Debunker says what?

[Homeland Insurgency]

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

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

Bomb Materials Smuggled into Fed Buildings

Whaaa...?

How did that happen?

[BigAl]

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

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

Bomb Materials Smuggled into Fed Buildings

Whaaa...?

How did that happen?

There was no demolition explosion at WTC on 9/11.

[FineWine]

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

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




Bomb Materials Smuggled into Fed Buildings

Whaaa...?

How did that happen?


Hey, way to go, "truther"! You showed that bomb-making materials can be smuggled into a Federal buidling. For your next trick, show us how a few TONS of shaped charges could have been smuggled into the twin towers, as teams of demolition workers worked for months breaking up walls and cutting into steel columns. You don't want us to think that you've posted more of your usual irrelevant, disingenuous rubbish, do you?

[dtugg]

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.

[Dog Town]

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


Could you provide a quote, with link?

[Justin39640]

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

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

Bomb Materials Smuggled into Fed Buildings

Whaaa...?

How did that happen?

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 :)

[triforcharity]

First off, here is the first sentence.

Federal investigators had no trouble smuggling bomb-making materials past ill-trained and poorly supervised guards. NOT BOMBS!!! JUST THE MATERIAL TO MAKE THEM!!

Secondly, "The committee, chaired by Lieberman, heard how Government Accountability Office investigators on 10 occasions carried the components for an improvised explosive device through checkpoints monitored by FPS guards. In all 10 cases the bomb-making materials went undetected. "

IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICE, NOT C-4, not something else HE, but somthing that could make a bomb. Ie: A soda bottle, hydrochloric acid, and aluminum foil=an IED!!!

Third, ILL TRAINED, or not qualified.

"While the FPS requires that all prospective guards complete 128 hours of training, including eight hours of x-ray and magnetometer training, in one region the service had not provided the x-ray or metal detector training to its 1,500 guards since 2004. "


Now, does that make it any more acceptable, **** NO!!! Does it mean that someone COULD have smuggled large amounts of C-4 or some other high explosive into WTC?? Nope. Now, also, take into consideration that this "bomb" that they made could fit into a BRIEFCASE!! Also, take into consideration that none of the building have a bomb sniffing dog walking the premesis. If they had, most likely the dog would have smelled something fishey. A dog's sense of smell is Up to 10,000 times more sensititive than our noses, and have 200,000,000 scent receptors.

I know, lots of people bring suitcases into WTC. but, everyone goes through a metal detector, and their bag is x-rayed. Not to mention, how long would this have taken to accomplish?? Aa few months?? HE becomes unstable and unreliable in just a few hours of exposure to open air, shock, etc. etc. etc.

So, what's your point??

[parky76]

How does that fairytale go again?

"A debunker says what?".

Is this what it has come to HI?

I may have to put most or all truthers at JREF on ignore.

[1337m4n]

Pocket IED's do not have the power to demolish skyscrapers.

Even true demolition charges require extensive preparation before being applied.

Try again.

[Justin39640]

we should all just sit back and wait for his explanation

[triforcharity]

Wow, 16 minutes from your OP, and it is shot down like a Japanese jet over Pearl Harbour.

DING DING DING. And the winner is??????????

US!!!

[TexasJack]

Wow, 16 minutes from your OP, and it is shot down like a Japanese jet over Pearl Harbour.

DING DING DING. And the winner is??????????

US!!!

We're talking about HI here, he is a no-planer who has never had a substantive post. It really isn't that hard.

[deRoy]

Possible is not synonymous with truth.

[UNLoVedRebel]

af3Idz-7eLw

And watch the rest of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM_HyMbgZis&feature=channel_page) playlist before starting worthless threads. This thread should be moved to the stupid subforum.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Pocket IED's do not have the power to demolish skyscrapers.

Even true demolition charges require extensive preparation before being applied.

Try again.

Say whaaa...?

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

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

Some people need to make up their mind.

[Björn Toulouse]

we should all just sit back and wait for his explanation


Your popcorn's gonna get cold.

[UNLoVedRebel]

we should all just sit back and wait for his explanation

You're new here aren't you?

[dtugg]

Say whaaa...?

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

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

Some people need to make up their mind.


Do you purposely construct your posts to be as incoherent as possible?

[Homeland Insurgency]

TONS or none?

Which is it?

[Yeggster]

af3Idz-7eLw

And watch the rest of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM_HyMbgZis&feature=channel_page) playlist before starting worthless threads. This thread should be moved to the stupid subforum.

Good point ... that demolition show really puts things in perspective.

I watched for almost an hour here in town of a convectional (non-explosive) machinery demolishing a very similar water tower ... steel does NOT fall down easily!

[UNLoVedRebel]

Do you purposely construct your posts to be as incoherent as possible?

Why?

You don't like the double spacing?

And the incoherent questions?

Never before in history has a troll double spaced so many posts with incoherent questions.

Do you find it bizarre a grown man gets a kick out of these deranged posts on an internet forum?

Why is that debunker?

Can you answer it?

[dtugg]

TONS or none?

Which is it?

I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you're actually like that.

[UNLoVedRebel]

TONS or none?

Which is it?

Welcome to 10th grade English class.

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

[Homeland Insurgency]

Welcome to 10th grade English class.

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

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?

[BigAl]

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?

Nobody heard or saw anything consistent with man-made explosive demolition at WTC on 9/11.

[UNLoVedRebel]

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://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4886881#post4886881

[Homeland Insurgency]

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.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Nobody heard or saw anything consistent with man-made explosive demolition at WTC on 9/11.

Or if they claim they did they must be crazy or a liar.

Don't forget that part. It's very important in debunking.

[Foolmewunz]

TONS or none?

Which is it?

As mentioned: False Dilemma

None if you also smuggle in, at 500 MPH (that's some smuggling) two fully fueled passenger jets.

No one ever said it took just an hour for two skyscrapers to fall, unaided. You just don't think a plane hit either tower, so have a problem recognizing them and the ensuing damage from the crash and from the fires as a cause.

[Foolmewunz]

Or if they claim they did they must be crazy or a liar.

Don't forget that part. It's very important in debunking.

Not necessary.

You just keep posting. Self-debunking is an art.

[BigAl]

Or if they claim they did they must be crazy or a liar.

Don't forget that part. It's very important in debunking.

Based on the eyewitness quotes, the WTC towers were brought down by hyperbole and metaphor.

[UNLoVedRebel]

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 [sic] 10 in just one building in a years time.

They meant buildings not bombs genius. You'd need a little more thAn ten.

CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030225133807

[ElMondoHummus]

Funny that. The penetration of building security in the recent investigation did not involve accessing elevator shafts and attaching explosives to load bearing structures behind walls and out of the publicly available areas.

On top of that, nothing about this investigation by the GAO shows how they got the explosives to work in a way that didn't leave characteristics of their use, such as explosively formed steel fragments and explosively severed steel columns.

Funny that. An apple is not like an orange. Who knew? :rolleyes:

[Homeland Insurgency]

Funny that. The penetration of building security in the recent investigation did not involve accessing elevator shafts and attaching explosives to load bearing structures behind walls and out of the publicly available areas.

On top of that, nothing about this investigation by the GAO shows how they got the explosives to work in a way that didn't leave characteristics of their use, such as explosively formed steel fragments and explosively severed steel columns.

Funny that. An apple is not like an orange. Who knew? :rolleyes:

Funny that. The penetration of building security in the official version did not involve accessing elevator shafts and attaching explosives to load bearing structures behind walls and out of the publicly available areas.

But the buildings still fell.

