey replies, "If I ever gave you any thought, I probably would."

Eyeron

23rd July 2009, 09:12 PM

Question, how were the guys who first bombed WTC able to get their explosives past security and put the truck in the basement?

Homeland Insurgency

23rd July 2009, 09:14 PM

So in other words, you're really not interested in changing anybody's mind here, or getting them to agree with you. OK, gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up (not that there was a great deal of doubt). You see, when most normal, well-adjusted adults engage in discussions -- those whose emotional makeups have advanced beyond infantile -- they do so to exchange ideas. And when those ideas differ, they present evidence in support of their ideas and consider the evidence presented by those with whom they disagree. In some cases, perhaps you'll change their minds. In other cases, perhaps it'll be your mind that changes. And perhaps nobody's mind is changed, you just agree to disagree. But at a minimum each side should learn something from the other, through good-faith discussion and debate.

Of course, in any forum there will be those few who demonstrate that they have no interest in any of this -- just as you have now done. Instead, they attempt to compenate for their inadequacies and failures by simply disrupting the discussions of others. Such people are called trolls, and they are the online equivalent of vandals, akin to children who make prank phone calls. Now most normal people don't want to be considered trolls, since it really is a very sad and pathetic way to spend your time. The thing is, in addition to being emotionally stunted, trolls often tend to be very, very stupid. Therefore they usually don't even realize how utterly ridiculous they are -- indeed, they often revel in it, heaping humiliation after humiliation on themselves while cluelessly thinking that somehow they're being clever. Unfortunately such people seldom have any real life or friends to tell them how wrong they are.

I used to find trolls irritating, but really, I can't even summon that amount of effort anymore, because it's hard to do so while simultaneously feeling sorry for them for being such immature losers. It's kind of like the movie Casablanca, where the Peter Lorre character says to Humphrey Bogart, "You despise me, don't you Rick?" To which Bogey replies, "If I ever gave you any thought, I probably would."

BELLLLLLLLLLLLLCHHHHHHHHH....... rip

ahhhhh scuse me.

Wha...?

U say som tin?

A W Smith

23rd July 2009, 09:17 PM

Homeland Insurgency

23rd July 2009, 09:27 PM

Question, how were the guys who first bombed WTC able to get their explosives past security and put the truck in the basement?

Well that was just a little security boo boo.

In fact even after that boo boo when 9/11 happened they were still making mucho boo boos.

Apparently.

It's almost like no one ever heard of hijacking before 9/11 according to debunkers.

4 simultaneous hijackings. Not one hijacker stopped out of 19?

3 different airports.

Whoops.

we make a boo boo. we sorry.

oh well

jaydeehess

23rd July 2009, 09:29 PM

The point of the article I posted about bomb sniffing dogs wasn’t that they were ineffective in a subway just because it was a subway...........
................But it doesn’t matter. Debunkers know that the point wasn’t that it was specifically a subway stop. They just had nothing else to respond with.

Round and round the debunker goes. Where it stops? Nobody knows. Not even the debunker. Confused about what their argument even is anymore. So then they try semantics.

BRAVO

Continue.

You respond as if this was the only item I brought up concerning your contentions in this thread.

It most certainly wasn't.
see posts 570, 617 and 623

On the other hand bomb sniffing dogs are NOT "ineffective" in densely populated areas, just less effective. They also can more effective in patrols after normal business hours. They also most certainly were used at the WTC complex until a few days prior to the attacks. YOU have attempted to score points here by both saying that explosives would not be detected by these dogs because in crowded situations they are less effective(which you extrapolate to them being "ineffective"), but ignore the fact that scans after normal business hours would have to be considered as well if these supposed explosives sat in the structure for months; and you also point to the fact that the dogs were taken off duty days prior to the attacks thus suggesting that the explosivers could have been smuggled in during this time.

I have asked you several times whether the explosives were placed in the building over a long time span (in your own words, over the course of a year) or if they were smuggled in within a few days of the attacks.

I also have pointed out several times now that the conditions that the TM says existed are such that if it were explosive demoltion it would require a large amount of explosives.
Was the initial collapse sufficient to progress to global collapse as Bazant and NIST state, or did global collapse require explosives on most(if not all) levels below initial collapse zone?
Were the supposed 'squibs' indicative of explosives on many floors of the WTC towers?
Where were the explosives, if explosives were used? In the subway or in the building? On the impact floors only or throughout the building? Attached to structural members or not?
Where was the thermite, if thermite was used? In the subway or in the building? On the impact floors only or throughout the building? Attached to structural members or not? (vertical members or horizontal?)