Right? :rolleyes:

[dtugg]

I hereby deem this thread, and HI in general to be an

http://imgsrv.wzlx.com/image/wzlx/UserFiles/Image/wacky%20pics/epic-failure.jpg

[dtugg]

Funny that. The penetration of building security in the official version did not involve accessing elevator shafts and attaching explosives to load bearing structures behind walls and out of the publicly available areas.

But the buildings still fell.

Right? :rolleyes:

You're making even less sense. If that is even possible.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Funny that. The penetration of building security in the official version did not involve accessing elevator shafts and attaching explosives to load bearing structures behind walls and out of the publicly available areas.

But the buildings still fell.

Right? :rolleyes:
So now you're saying the buildings didn't fall? :wackygoofy:

[triforcharity]

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?


As I said before. Please refer up to the post I have. Here is the quote

First off, here is the first sentence.

Federal investigators had no trouble smuggling bomb-making materials past ill-trained and poorly supervised guards. NOT BOMBS!!! JUST THE MATERIAL TO MAKE THEM!!

Secondly, "The committee, chaired by Lieberman, heard how Government Accountability Office investigators on 10 occasions carried the components for an improvised explosive device through checkpoints monitored by FPS guards. In all 10 cases the bomb-making materials went undetected. "

IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICE, NOT C-4, not something else HE, but somthing that could make a bomb. Ie: A soda bottle, hydrochloric acid, and aluminum foil=an IED!!!

Third, ILL TRAINED, or not qualified.

"While the FPS requires that all prospective guards complete 128 hours of training, including eight hours of x-ray and magnetometer training, in one region the service had not provided the x-ray or metal detector training to its 1,500 guards since 2004. "


Now, does that make it any more acceptable, **** NO!!! Does it mean that someone COULD have smuggled large amounts of C-4 or some other high explosive into WTC?? Nope. Now, also, take into consideration that this "bomb" that they made could fit into a BRIEFCASE!! Also, take into consideration that none of the building have a bomb sniffing dog walking the premesis. If they had, most likely the dog would have smelled something fishey. A dog's sense of smell is Up to 10,000 times more sensititive than our noses, and have 200,000,000 scent receptors.

I know, lots of people bring suitcases into WTC. but, everyone goes through a metal detector, and their bag is x-rayed. Not to mention, how long would this have taken to accomplish?? Aa few months?? HE becomes unstable and unreliable in just a few hours of exposure to open air, shock, etc. etc. etc.

So, what's your point??



First off, this was an IED. Google IED, or read my quote.
Second-HE degrade over just hours exposed to the open air, movement, dust, etc.etc.etc. They are not predictible or reliable after even 12 hours.

Your theory is an idiotic one at best.

[Homeland Insurgency]

They meant buildings not bombs genius.

Got that too huh? You're on a roll. Good for you.

[Homeland Insurgency]

As I said before. Please refer up to the post I have. Here is the quote

First off, this was an IED. Google IED, or read my quote.
Second-HE degrade over just hours exposed to the open air, movement, dust, etc.etc.etc. They are not predictible or reliable after even 12 hours.

Your theory is an idiotic one at best.

tsk tsk

How many explosives were needed in your story? Reliable or not?

[triforcharity]

HI,

Listen thickskull, I was there, Saw both WTC 1 and 2 fall. I never heard a bomb or anything that resembled a bomb. Neither did the 10,000 other people who watched them fall. 50 might have heard an EXPLOSION, but not one bomb!!

Now, go back to your crayons.

Politeness Man says "name calling and other personal insults are never polite."

In other words...attack the argument and not the arguer (Rule 12 of your membership agreement).

[UNLoVedRebel]

Got that too huh? You're on a roll. Good for you.

Now this thread is down to silly semantics. Neither of the following statements make sense, but which is less incoherent?

I bet they could have put more then [sic] 10 (bombs) in just one building in a years time.
I bet they could have put more then [sic] 10 (buildings) in just one building in a years time.

[1337m4n]

I don't understand what HI is trying to argue. Is he saying that the buildings are still standing?

To this day, even

[Shalamar]

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

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

Bomb Materials Smuggled into Fed Buildings

Whaaa...?

How did that happen?

Did they also assemble the explosives and install them in full view of workers and then set them off with new visible or auditory evidence?

[Homeland Insurgency]

So now you're saying the buildings didn't fall? :wackygoofy:


Whoops. You missed that one. Maybe you should quit while you're are ahead.

Or maybe you can answer.

Could it have been possible to get explosive devices inside the WTC buildings without anyone noticing?

Yes or no?

[Justin39640]

You're new here aren't you?
im just an optimist lol

[Justin39640]

Whoops. You missed that one. Maybe you should quit while you're are ahead.

Or maybe you can answer.

Could it have been possible to get explosive devices inside the WTC buildings without anyone noticing?

Yes or no?

no

[triforcharity]

There would have had to be thousands upon thousands of explosives PER TOWER to bring down the TT. This didn't happen.

Do you understand the words "degrade" or "unreliable" or "unpredictible"???

Means, the charges might have gone off randomly, and without any rhyme or reason.
Not gone off at all.
Gone off with the same power as a sparkler.

Which means.............(Wait for it..........Wait for it)........... FAIL!!!!!!

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/failbigtime.jpg

[Shalamar]

Whoops. You missed that one. Maybe you should quit while you're are ahead.

Or maybe you can answer.

Could it have been possible to get explosive devices inside the WTC buildings without anyone noticing?

Yes or no?

Sure it is.

How many silent explosives would be needed to bring down the towers? Would it be possible for the smugglers to cut holes into the walls to place the carefully wired explosives against the beams?

You of course have evidence that this all happened?

[dtugg]

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!

[Homeland Insurgency]

Did they also assemble the explosives and install them in full view of workers and then set them off with new visible or auditory evidence?

Why would they need to in full view of anyone? They said they constructed the bombs and walked away undetected.

new or no?

Because there was no evidence left of a lot of things after the WTC attacks. The black boxes were never found and more then 1,000 victims were never found. And who investigated for explosives evidence and how?

[dtugg]

Looks at this picture of a kitten in a pop tart box:

http://www.cutecats.tv/cute_cat_poptarts.jpg

[Homeland Insurgency]

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?

[Homeland Insurgency]

Sure it is.

How many silent explosives would be needed to bring down the towers? Would it be possible for the smugglers to cut holes into the walls to place the carefully wired explosives against the beams?

You of course have evidence that this all happened?

How many explosive were against the beams in your story?

[Homeland Insurgency]

There would have had to be thousands upon thousands of explosives PER TOWER to bring down the TT. This didn't happen.

Should I stundie this?

[ElMondoHummus]

Holy Jesus, HI said what?? No, of course none of the NIST, FEMA, or other investigations didn't involve accessing elevator shafts and out-of-the-way spaces in the buildings. That's because they don't make the insane explanation that explosives were placed against structural elements!

Duh!

Something about acres-wide and multistory fires exacerbating damage from airliners travelling at over 400 MPH seems to escape this idiot. It takes a real delusional person to equivocate the placing of briefcases in bathrooms to the impacts of Boeing jets and large resultant fires. I really recommend that everyone put him on ignore. He's got nothing serious to contribute to any discussion about 9/11. This thread is testimony to that.

[Homeland Insurgency]

no

Why not?

[UNLoVedRebel]

There would have had to be thousands upon thousands of explosives PER TOWER to bring down the TT. This didn't happen.
Should I stundie this?

No.

CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Holy Jesus, HI said what?? No, of course none of the NIST, FEMA, or other investigations didn't involve accessing elevator shafts and out-of-the-way spaces in the buildings. That's because they don't make the insane explanation that explosives were placed against structural elements!

Why would they need to be placed against structural elements? What was carefully placed against structural elements in your story?