AJM8125

23rd July 2009, 09:31 PM

Question, how were the guys who first bombed WTC able to get their explosives past security and put the truck in the basement?

They drove it in. People were able to do things like that in 1993. Business usually is conducted like that until somebody, you know, tries to blow up your building and kill you.

Homeland Insurgency

23rd July 2009, 09:40 PM

You mean the kind of busy like at airports? (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/01/18/rec.bomb.sniffing.dogs.02/index.html)

I've never seen nor had a dog at any airport sniff my bags in my presence.

Now if these dogs are sniffing the checked luggage they are doing it in a secured location away from the crowds.

Which would make sense according to the article I posted.

jaydeehess

23rd July 2009, 09:41 PM

Well that was just a little security boo boo.

In fact even after that boo boo when 9/11 happened they were still making mucho boo boos.

Apparently.

It's almost like no one ever heard of hijacking before 9/11 according to debunkers.

4 simultaneous hijackings. Not one hijacker stopped out of 19?

3 different airports.

Whoops.

we make a boo boo. we sorry.

oh well

Many people did raise the concern that the USA was open to hijacking because of lax security measures.

You ask if no one had heard of hijackings in the past? Well yes, I am glad that you acknowledge that they had occured. I also then can assume that you are aware that Islamic para-military groups have also in the past hijacked several aircraft at once in a co-ordinated fashion, and used suicide bombing missions in the past. You then should find it non-surprising at all that in this case the perpetrators simply married the three ideas, hijacking, co-ordinated multiple hijacking and suicide mission, in this attack against an enemy whom they believed themselves to be at war with.

Quite happy to see you coming around HI.

(BTW, why the topic change yet again?)

jaydeehess

23rd July 2009, 09:43 PM

I've never seen nor had a dog at any airport sniff my bags in my presence.

Now if these dogs are sniffing the checked luggage they are doing it in a secured location away from the crowds.

Which would make sense according to the article I posted.

,,,,,,,,,,,,and where were the dogs in the WTC used? Did they do patrols of the building after normal business hours HI. You know, in a fashion that would make sense according to the article you posted?

Homeland Insurgency

23rd July 2009, 09:46 PM

You respond as if this was the only item I brought up concerning your contentions in this thread.

It most certainly wasn't.
see posts 570, 617 and 623

On the other hand bomb sniffing dogs are NOT "ineffective" in densely populated areas, just less effective. They also can more effective in patrols after normal business hours. They also most certainly were used at the WTC complex until a few days prior to the attacks. YOU have attempted to score points here by both saying that explosives would not be detected by these dogs because in crowded situations they are less effective(which you extrapolate to them being "ineffective"), but ignore the fact that scans after normal business hours would have to be considered as well if these supposed explosives sat in the structure for months; and you also point to the fact that the dogs were taken off duty days prior to the attacks thus suggesting that the explosivers could have been smuggled in during this time.

I have asked you several times whether the explosives were placed in the building over a long time span (in your own words, over the course of a year) or if they were smuggled in within a few days of the attacks.

I also have pointed out several times now that the conditions that the TM says existed are such that if it were explosive demoltion it would require a large amount of explosives.
Was the initial collapse sufficient to progress to global collapse as Bazant and NIST state, or did global collapse require explosives on most(if not all) levels below initial collapse zone?
Were the supposed 'squibs' indicative of explosives on many floors of the WTC towers?
Where were the explosives, if explosives were used? In the subway or in the building? On the impact floors only or throughout the building? Attached to structural members or not?
Where was the thermite, if thermite was used? In the subway or in the building? On the impact floors only or throughout the building? Attached to structural members or not? (vertical members or horizontal?)

If they are less effective then they very well could have been ineffective leading up to 9/11.

Especially if there were less of them. If any.

jaydeehess

23rd July 2009, 09:47 PM

They drove it in. People were able to do things like that in 1993. Business usually is conducted like that until somebody, you know, tries to blow up your building and kill you.

Not like that kind of thing never happens.