Something about acres-wide and multistory fires exacerbating damage from airliners travelling at over 400 MPH seems to escape this idiot. It takes a real delusional person to equivocate the placing of briefcases in bathrooms to the impacts of Boeing jets and large resultant fires. I really recommend that everyone put him on ignore. He's got nothing serious to contribute to any discussion about 9/11. This thread is testimony to that.

Were the elevators not in the core? If people can walk around and construct bombs undetected why couldn't they do it on an elevator? Or several?

[stateofgrace]

Holy Jesus, HI said what?? No, of course none of the NIST, FEMA, or other investigations didn't involve accessing elevator shafts and out-of-the-way spaces in the buildings. That's because they don't make the insane explanation that explosives were placed against structural elements!

Duh!

Something about acres-wide and multistory fires exacerbating damage from airliners travelling at over 400 MPH seems to escape this idiot. It takes a real delusional person to equivocate the placing of briefcases in bathrooms to the impacts of Boeing jets and large resultant fires. I really recommend that everyone put him on ignore. He's got nothing serious to contribute to any discussion about 9/11. This thread is testimony to that.

QFE, ignore is your friend.

[Justin39640]

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

[dtugg]

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?

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.

[Justin39640]

Why not?

see my previous post

[Homeland Insurgency]

dogs were always there
they had extra teams during the alert


That's not what the story says.

I don't see what it matters 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?

[dtugg]

Why would they need to be placed against structural elements? What was carefully placed against structural elements in your story?



Were the elevators not in the core? If people can walk around and construct bombs undetected why couldn't they do it on an elevator? Or several?

Do you have some sort of mental disability? This is a serious question.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Why would they need to be placed against structural elements?
Because this is what would happen to the steel. Nothing.

PDfrIHIBbKg&feature=channel_page

[TexasJack]

Arguing with no-planers will get you nowhere, they are beyond any semblance of logic and reason, put him on ignore.

[Homeland Insurgency]

No.

Really?

CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.

So why wasn't all of this needed in your story to bring down the WTC buildings? Especially WTC-7?

Did you forget your 10th grade English already?

[Homeland Insurgency]

Arguing with no-planers will get you nowhere, they are beyond any semblance of logic and reason, put him on ignore.

When did I ever claim no planes? I claim no plane debris matched to serial numbers.

Now stay on topic or don't bother.

Could it have been possible to get explosive devices inside the WTC buildings without anyone noticing?

Yes or no?

[Stellafane]

Aw, come on people, you know how things work in Trutherland: If you can't proved something can't happen beyond the remotest theoretical doubt...then it did happen!

[dtugg]

If you are actually like this in real life, HI, you have serious issues and should get some help. If not, get a life and stop trolling.

[UNLoVedRebel]

If only there were footage of the towers collapsing, then we might be able to settle this.

gJbGm7GE1tA
http://www.kolumbus.fi/av.caesar/wtc/WTC2_collapse2.jpg
http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt332/JREFImages/InwardBowing2.jpg
http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt332/JREFImages/InwardBowing.jpg

[UNLoVedRebel]

Really?

So why wasn't all of this needed in your story to bring down the WTC buildings? Especially WTC-7?
Because fire brought down the buildings.
Did you forget your 10th grade English already?
No

[Justin39640]

That's not what the story says.

I don't see what it matters 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?

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

[Homeland Insurgency]

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

You'll need something better then that. Sorry.

[Justin39640]

You'll need something better then that. Sorry.

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!!!!!!

[Homeland Insurgency]

Because fire brought down the buildings.


Fire? So everything you previously said is needed to take down a skyscraper isn't needed now?

[Homeland Insurgency]

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


You'll need to remind me where you proved anything.
Thanks.

[Justin39640]

You'll need to remind me where you proved anything.
Thanks.

can you call yourself a critical thinker with the attention span of a goldfish?

[dtugg]

Fire? So everything you previously said is needed to take down a skyscraper isn't needed now?

Your question is retarded.

[Justin39640]

Your question is retarded.

just the question? lol

[UNLoVedRebel]

Fire? So everything you previously said is needed to take down a skyscraper isn't needed now?

Seriously, what are you trying to say?

[BigBird]

As mentioned: False Dilemma

None if you also smuggle in, at 500 MPH (that's some smuggling) two fully fueled passenger jets.

No one ever said it took just an hour for two skyscrapers to fall, unaided. You just don't think a plane hit either tower, so have a problem recognizing them and the ensuing damage from the crash and from the fires as a cause.

HAAHAHAHAHA ROFL

You beat me to it! :eye-poppi

[Alex C]

I don't think he can comprehend theoretical statements. IE, you would need thousand of explosives to take down WTC.

To answer your question HI, no thousands of explosives are not needed to take down a skyscraper WHEN YOU HAVE AN AIRLINER CRASH INTO IT. This in no way changes the fact that it would be impossible to smuggle in enough explosives to take it down in a controlled demolition. A few IEDs wouldn't cut it. You would need thousands of charges.

You can destroy a building more than one way you know.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Why not both planes and explosives? Who ever thought before 9/11 that a plane could globally collapse the WTC? Explosives don't make the planes and initial fires disappear. Did al-qaeda in your story even expect as much from just the planes? How about the designers of the WTC before 9/11? Did they somewhere claim that a plane could knock down a tower? Did anyone ever predict before 9/11 that just a plane could do the job?

Anyway I'm glad we got one thing straight in this thread.

It's not just TONS and TONS of explosives with months of setup that can knock down a skyscraper. Other ways are possible too. Even according to the debunkers.

Are we done?

Now according to the newly revealed investigation pointed out in the OP, could it have been possible to get explosive devices and/or incendiaries inside the towers before 9/11?

Yes or no?

[dtugg]

Hey genius, what type of explosives can survive high speed plane crashes and intense fires in your fantasy world?


Now according to the newly revealed investigation pointed out in the OP, could it have been possible to get explosive devices and/or incendiaries inside the towers before 9/11?

Yes or no?

Not enough to destroy the towers, no. I hope this clears up the issue for you.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Why not both planes and explosives?

Before asking more incoherent questions, answer Blanchard's at 1:07.

cxa5dLSIWrM&feature=PlayList&p=33450708F59EEC8B&index=3

[CptColumbo]

BTW the towers of the World Trade Center were not a federal building. They had private security and Port Authority Police. Also the Dept. of Homeland Security didn't exist in Sept. 2001. So comparing the incidents in the article and the WTC on 9/11 doesn't really work.

[~enigma~]

bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.

Besides dead people being disrespected why is it the cockroaches known as truthers are disrespectful of dogs?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_WJOyqmg_gpc/SfujXEoTPUI/AAAAAAAABCI/0Vy5s2q3o00/s320/inlovingmemory.bmp

[T.A.M.]

leave poor HI alone. More then any other truther, he is bitter that his sorry ass movement has done nothing over the last 8 years. Now he will whine, and complain. And then in his near suspension proof method will tease and taunt, but in the end, we know who has lost...and no one likes losers.

And yes I am well aware this has nothing to do with the OP, but then again, the OP in reality, is only tangentially related to 9/11 CTs, so all's fair right?

TAM;)

[leftysergeant]

Whoops. You missed that one. Maybe you should quit while you're are ahead.

Or maybe you can answer.

Could it have been possible to get explosive devices inside the WTC buildings without anyone noticing?

Yes or no?

No.

[Myriad]

Actually, I think HI has an interesting point.

Since experts concur that no explosives at all were required to cause the collapses, and since it has been shown to be hypothetically possible to smuggle small amounts of explosives into a guarded building, then the known events of 9/11 are entirely consistent with the presence of small amounts of explosives, timed or triggered to explode after inevitable global collapse was already underway, in charges too small and too few in number to have generated blast waves audible over the sounds of the ongoing collapse or to have caused visible shock waves in the dust or to have ejected any high-velocity shrapnel from the building, ineffectually placed far enough from any significant structural elements so as not to influence the collapse progression in any detectable way or cause any explosive deformation of the structural steel debris noticeable after the collapse, smuggled into the building over an unknown (but very brief, or the dogs would have noticed) period of time by unknown persons at enormous risk of detection for unknown and unfathomable reasons.

The above scenario is consistent with all known facts about the tower collapses and so cannot be ruled out a priori.

But what HI is failing to take into account is that since there is no actual evidence in favor of this scenario, Occam's Razor tells us that since all events are adequately explained by a hypothesis lacking unnecessary undetectable irrelevant explosives, there is no reason to consider one that includes unnecessary undetectable irrelevant explosives. That would be "multiplying elements beyond necessity," which is poor reasoning.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[triforcharity]

When did I ever claim no planes? I claim no plane debris matched to serial numbers.

Now stay on topic or don't bother.

Could it have been possible to get explosive devices inside the WTC buildings without anyone noticing?

Yes or no?

NO. The DOGS that were there would have smelled if you brought a BOMB into the building. If you brought a bomb in 2 days before, and you got BY the guards, the dog would have smelled it. Thatas how good their sense of smell is.

Ie: Guy kidnaps child. Police are called, police bring dog. Dog smells around, picks up scent. Dog tracks kidnapper 100 miles away, finds bad guy. Other dogs bite bad guy. GAME OVER.

SO, the answer is NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[johnny karate]

It should be mentioned at this point that HI believes Interpol was involved in the conspiracy to cover-up "what really happened" on 9/11. Clearly, his posts in this thread reflect the same paranoia and irrationality that brought him to the conclusion that nearly 200 nations colluded to aid the U.S. government in their nefarious plot for world domination.

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

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

As you can see, his posts are those of a mouth-frothing ideologue. Please don't waste your time arguing with him.

[tsig]

leave poor HI alone. More then any other truther, he is bitter that his sorry ass movement has done nothing over the last 8 years. Now he will whine, and complain. And then in his near suspension proof method will tease and taunt, but in the end, we know who has lost...and no one likes losers.

And yes I am well aware this has nothing to do with the OP, but then again, the OP in reality, is only tangentially related to 9/11 CTs, so all's fair right?

TAM;)

His last few posts show clearly that he is just posting for the "fun" of it.

[Shalamar]

How many explosive were against the beams in your story?

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that you think a small hand-made explosive not actually attached to a support member could bring down the towers.

Were they nuclear?

Should also note that while it would be possible to smuggle explosives into the buildings in small quantities, there is still no evidence of any explosives actually used on 9/11.

[Blender Head]

In bringing up the heightened security alert being removed on Thursday, September 6, 2001 does HI exonerate the ACE Elevator mechanics in the rigging of the WTC for demoliton on 9/11?

[Bobert]

This guy is a friggin idiot.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

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

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

Bomb Materials Smuggled into Fed Buildings

Whaaa...?

How did that happen?

A controlled demo of the Twin Towers and WTC7 would have required roughly 48,000 charges, each one a self contained device.

How many fake bombs were they able to smuggle into these buildings in this law enforcement test, HI?

Was it less than 48,000?

EDIT: Ok, so I'm I'm the fourth one to point this out. HI is still ignoring the point though.

[Justin39640]

NO. The DOGS that were there would have smelled if you brought a BOMB into the building. If you brought a bomb in 2 days before, and you got BY the guards, the dog would have smelled it. Thatas how good their sense of smell is.

Ie: Guy kidnaps child. Police are called, police bring dog. Dog smells around, picks up scent. Dog tracks kidnapper 100 miles away, finds bad guy. Other dogs bite bad guy. GAME OVER.

SO, the answer is NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

he pretty much debunks himself
i have a new question for HI
first he says this:
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 [I]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?

and:

Say whaaa...?

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

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

Some people need to make up their mind.

(bold mine)

anyone see the problem? lol
now was it from thursday to tuesday?
or
months, HI?

by your reasoning the explosives were put in place BEFORE or during the heightened security

cant have your cake and eat it too

:covereyes

[Homeland Insurgency]

Well now...

What have we learned about debunkers and what they believe about 9/11?

There are three ways a steel structured high rise can globally collapse.

1) A steel structured high rise needs to be prepared and wired for months ahead of time by teams of professionals with tons of high grade explosives on every floor near structural supports for global collapse to occur. This is the tried and true traditional way.

or...

2) A steel structured high rise just needs to suffer random explosive damaged and random building content fire to a small percentage of the building near the top for it to globally collapse in less than an hour. This almost seems to be the most efficient according to debunkers. That is until you read the spiffy new option three.

3) These days a steel structured high needs only random building content fire and it will cause global collapse from thermal expansion. Takes a few hours longer than option two but it still drops just like option one according to debunkers. This thermal expansion excuse for the collapse of a steel structured high rise is the newest rage amongst the debunker crowd. Apparently debunkers are very fickle and trendy.

The only other requirement I can tell debunkers have is that it helps if it is 9/11/01. Special unreal first time in history things were possible on that day. It's almost like it was a religious experience for them. The miracles just get more elaborate and magical with time.

What doesn't work for debunkers? Anything that might imply an inside job in even the slightest way. Even any of the above options only work for debunkers if the right people are behind it.

It really helps for debunkers if the right people are mysterious (in a foreign way (brown)), small in number, and invisible after the fact.

Thanks for sharing debunkers.

[dtugg]

You must work very had to ensure that your posts are as incoherent as possible. I don't think I could make less sense than you if I tried.

[UNLoVedRebel]

You must work very had to ensure that your posts are as incoherent as possible. I don't think I could make less sense than you if I tried.

Look on the bright side; at least he wrote than instead of then. Maybe he is learning. But other than that, no, the post didn't make a stitch of sense.

[triforcharity]

Alright HI, I will take your bait. Too bad I am too big of a fish and will snap your line as if it was sewing thread.


Well now...

What have we learned about debunkers and what they believe about 9/11?

There are three ways a steel structured high rise can globally collapse.

1) A steel structured high rise needs to be prepared and wired for months ahead of time by teams of professionals with tons of high grade explosives on every floor near structural supports for global collapse to occur. This is the tried and true traditional way

Yes, you are correct. This is one method. Too bad for your dirt-dumb idea, this didn't happen to the TTs.



2) A steel structured high rise just needs to suffer random explosive damaged and random building content fire to a small percentage of the building near the top for it to globally collapse in less than an hour. This almost seems to be the most efficient according to debunkers. That is until you read the spiffy new option three.

Yes, you can bring a tower down when a 767 crashes into it. Absolutely. Especially when there were minimal, if any firefighting going on. The damage was just too much. Nobody did hardly ANY firefighting that made ANY kind of dent into the fire that day. I know, I was there.

There were nothing random about the damage or fires. Fires were on the floors surrounding the immeadiate area of the 767 crash.



3) These days a steel structured high needs only random building content fire and extensive damage from a 767 traveling at over 500 MPH, and it will cause global collapse from thermal expansion. Takes a few hours longer but it still drops just like option one according to debunkers. This thermal expansion excuse for the collapse of a steel structured high rise is the newest rage amongst the debunker crowd. Apparently debunkers are very fickle and trendy.
Fixed that for you.
I have heard of thermal expansion for many years. No, I am not an engineer either, I am a firefighter. This is common in a fire. Even bricks and blocks suffer from thermal expansion. Let a fire burn for too long, and bricks and blocks will fail too.