There was an intersection in this town that was a two way stop. It was fine until the 1970's when the town grew and this became a very busy intersection. Time and again residents would petition for this to be made a 4 way stop, and it eventually was. After two school girls got hit by a car!

jaydeehess

23rd July 2009, 09:48 PM

If they are less effective then they very well could have been ineffective leading up to 9/11.

Especially if there were less of them. If any.

Read,,,,the,,,,entire,,,,post,,,,Homeland Insurgency.

Homeland Insurgency

23rd July 2009, 09:49 PM

,,,,,,,,,,,,and where were the dogs in the WTC used? Did they do patrols of the building after normal business hours HI. You know, in a fashion that would make sense according to the article you posted?

Why don't you tell me?

I'm not the one claiming there is no way explosives could have gotten in the building because of some dogs.

Don't you know? And if you do? Source it.

jaydeehess

23rd July 2009, 09:53 PM

Read,,,,the,,,,entire,,,,post,,,,Homeland Insurgency.

ie.
I have asked you several times whether the explosives were placed in the building over a long time span (in your own words, over the course of a year) or if they were smuggled in within a few days of the attacks.

I also have pointed out several times now that the conditions that the TM says existed are such that if it were explosive demoltion it would require a large amount of explosives.
Was the initial collapse sufficient to progress to global collapse as Bazant and NIST state, or did global collapse require explosives on most(if not all) levels below initial collapse zone?
Were the supposed 'squibs' indicative of explosives on many floors of the WTC towers?
Where were the explosives, if explosives were used? In the subway or in the building? On the impact floors only or throughout the building? Attached to structural members or not?
Where was the thermite, if thermite was used? In the subway or in the building? On the impact floors only or throughout the building? Attached to structural members or not? (vertical members or horizontal?)

Homeland Insurgency

23rd July 2009, 09:55 PM

Read,,,,the,,,,entire,,,,post,,,,Homeland Insurgency.

I read the entire post. I never claimed to know there were explosives in the building.

I just know you don't know there weren't.

Especially because you think some dogs would have stopped it.

You got anymore ridiculous debunking to wow me with?

jaydeehess

23rd July 2009, 10:00 PM

Why don't you tell me?

I'm not the one claiming there is no way explosives could have gotten in the building because of some dogs.

Don't you know? And if you do? Source it.

According to YOU it is a fact that the dogs could only be used effectively in patrols in less crowded areas. Thus according to you the best way to utilise bomb sniffing dogs at the WTC would be to utilise them to patrol, for instance, the parking area during the daytime (never have I seen a parking lot, or garage, crowded with people) and the other areas of the buildings during the off-hours when there were few people about.

Thus it would make sense that this is how they would be utilised and thus IF you contend that for some reason this is not how they were used by all means tell us how you know this AND SOURCE IT!

jaydeehess

23rd July 2009, 10:05 PM

I read the entire post. I never claimed to know there were explosives in the building.

I just know you don't know there weren't.

Especially because you think some dogs would have stopped it.

You got anymore ridiculous debunking to wow me with?

You have claimed that NIST cannot be correct in saying that global collapse would be all but inevitable once the initial collapse occured, have you not? Do you or do you not believe that some other method would have to be utilised in order to have the initial collapse progress to a global collapse?

If you do then it follows that it was not a small quantity of explosive/hi-temp incindiary.
If you do not then it follows that you agree with NIST.

One or the other HI, unless you'd like to come up with some other ridiculous TM senario.

jaydeehess

23rd July 2009, 10:19 PM

At this point allow me to summarise what we can deduce from HI's 'points' thus far.
Please feel free to add, in point form anything I miss.

-Explosives were successfully smuggled into Federal buildings thus explsoives could have been smuggled into the WTC towers.
-Bomb sniffing dogs were not utilised as they should have been, instead they were used in the least effective means possible
-It was not neccessarily a large amount of explosive since once initial collapse took place no other explosive were required to have it progress to global collapse.
-It was more likely a small amount of thermite anyway, again small because thermite is so very effective in severing large vertical columns and because once initial collapse took place no more were required to have it progress to global collapse.

UNLoVedRebel

24th July 2009, 01:37 AM

Why don't you tell me?

I'm not the one claiming there is no way explosives could have gotten in the building because of some dogs.

Don't you know? And if you do? Source it.