The only other requirement I can tell debunkers have is that it helps if it is 9/11/01. Special unreal first time in history things were possible on that day. It's almost like it was a religious experience for them. The miracles just get more elaborate and magical with time.

What doesn't work for debunkers? Anything that might imply an inside job in even the slightest way. Even any of the above options only work for debunkers if the right people are behind it.

It really helps for debunkers if the right people are mysterious (in a foreign way (brown)), small in number, and invisible after the fact.

Thanks for sharing debunkers.

This is also the first time in history that a plane was hijacked and crashed into a 110 story highrise where no firefighting occured.

It wouldn't matter if the freaking pope was piloting the plane. It still would have caused the same effect on WTC 1&2.

The problem is this. You haven't even began to give a SHRED of PLAUSABLE evidence how any kind of explosives got into ANY of the buildings. We have already proven that there WERE in fact bomb sniffing dogs there.

[Homeland Insurgency]

http://www.slate.com/id/2134394/

But their noses can't be relied on there. "I wouldn't want to be the one who put it out to the public that the emperor has no clothes," the head of a large urban bomb squad told me. But "dogs do not function in the way everyone thinks." It is, quite simply, "bull****," he says, to think that dogs can walk through subway cars, or sniff people entering turnstiles, and detect whether they've brought explosives along for the ride.

lol

[UNLoVedRebel]

http://www.slate.com/id/2134394/

But their noses can't be relied on there. "I wouldn't want to be the one who put it out to the public that the emperor has no clothes," the head of a large urban bomb squad told me. But "dogs do not function in the way everyone thinks." It is, quite simply, "bull****," he says, to think that dogs can walk through subway cars, or sniff people entering turnstiles, and detect whether they've brought explosives along for the ride.

lol

http://www.slate.com/id/2134394/

Dogs are acclaimed for detecting minuscule amounts of myriad compounds. Their noses are 100 times to 10,000 times more sensitive than human noses, depending on the scent. And they can identify particular odors within a complex mixture—which should be useful for detecting explosives, since many are a potpourri of scents.

Dogs can also home in on target scents, even when other strong smells are present. Well-trained canines have proved valuable in searching for narcotics and explosives in airport luggage, sniffing out land mines in places like Afghanistan, and ensuring that there are not bombs behind the wall panels in rooms where high-level meetings are to take place.

lol

[Jonnyclueless]

Did the federal building fall free fall like the towers?

[Justin39640]

http://www.slate.com/id/2134394/

But their noses can't be relied on there. "I wouldn't want to be the one who put it out to the public that the emperor has no clothes," the head of a large urban bomb squad told me. But "dogs do not function in the way everyone thinks." It is, quite simply, "bull****," he says, to think that dogs can walk through subway cars, or sniff people entering turnstiles, and detect whether they've brought explosives along for the ride.

lol

maybe you should of read the rest of it
its about subways not buildings
ever smell a subway?
i understand
you dont

fail

For one thing, dogs work best in quiet places that have been cleared of people other than their handlers. In airports, they are best at sniffing luggage in secluded baggage areas. Canine performance has also been shown to "fall off exponentially," the bomb expert said, because of distractions like gusts of air, noise, food, and people—all realities, of course, of mass transit. Bomb-sniffing is also exhausting work—a kind of sensory sprint—that dogs can't sustain for more than 20 or 30 minutes out of every couple of hours. And as they move through an area, dogs need constant reassurance and reward; if they aren't talked to, given an explosive to find now and then, and allowed to run back and forth, they may lose interest in the game. The explosives and the scampering would be hard to offer in the subway.

these distractions could be avoided at the towers

next?

[Homeland Insurgency]

http://www.slate.com/id/2134394/

Dogs are acclaimed for detecting minuscule amounts of myriad compounds. Their noses are 100 times to 10,000 times more sensitive than human noses, depending on the scent. And they can identify particular odors within a complex mixture—which should be useful for detecting explosives, since many are a potpourri of scents.

Dogs can also home in on target scents, even when other strong smells are present. Well-trained canines have proved valuable in searching for narcotics and explosives in airport luggage, sniffing out land mines in places like Afghanistan, and ensuring that there are not bombs behind the wall panels in rooms where high-level meetings are to take place.

lol


In addition, dogs probably can't be trained to detect the kind of explosives many experts increasingly worry about. Peroxide-based substances like TATP—used by shoe bomber Richard Reid and some recent terrorists in Israel—are unusually unstable—prone to blow up or otherwise react in air. That makes it difficult, if not impossible, to train dogs to recognize their scent, because to do so requires repeated reinforcement and practice, and that would be dangerous for the canines and their handlers.

The way you debunkers reach isn't even funny anymore.

[Homeland Insurgency]

maybe you should of read the rest of it
its about subways not buildings
ever smell a subway?
i understand
you dont

fail

these distractions could be avoided at the towers

next?

Yeah right. lol They are talking about how busy a subway is. The towers were more busy and had a path station that ran right underneath.

duhhhhhhh

next

lol

[dtugg]

The way you debunkers reach isn't even funny anymore.

Most hilariously ironic statement of the year! At least you were able to form a coherent sentence with that one. Good job!

[Homeland Insurgency]

Did the federal building fall free fall like the towers?

I don't think they took the experiment that far jonny. Sorry to disappoint you.

whaaa?

[JimBenArm]

Ah, so because they can't detect SOME explosives mean they're completely useless in this role. Got it.

And because a cross-cut saw won't cut steel pipe, we can't use it to cut anything.

Yeah. The way you reach isn't, either. But you are funny in other ways. Just not how you intend.

[1337m4n]

Is it just me or is HI derailing his own thread?

I mean, the OP was about federal agents sneaking pocket IED's into some building, and now HI is prattling on about "first time in history" nonsense arguments.

[UNLoVedRebel]

In addition, dogs probably can't be trained to detect the kind of explosives many experts increasingly worry about. Peroxide-based substances like TATP—used by shoe bomber Richard Reid and some recent terrorists in Israel—are unusually unstable—prone to blow up or otherwise react in air. That makes it difficult, if not impossible, to train dogs to recognize their scent, because to do so requires repeated reinforcement and practice, and that would be dangerous for the canines and their handlers.

The way you debunkers reach isn't even funny anymore.

So you didn't watch those videos I gave you. Lazy ass. TATP cannot cut a steel column. TNT can't and TNT is stronger than TATP. You need RDX or HDX genius.

TATP: Explosive velocity 5300 m/s
TNT: Explosive velocity 6900 m/s
RDX: Explosive velocity 8750 m/s
HMX: Explosive velocity 9100 m/s

The way you truthers reach is still funny.

[Homeland Insurgency]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/jul/explosives-smuggled-federal-buildings

Their performance was tested by congressional investigators who found that most of the FPS guards working at some of the nation’s top federal facilities lack proper training and are negligent in carrying out their responsibilities. Incredibly, the explosives were smuggled in at Level IV (the busiest and supposedly securest) facilities in four major U.S. cities.

Was the WTC a Level IV?

[Justin39640]

Yeah right. lol They are talking about how busy a subway is. The towers were more busy and had a path station that ran right underneath.

duhhhhhhh

next

lol

you can clear a part of a building
you can check parts that are closed after hours
youre not too big on this "critical thinking" thing are you?

the station was in a basement in a tube
so thats supposed to distract a dog on the 85th floor?

OK there lol

[Homeland Insurgency]

So you didn't watch those videos I gave you. Lazy ass. TATP cannot cut a steel column. TNT can't and TNT is stronger than TATP. You need RDX or HDX genius.

TATP: Explosive velocity 5300 m/s
TNT: Explosive velocity 6900 m/s
RDX: Explosive velocity 8750 m/s
HMX: Explosive velocity 9100 m/s

The way you truthers reach is still funny.