Have you been watching the Way of the Master? Because your "logic" is suspiciously similar to an actor from Growing Pains.

qNoc7YNAY4I&NR=1

funk de fino

24th July 2009, 05:19 AM

I've never seen nor had a dog at any airport sniff my bags in my presence.

Now if these dogs are sniffing the checked luggage they are doing it in a secured location away from the crowds.

Which would make sense according to the article I posted.

No they never use sniffer dogs in locations where there are thousands of people.

http://http://www.highland-news.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/3815/Rock_Ness_drugs_blitz.html (http://www.highland-news.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/3815/Rock_Ness_drugs_blitz.html)

twinstead

24th July 2009, 05:33 AM

Have you been watching the Way of the Master? Because your "logic" is suspiciously similar to an actor from Growing Pains.

qNoc7YNAY4I&NR=1

I've never seen that before. Yikes.

lapman

24th July 2009, 06:31 AM

Why don't you tell me?

I'm not the one claiming there is no way explosives could have gotten in the building because of some dogs.

Don't you know? And if you do? Source it.
Wrong. We are saying that there is no way TONS of explosives could have gotten by the dogs. We are saying that there is no way TONS of explosives, det chord, "thermite fuses," etc. could be installed in a building that's open and used 24/7 without anyone noticing.

jaydeehess

24th July 2009, 07:21 AM

I never claimed to know there were explosives in the building.

I just know you don't know there weren't.

You postulated the posibbility of explosives in the building. YOU contend that this is possible based on what? That the manner in which the buildings fell suggests to you that some other action was employed besides that of aircraft impact and instantaneous multi-floor large area office fires.

Once AGAIN I point out that IF this was the case then according to the senario put forth by the TM it would require explosives on many floors and in many locations. If you and others in the TM are going to contend that only a small amount of explosive or thermite was used then it stands to reason that it would have been employed on the impact floors otherwise the supposed orchestrators of this conspiracy would have been relying on the impact and fires to initialise collapse. It follows then that if only a small amount was employed that the resulting global collapse and the manner by which it collapsed were the result only of the forces of gravity after that initial collapse.

IF you and the TM claim that explosives or thermite was utilised on other floors in order to ensure global collapse and obtain the distribution of debris witnessed to have occured then it is NOT a small amount of explosives/thermite.

If YOU or the TM further contend that the steel and/or concrete was pulverised by means other than the force of gravity on the structure that requires yet more explosives/thermite.

For explosives to be at their most effective at severing large steel columns the are mounted ON the columns. Placing explosives near the columns requires more explosive power to do the same job. In the case of thermite it is absolutely required that it be mounted on the structural member that is to be cut AND it is very difficult to cut through a vertical columns with thermite. Placing thermite somewhere near a column in order to cut that column such that it will allow a co-ordinated global collapse is simply ridiculous.

Thus although you contend that it is possible that explosives/thermite were used you have no evidence whatsoever that they were and when one thinks logically about what such a senario would entail one quickly sees that it is very unlikly that it was.

You have extrapolated minor details in an attempt to bolster your contention of the possibility of explosive/thermite use. You take a report that explosives were smuggled into Federal buildings and extrapolate that to meaning that all the explosives that may have been required to bring down the towers could have been smuggled into the buildings. When the security measure of bomb sniffing dogs was brought up you point out that they do not work effectively in crowds of people and extrapolate that to mean that they would be ineffective at the WTC because during the day, in many parts of the complex, there are lots of people thus assuming that this is where the dogs were employed. You assume the dogs were employed in the most ineffective fashion imaginable based soley on your desire to bolster your contention that explosives/thermite could have been smuggled in..

In short you have taken a lot of thin probabilities and tried to manufacture a high probability senario out of them.

I will refrain from giving my personal evaluation of the type of person who would do this.

MIKILLINI

24th July 2009, 03:39 PM

FineWine

24th July 2009, 03:58 PM

I read the entire post. I never claimed to know there were explosives in the building.

I just know you don't know there weren't.

You are, as always, wrong. Demolition experts know that no explosives were in the towers because there is no--zero--physical evidence of explosives. Metallurgists know there were no explosives in the buildings because the chemical signatures of explosives used in demolition were nowhere to be found. Structural engineers know there were no explosives because the impact/fires theory explains the collapses parsimoniously. Firefighters know there were no explosives in the buildings because they are trained to recognize arson.

Especially because you think some dogs would have stopped it.

You got anymore ridiculous debunking to wow me with?

The agenda-driven fantasy of your insane movement requires many tons of explosives. You keep overlooking that minor detail. You haven't been wowed by the facts debunkers present; you've been crushed, humiliated, and exposed as a fraud. It happens to you all the time.

BenBurch

24th July 2009, 04:26 PM

The stupid. It burns!!!

Homeland Insurgency

24th July 2009, 05:01 PM

According to YOU it is a fact that the dogs could only be used effectively in patrols in less crowded areas.

Nope. I sourced it.

Thus according to you the best way to utilise bomb sniffing dogs at the WTC would be to utilise them to patrol, for instance, the parking area during the daytime (never have I seen a parking lot, or garage, crowded with people) and the other areas of the buildings during the off-hours when there were few people about.

I said this? Can you SOURCE that please?

Thus it would make sense that this is how they would be utilised and thus IF you contend that for some reason this is not how they were used by all means tell us how you know this AND SOURCE IT!

You want me to backup your speculation now?

Do your own debunking. What are you lazy?

Homeland Insurgency

24th July 2009, 05:06 PM

You have claimed that NIST cannot be correct in saying that global collapse would be all but inevitable once the initial collapse occured, have you not? Do you or do you not believe that some other method would have to be utilised in order to have the initial collapse progress to a global collapse?

If you do then it follows that it was not a small quantity of explosive/hi-temp incindiary.
If you do not then it follows that you agree with NIST.

One or the other HI, unless you'd like to come up with some other ridiculous TM senario.

So to you it's either a very small amount or tons and tons.

It can be nothing else.

It has to be one or the other.

See why you never convince anyone?

Probably not.

Please Continue.

FineWine

24th July 2009, 05:16 PM

So to you it's either a very small amount or tons and tons.

It can be nothing else.

It has to be one or the other.

See why you never convince anyone?

Probably not.

Please Continue.

See why you're regarded as a particularly obnoxious liar?

No, jaydeehess is not claiming that a small quantity of explosives were involved--nobody thinks he is. He is claiming that NO explosives were involved. He is claiming that the NIST Report, 10,000 pages of diagrams, charts, tables, simulations, computations, and analyses that have not been challenged by physicists or engineers anywhere in the world, is substantially correct in explaining the collapse mechanisms for the towers.

You are claiming that a report you are unable to read is wrong. You have no background in any technical field and your knowledge of science and engineering is nonexistent. If the NIST report is wrong, you have failed to explain why no scientists from countries unfriendly to America have pointed the errors that are so obvious to angry, empty-headed adolescents and professional crackpots.

It isn't a few explosives or tons of them, as you know. It's the planes crashes or "many tons" (Stacey Loizeaux) of explosives. There were, in fact, two planes that crashed into the towers. There is absolutely no evidence for any amount of explosives.

You. Fail. Again.

Homeland Insurgency

24th July 2009, 05:23 PM

FineWine

24th July 2009, 05:31 PM

I have shown where post 9/11 people were able to get explosives into 10 federal buildings, assemble them, and walk around undetected.

The only attempt of debunking that explosive were possible to get past security in the same way at the WTC so far here has been the far reaching pathetic attempt to claim that security pre 9/11 was better then post 9/11 and that bomb sniffing dogs would have stopped it from happening.

I showed and sourced where dogs are not always effective. If they were then why weren't they being used at the 10 federal buildings in the article?

I have also shown and continue to show with debunker help that there is absolutely no limit to a debunkers capacity for apologizing and making excuses for the people who failed to protect America on 9/11 and continue to fail by evidence of the article I posted.

Just so the debunker can pretend to debunk. Excuses and apologies are not debunking anything.

So please continue.

You have not "shown" that it is possible to smuggle small amounts of bomb-making materials into federal buildings. Who ever doubted that it was possible? You are making your typical dishonest leap from a trivial observation to a conclusion that doesn't follow--doesn't come close to following. The twin towers were brought down by the impacts of two fully-fueled commercial airliners and the resultant extensive fires. Your insane movement cannot accept any reality with America as the victim of an unprovoked attack. You have thrown reason and logic out the window in conjuring up fantastic scenarios that lack any plausibility, all to smear America.