And Jet fuel can cut steel columns or was it the building content fire? Thermal expansion?

So it was RDX or HDX that cause the collapses? Really?

Genius?

lol

[dtugg]

Was the WTC a Level IV?

The WTC towers weren't federal buildings, genius. Keep going, I find your lack of reading comprehension, and general failure humorous.

[JimBenArm]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/jul/explosives-smuggled-federal-buildings

Their performance was tested by congressional investigators who found that most of the FPS guards working at some of the nation’s top federal facilities lack proper training and are negligent in carrying out their responsibilities. Incredibly, the explosives were smuggled in at Level IV (the busiest and supposedly securest) facilities in four major U.S. cities.

Was the WTC a Level IV?
I dunno. Was it?

[dtugg]

And Jet fuel can cut steel columns or was it the building content fire? Thermal expansion?

So it was RDX or HDX that cause the collapses? Really?

Genius?

lol

And there you go again, typing out a post that is as incoherent as possible.

[Homeland Insurgency]

you can clear a part of a building
you can check parts that are closed after hours
youre not too big on this "critical thinking" thing are you?

the station was in a basement in a tube
so thats supposed to distract a dog on the 85th floor?

OK there lol

Yeah right. They were gonna clear out the WTC weeks before 9/11 every time a dog sat down just because it was tired.

[Justin39640]

The WTC towers weren't federal buildings, genius. Keep going, I find your lack of reading comprehension, and general failure humorous.

lol i thought that was obvious before any one responded to his nonsense

[UNLoVedRebel]

And Jet fuel can cut steel columns or was it the building content fire? Thermal expansion?

So it was RDX or HDX that cause the collapses? Really?

Genius?

lol

Your most incoherent post to date.

[JimBenArm]

And Jet fuel can cut steel columns or was it the building content fire? Thermal expansion?

So it was RDX or HDX that cause the collapses? Really?

Genius?

lol
They found cut columns? Not just deformed ones? Wow, glad you found them. Don't think anyone else did. Where did they have them hidden?
I'm so glad you're investigating this. The truth will finally come out.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Your most incoherent post to date.

Really? You need RDX or HDX right? Was the RDX or HDX on one of the planes?

Please.

What's wrong did I get you all confused about what you're suppose to believe?

Give it up.

[dtugg]

Really? You need RDX or HDX right? Was the RDX or HDX on one of the planes?

Please.

What's wrong did I get you all confused about what you're suppose to believe?

Give it up.

Are you actually like this in real life?

[Justin39640]

Yeah right. They were gonna clear out the WTC weeks before 9/11 every time a dog sat down just because it was tired.

i dont know what kind of brainless trap you tried to lay out here
you make no sense
they checked the building regularly
they never found anything
WEEKS PRIOR LIKE YOU POINTED OUT BEFORE THEY HAD EXTRA TEAMS OF DOGS

and who said they cleared anything out
they didnt cause there was NEVER any explosives installed to CD the towers

IF the dog signaled and they found something
you bet your ass it would have been cleared out

[JimBenArm]

Really? You need RDX or HDX right? Was the RDX or HDX on one of the planes?

Please.

What's wrong did I get you all confused about what you're suppose to believe?

Give it up.
Oh, you're trying to make sense? I thought the confusion was just part of your schtick.
That makes me sad. You poor, poor man.

[Homeland Insurgency]

They found cut columns? Not just deformed ones? Wow, glad you found them. Don't think anyone else did. Where did they have them hidden?
I'm so glad you're investigating this. The truth will finally come out.

I didn't bring up cut columns it was a response. Try to read all of the posts will ya?

Maybe you debunkers should just debate each other.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Goodnight!

[Justin39640]

I didn't bring up cut columns it was a response. Try to read all of the posts will ya?

Maybe you debunkers should just debate each other.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Goodnight!

maybe you should read something besides youtube comments from truthers
then come here and copy and paste your their nonsense

[Homeland Insurgency]

Are you actually like this in real life?

This is real life dtugg. Don't miss it.

[Justin39640]

This is real life dtugg. Don't miss it.
i think you need to get out more IMO

[JimBenArm]

I didn't bring up cut columns it was a response. Try to read all of the posts will ya?

Maybe you debunkers should just debate each other.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Goodnight!
But you said jet fuel cut the columns. You said it. You did. You said jet fuel cut the columns. That's what you said. It is. I saw it. You said it. No one else did, but you did. Wasn't me. It was you. Yes it was. You said it, that the jet fuel cut the columns! Big as day! And I know you meant it, too!

So where did you find them, huh? Had to have been hiding somewhere!

[Justin39640]

But you said jet fuel cut the columns. You said it. You did. You said jet fuel cut the columns. That's what you said. It is. I saw it. You said it. No one else did, but you did. Wasn't me. It was you. Yes it was. You said it, that the jet fuel cut the columns! Big as day! And I know you meant it, too!

So where did you find them, huh? Had to have been hiding somewhere!

i thought it was a giant airplane but heck those were projected with nanosuperlasers
or something

....

[Reactor drone]

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

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

Bomb Materials Smuggled into Fed Buildings

Whaaa...?

How did that happen?

You seem to be suggesting that explosives were smuggled into the WTC buildings in the OP but all of your subsequent posts seem to be denying that explosives were used to bring the buildings down.

Just for clarification would you mind explaining what exactly you think the role of smuggled explosives was on 9/11.If you don't think it has anything to do with the attacks then this whole thread is off topic.

[triforcharity]

Notice this is a 2006 report. I am sure that by this time they have figured out a way to train dogs to detect peroxide based bombs.

I swear, if I could say the things I reaally want to say without it getting filtered, it would look like a sailor's convention.

[Foolmewunz]

Yeah right. lol They are talking about how busy a subway is. The towers were more busy and had a path station that ran right underneath.

duhhhhhhh

next

lol

Never having left your mommy's basement, how would you know? Were you ever in WTC 1 or 2 or 7? Do you have any idea how they controlled access? Have you never seen a sniffer(dog) working a queue of people and have you no idea how it's done?

Say, I've got an idea, let's ask some people who worked in those towers. Why, look, here comes one right now.....

You: Say, tell me Foolmewunz, how did they possibly control all those people entering into the WTC office towers.

Me: Well it was really quite simple. They had four sets of turnstile type clearance points. One for the upper floor (above the 44th floor sky lobby) express elevators, one for the sky lobby and Windows on the World express elevators, and two for the "local" elevators at the East and West accessways to same.
Every single person entering the building, even with ID, had to pass through those turnstiles to get to their elevators.

You: Oh, yeah?

Me: Yeah.

As with any traffic control/check, you just have to create a funnel. People have to slow down to pass through that area and in times of "alert", they positioned the dogs right at the turnstile and everyone was required to file past. It is much the same at Lax International if you've ever flown on a plane. They have a dog positioned on the ramp between the plane and the baggage/customs area to sniff the hand luggage and/or sniff your person (they're looking for drugs, generally speaking, as you've already arrived). Just create a funnel.... doggies love it, as they get to sniff everything and everyone and after they've finished a flight of a few hundred people they get a nice scratch behind the ear and a doggie treat.

The Slate article was written by an idiot. "Some guy who I'm going to claim is an expert told me the following....." ???? Shame on Slate. They're usually better than that.

[Foolmewunz]

Yeah right. They were gonna clear out the WTC weeks before 9/11 every time a dog sat down just because it was tired.

And I guess you've never had a dog, either?

Do you know how much dogs love to please and actually enjoy working? They think of it as play. It's better and more fun than sitting in a cage in the security office.

Ask mommy to get you a doggie. Then throw a stick or a ball for it for about four hours. See who gets tired first, you or Rover.

Further, do you understand that it's a working dog and when it's on the job sitting means one thing and when it's not on the job sitting means another? As has been attributed to Freud, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar". The handler will know if the dog is resting or has found something. (And many are trained to SCRATCH AT the offending area, or to yelp a few times. Once again, the article is nonsense.)

[bill smith]

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

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

Bomb Materials Smuggled into Fed Buildings

Whaaa...?

How did that happen?

I've had the feeling for some time now that they are moving towards some kind of admission that explosives were used in the WTC on 9/11. Not that they have any choice really what with all the powerful evidence that is gathering and slowly permeating society- mainstream media or no mainstream media..

Equally I have the strong impression that any admission will be coupled with the absolute insistance that Al-Quaeda was at the root of the explosives too. That's one of the reasons I find the article you post so interesting. It may be part of layng the groundwork for a statement that Al-Quaeda or their agents smuggled the explosives into the WTC.

It would be a high-risk strategy to be sure but there may be few other realistic choices for the perps.

A useful spinoff for the Truth Movement would be the fact that we would be instantly rehabillitated- heroes even.

[dtugg]

I've had the feeling for some time now that they are moving towards some kind of admission that explosives were used in the WTC on 9/11. Not that they have any choice really what with all the powerful evidence that is gathering and slowly permeating society- mainstream media or no mainstream media..

Equally I have the strong impression that any admission will be coupled with the absolute insistance that Al-Quaeda was at the root of the explosives too. That's one of the reasons I find the article you post so interesting. It may be part of layng the groundwork for a statement that Al-Quaeda or their agents smuggled the explosives into the WTC.

It would be a high-risk strategy to be sure but there may be few other realistic choices for the perps.

A useful spinoff for the Truth Movement would be the fact that we woud be instantly rehabillitated- heroes even.

No, there were no explosives (or superdupernanothem*te) in the towers, planted by al Qaeda or anybody else. The evidence to support this is non existent despite what your fraudulent heroes say. Nobody is ever going to "admit" that there were any explosives and you are even crazier than I thought if you actually believe this.

[bill smith]

No, there were no explosives (or superdupernanothem*te) in the towers, planted by al Qaeda or anybody else. The evidence to support this is non existent despite what your fraudulent heroes say. Nobody is ever going to "admit" that there were any explosives and you are even crazier than I thought if you actually believe this.
If it does happen dtugg, it is all over for you debunkers. Your raison d'etre evaporates instantly as our star rises.

[peteweaver]

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

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

Bomb Materials Smuggled into Fed Buildings

Whaaa...?

How did that happen?

Did they strip away walls, remove fireproofing, and place thousands of very heavy explosive charges to the steelwork with nobody noticing ? No.

[dtugg]

If it does happen dtugg, it is all over for you debunkers. Your raison d'etre evaporates instantly as our star rises.

But it never will. Not even a remote possibility. You keep on wishing though. How crushing will it be for you to die knowing that your fantasies were never fulfilled? The thought of it brings a smile to my face.

[eromitlab]

If it does happen dtugg, it is all over for you debunkers. Your raison d'etre evaporates instantly as our star rises.

How many times have you said something along the lines of "it's over for the debunkers?" Your career record, 0 for whatever-the-number-is. Now Jones and Harrit run from supermegaultrananothermite and theorize about conventional explosives. Harrit claims there were tons. Jones thinks the magic nanothermite that odds are doesn't even exist in reality may have been used as nothing more than fuses for conventional explosives. The truth movement's rising star is nothing more than a truther making a circle in the sky with a flashlight; symbolic of the truth movement always recursively returning to where they started after moving the goalposts all the way around the world. Now two of the truth movement's most precious scientists are back at conventional explosives at WTC, and now truthers have to toss out old talking points to make excuses for thousands of workers on the pile not finding a single unexploded charge, a single blasting cap, a millimeter of det cord, anything that would indicate CD.

It may not be over for the truthers, not as long as they can recycle with such vigor that Al Gore ought to give them an award for it, but it's not looking good, and any statements to the contrary provide proof of truthers' inability to grasp reality and general preference towards clinging to fantasy.

[Foolmewunz]

I've had the feeling for some time now that.....




I found this note in a drawer when I was cleaning out my desk.

Oct 20 1983
Dear Foolmewunz,
I have this feeling.... take Grenada plus the points. What can the USMC possibly do against a bunch of highly trained and committed soldiers fighting to protect their own homeland?
Sincerely
Bill S


Yeah, I'd go with your hunches, Bill. You've got such a sterling track record that right now if you told me it will soon be Saturday in Fremantle, I'd bet on Wednesday.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I've had the feeling for some time now that they are moving towards some kind of admission that explosives were used in the WTC on 9/11. Not that they have any choice really what with all the powerful evidence that is gathering and slowly permeating society- mainstream media or no mainstream media..

Equally I have the strong impression that any admission will be coupled with the absolute insistance that Al-Quaeda was at the root of the explosives too. That's one of the reasons I find the article you post so interesting. It may be part of layng the groundwork for a statement that Al-Quaeda or their agents smuggled the explosives into the WTC.

It would be a high-risk strategy to be sure but there may be few other realistic choices for the perps.

A useful spinoff for the Truth Movement would be the fact that we would be instantly rehabillitated- heroes even.

HI is ignoring the question, so I'm going to ask you, Bill.

Was the amount of fake bombs smuggled during this law enforcement test less than the 48,000 needed for the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC7?

And if so, how much less?

[Dave Rogers]

A useful spinoff for the Truth Movement would be the fact that we would be instantly rehabillitated- heroes even.

And there you have it, people; the truther mindset in a nutshell. It's interesting from two points of view. Firstly, there's the local-kid-catches-crooks angle, where the conspiracy theorists want to be hailed as heroes because they figured it all out with their Dick Tracey decoder rings. It's sad that they have so little self-esteem that they think it would take something as enormous as the exposure of the crime of the century to make them feel good about themselves; many of us can take pride in the achievement of more realistic goals. But the flip side is in the mis-spelled desire for rehabilitation. These are people who feel themselves to be disenfranchised and excluded from society. They're standing outside looking through the window at the party that's going on inside, and complaining that they've been excluded. They can't even see that the door is open, and it's by their own choice that they're out in the cold.

Bill, I try to assume that you're simply trolling more out of concern than out of a desire to discount the validity of your views. If your attitude here is genuine, then I'm genuinely sorry for you, because the rehabilitation and acclaim you so desperately feel you need will never be there for you. Maybe some day you'll realise that you don't actually need any of it; it's a process called "growing up".

Dave

[tsig]

http://www.slate.com/id/2134394/

But their noses can't be relied on there. "I wouldn't want to be the one who put it out to the public that the emperor has no clothes," the head of a large urban bomb squad told me. But "dogs do not function in the way everyone thinks." It is, quite simply, "bull****," he says, to think that dogs can walk through subway cars, or sniff people entering turnstiles, and detect whether they've brought explosives along for the ride.

lol

Wow now you're even dissin' the dogs. Were they in on it too?

[bill smith]

And there you have it, people; the truther mindset in a nutshell. It's interesting from two points of view. Firstly, there's the local-kid-catches-crooks angle, where the conspiracy theorists want to be hailed as heroes because they figured it all out with their Dick Tracey decoder rings. It's sad that they have so little self-esteem that they think it would take something as enormous as the exposure of the crime of the century to make them feel good about themselves; many of us can take pride in the achievement of more realistic goals. But the flip side is in the mis-spelled desire for rehabilitation. These are people who feel themselves to be disenfranchised and excluded from society. They're standing outside looking through the window at the party that's going on inside, and complaining that they've been excluded. They can't even see that the door is open, and it's by their own choice that they're out in the cold.