There were no explosives in the towers. The amount of explosives necessary to bring down the towers would be vastly in excess of anything that could be smuggled in. You are off on another mad romp because, at this stage, you simply can't figure out what you're trying to claim.

BigAl

24th July 2009, 05:32 PM

I have shown where post 9/11 people were able to get explosives into 10 federal buildings, assemble them, and walk around undetected.

So what? There is no evidence or account of any noises consistent with man-made explosives at WTC on 9/11.

MIKILLINI

24th July 2009, 06:00 PM

See why you never convince anyone?

Probably not.

I've solved your problem HI: You don't want to be convinced.

Look Upward, the sky is falling.

Audible Click

24th July 2009, 07:38 PM

I've never seen nor had a dog at any airport sniff my bags in my presence.

Now if these dogs are sniffing the checked luggage they are doing it in a secured location away from the crowds.

Which would make sense according to the article I posted.

Oh please, I've had my bags sniffed by explosives/drugs etc. sniffing dogs at airports and ports of call. Just because you never saw it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Homeland Insurgency

26th July 2009, 08:25 PM

I fly all the time in America and never have I encountered a dog at the airport.

None of the 10 buildings in the article I posted encountered bomb sniffing dogs that I know of. If they did the dogs failed.

So what is the debunker point?

None as usual?

This thread is not about bomb sniffing dogs.

Sure. I‘ll engage. But just to watch debunkers go down a dead-end.

Please continue.

When will you really learn about 9/11?

Do you really want to?

Dog Town

26th July 2009, 08:56 PM

I fly all the time in America and never have I encountered a dog at the airport.

Never flown American out of LAX, I see. LAX at all, for that matter.

Mashuna

27th July 2009, 12:23 AM

UNLoVedRebel

27th July 2009, 12:32 AM

Oh no - HI was just going to teach me what really happened on 9/11, but now he's banned!

Oh well, guess I'll cope.

He had to work hard to get banned. He had countless infractions plus a 30 day suspension notice and at least one infraction right after his suspension was up. One mod blamed his bad behavior on how "we" responded to him.

dtugg

27th July 2009, 01:40 AM

LOL! Good riddance you moron!

AJM8125

27th July 2009, 03:38 AM

Debunker says ha.

UNLoVedRebel

27th July 2009, 03:40 AM

When he comes home from work tomorrow at McDonald's he's gonna get a troll itch and log on here and realize he's banned!

Justin39640

27th July 2009, 06:29 AM

When he comes home from work tomorrow at McDonald's he's gonna get a troll itch and log on here and realize he's banned!

dont you wish you had a hidden camera to capture the reaction? lol
im shocked it took as long as it did

Marduk

27th July 2009, 06:36 AM

ah but what if Satan was responsible for smuggling the explosives in

I'll get my coat
:D

doobiedoright

27th July 2009, 06:49 AM

J. Wellington Wimpy

27th July 2009, 02:03 PM

When he comes home from work tomorrow at McDonald's he's gonna get a troll itch and log on here and realize he's banned!

Is it wrong that I just can't seem to stop smiling...?:D

parky76

27th July 2009, 02:05 PM

I have shown where post 9/11 people were able to get explosives into 10 federal buildings, assemble them, and walk around undetected. .

enough to take down a 110 story skyscraper??

i dont think so.

Stellafane

27th July 2009, 03:48 PM

Oh no - HI was just going to teach me what really happened on 9/11, but now he's banned!

Oh well, guess I'll cope.

Oh, I suspect HI will soon be back, sporting some clever name like "DeDebunker" or "RevealTheTruth." Actually, I'd even vote to let him back, under the condition that we get to choose his nick and he can't change it. I suggest "AnotherStupidSock."

J. Wellington Wimpy

27th July 2009, 03:54 PM

Actually, I'd even vote to let him back, under the condition that we get to choose is nick and he can't change it. I suggest "AnotherStupidSock."

In a like spirit of happy cooperation, I nominate "TwooferSaysWhat?" as a potential replacement nick. ;)

Stellafane

27th July 2009, 04:03 PM

In a like spirit of happy cooperation, I nominate "TwooferSaysWhat?" as a potential replacement nick. ;)

I like it!! C'mon mods, pretty please??

triforcharity

27th July 2009, 06:56 PM

Wow, I am not suprised that HI is banned. I say good. Piece of garbage he was.

FineWine

27th July 2009, 09:29 PM

Wow, I am not suprised that HI is banned. I say good. Piece of garbage he was.

I just don't see much sense in banning such types. It's much better to keep whamming on them. That way they don't get to slink off and claim victory. Why silence a punching bag, a guy who buries the "truth" movement every time he opens his mouth?

Brainache

27th July 2009, 09:38 PM

I just don't see much sense in banning such types. It's much better to keep whamming on them. That way they don't get to slink off and claim victory. Why silence a punching bag, a guy who buries the "truth" movement every time he opens his mouth?

I think it is because, as others have said, he was actively trying to goad other members into breaking the membership agreement.

Macgyver1968

27th July 2009, 10:01 PM

Wow, I am not suprised that HI is banned. I say good. Piece of garbage he was.

Dang..truthers are dropping quicker than topless girls in a horror movie. :)

triforcharity

28th July 2009, 05:47 AM

Oh yeaah, I stopped reaading HI's posts, because on more than one occasion, he tried bating me into getting into a shouting match. I almost did, but stayed within the rules.

Had I kept resopnding to him, I most likely would have been suspended at least.

jaydeehess

28th July 2009, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
According to the link YOU provided it is a fact that the dogs could only be used effectively in patrols in less crowded areas.
Nope. I sourced it.

Fixed my statement. Is that better?

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
Thus it follows from the link you provided that the best way to utilise bomb sniffing dogs at the WTC would be to utilise them to patrol, for instance, the parking area during the daytime (never have I seen a parking lot, or garage, crowded with people) and the other areas of the buildings during the off-hours when there were few people about reply by HI
I said this? Can you SOURCE that please?

I would have assumed you understood my original post, however
, I fixed my statement in this post. Care to address it?

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
Thus it would make sense that this is how they would be utilised and thus IF you contend that for some reason this is not how they were used by all means tell us how you know this AND SOURCE IT!
reply from HI
You want me to backup your speculation now?

No, I garner from the article that you provided that the best way to utilise the dogs would be as I outlined. It is you who is postulating that the dogs were used in the least effective fashion and thus it is you who has to back up the more incredible assertion. If you cannot then there is no basis for assuming that the least probable usage was in effect.
(Is logic not one of your strong suits?)
While it is possible that the dogs were employed in an ineffective fashion one can, without any evidence to the contrary, assume they were used in an effective fashion. In other words I want you to back up your speculation that the dogs were employed in an ineffective fashion. That IS your contention after all.

jaydeehess

28th July 2009, 10:29 AM

I have shown where post 9/11 people were able to get explosives into 10 federal buildings, assemble them, and walk around undetected.

The only attempt of debunking that explosive were possible to get past security in the same way at the WTC so far here has been the far reaching pathetic attempt to claim that security pre 9/11 was better then post 9/11 and that bomb sniffing dogs would have stopped it from happening.

Incorrect. You have asserted that the security measures were in fact ineffective. Part of this demands that the dogs were employed in an ineffective fashion. You have not backed up that assertion and thus have not shown that security would not have managed to intercept the loading of any explosives.

I showed and sourced where dogs are not always effective. If they were then why weren't they being used at the 10 federal buildings in the article?

We do not know why they were not used at the other buildings (I would speculate that cost was an issue, as it always is) but we do know they were used at the WTC. We also know they are used at large airports in the USA and you have not shown that they are ineffective when used there, in uncrowded areas.
Again then it is up to you to provide some evidence that the dogs were used, in the WTC complex, exclusively in the least effective manner in order to state that smuggling explosives into these buildings would not have been intercepted by the dogs.
This is a simple concept, why can you not do it?

I have also shown and continue to show with debunker help that there is absolutely no limit to a debunkers capacity for apologizing and making excuses for the people who failed to protect America on 9/11 and continue to fail by evidence of the article I posted.

The flip side of that of course is that you make excuses to deflect blame from those we know to have been responsible and to this end you will employ many low probability senarios and extrapolate minor details to bolster claims that one can easily determine, through simple logic, to be ridiculous. Yours is a politically driven agenda not unlike the past administration's use to the supposed 'yellow cake' from Nigeria to Iraq claim. THAT is the style that you are using, do you enjoy being in that company?