Bill, I try to assume that you're simply trolling more out of concern than out of a desire to discount the validity of your views. If your attitude here is genuine, then I'm genuinely sorry for you, because the rehabilitation and acclaim you so desperately feel you need will never be there for you. Maybe some day you'll realise that you don't actually need any of it; it's a process called "growing up".

Dave

lol.You really should think about that career in pop-psychology Dave.

[doobiedoright]

http://www.slate.com/id/2134394/

But their noses can't be relied on there. "I wouldn't want to be the one who put it out to the public that the emperor has no clothes," the head of a large urban bomb squad told me. But "dogs do not function in the way everyone thinks." It is, quite simply, "bull****," he says, to think that dogs can walk through subway cars, or sniff people entering turnstiles, and detect whether they've brought explosives along for the ride.

lol

As someone who trains said K9's please tell me how you think they function?
I can assure you k9's can and do smell and see scents from people entering turnstiles and detect if they have drugs,bombs or may have just committed a crime!
I cant wait to hear you explain to me that this is not possible!

[doobiedoright]

Yeah right. They were gonna clear out the WTC weeks before 9/11 every time a dog sat down just because it was tired.

You very clearly have no clue what your talking about!
Tell you what,I am willing to share my knowledge with you but the first thing you must do is meet some of my 4 legged friends,then it is on with the bite suit for you......Have fun I sure do!

[doobiedoright]

And I guess you've never had a dog, either?

Do you know how much dogs love to please and actually enjoy working? They think of it as play. It's better and more fun than sitting in a cage in the security office.

Ask mommy to get you a doggie. Then throw a stick or a ball for it for about four hours. See who gets tired first, you or Rover.

Further, do you understand that it's a working dog and when it's on the job sitting means one thing and when it's not on the job sitting means another? As has been attributed to Freud, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar". The handler will know if the dog is resting or has found something. (And many are trained to SCRATCH AT the offending area, or to yelp a few times. Once again, the article is nonsense.)



Your post is about 95% correct.
If you dont mind let me correct one small thing for you.
I will never train a bomb dog to scratch.........the resulting boom maybe bad for the both of us.
Bomb dogs will be trained to sit!
As for what they can and can not smell.......for obvious reasons that must remain a mystery!

[triforcharity]

And Jet fuel can cut steel columns or was it the building content fire? Thermal expansion?

So it was RDX or HDX that cause the collapses? Really?

Genius?

lol

Jet fuel didn't need to cut the columns. The only thing tht needed to happen was for it to damage the columns, break the welds/splice plates, and heat the interrior floor trusses. Hence, the 767 flying into it!!

No, no RDX or HDX were in the building.

[triforcharity]

Really? You need RDX or HDX right? Was the RDX or HDX on one of the planes?

Please.

What's wrong did I get you all confused about what you're suppose to believe?

Give it up.

No, RDX and HDX on a plane would have been detected at the AIRPORT!! Der!

Plus, they wouldn't have survived the crash. Even if there WERE some on the plane, it wouldn't have mattered, because if would have become innefficient due to time/temperature/altitude variations and the GIANT F*****G ExPLOSION from all the JET FUEL!!!

Der.

[BigAl]

Really? You need RDX or HDX right? Was the RDX or HDX on one of the planes?


Pilots have to know the weight of the cargo for center of gravity calculations. Nobody sneaks any tonnage of stuff on a plane. "100 tons" of anything exceeds the capacity of a 757/767, anyway.

[leftysergeant]

Your post is about 95% correct.
If you dont mind let me correct one small thing for you.
I will never train a bomb dog to scratch.........the resulting boom maybe bad for the both of us.
Bomb dogs will be trained to sit!
As for what they can and can not smell.......for obvious reasons that must remain a mystery!

I have been on hand for a lot of bomb scares at Ft Lewis, usually while I was working at the commissary or shoping at the main PX. When they bring the dogs around the perimeter of the building, the handlers just know automatically that the dogs will stop and get all excited as they pass the open-air part of the garden section, even if they are up-wind of it. Lawn-care products are full of what the dogs are sniffing for. The dogs go up to the wall and bark a lot, but they do not seem to be trying to dig.

[johnny karate]

Homeland Insurgency believes Interpol was involved in the conspiracy to cover-up the events of 9/11.

bill smith believes the FDNY were perpetrators in the events of 9/11.

These are not the arguments of well people.

[Justin39640]

Homeland Insurgency believes Interpol was involved in the conspiracy to cover-up the events of 9/11.

bill smith believes the FDNY were perpetrators in the events of 9/11.

These are not the arguments of well people.

+1

[leftysergeant]

And Jet fuel can cut steel columns or was it the building content fire? Thermal expansion?

Thermal expansion did not cut the columns. It just broke a lot of the joints, especially those between the floor trusses and perimeter columns in the towers.

As for cutting or breaking core columns, think of the aircraft as nasty great sledge hammers. The welds between column sections were not unbreakable, you know. If you put enough lateral stress on them, they break. A hundred tons of high-velocity frag and a few flying segments of perimeter walls driven along in front of it will put a bit of lateral stress on a column.

[Foolmewunz]

Your post is about 95% correct.
If you dont mind let me correct one small thing for you.
I will never train a bomb dog to scratch.........the resulting boom maybe bad for the both of us.
Bomb dogs will be trained to sit!
As for what they can and can not smell.......for obvious reasons that must remain a mystery!

Amen as to the scratching. I was actually thinking of the ones at LAX and in Sydney. Their training is for drugs or contraband fruits/veggies/animal-plant matter, respectively. And they scratch. I also have this recollection of a terrific docu on the TV about dogs trained to listen for termites and hunt 'em behind the walls and they, also alerted the trainer with a scratching.

I'd suspect scratching at a bomb might be a bad idea, though. So yeah, I'll concede.

ETA: I love it when a professional arrives in these threads! What would you say about the "poor tired doggie sitting down on the job and causing a mass panic" concept? That's my particular fave. (Ever worked one of your charges 'til he keeled over from exhaustion?)

[Dave Rogers]

Well now...

What have we learned about debunkers and what they believe about 9/11?

There are three ways a steel structured high rise can globally collapse.

Okay, looks like you've got us bang to rights. I don't know why we ever thought we could get away with this story. Two ways or four ways would be plausible, but three is just ridiculous.

Dave

[firecoins]

TONS or none?

Which is it?
are you familiar with the 1993 WTC bombing? An entire truck bomb went off and didn't bring down the WTC and yet you think someone sneaking in a small bomb in their pocket is something? Must have been thousands of people sneaking in bombs for months.

[doobiedoright]

I have been on hand for a lot of bomb scares at Ft Lewis, usually while I was working at the commissary or shoping at the main PX. When they bring the dogs around the perimeter of the building, the handlers just know automatically that the dogs will stop and get all excited as they pass the open-air part of the garden section, even if they are up-wind of it. Lawn-care products are full of what the dogs are sniffing for. The dogs go up to the wall and bark a lot, but they do not seem to be trying to dig.



Exactly.....the hardest part of training a k9 team is training the human!
Received a little dog humor in my e-mail this morning and it fits right here so....



A man had just settled into his seat next to the window on the plane when
another man sits down in the aisle seat and puts his black Labrador
in the middle seat next to the man.

The first man looks very quizzically at the dog and asks why the dog is
allowed on the plane ?

The second man explains that he is a Drug Enforcement Agency officer
and the dog is a 'Sniffer dog'. 'His name is Smithy and he's the best there is.
I'll show you once we get airborne, when I put him to work.'

The plane takes off, and once it has leveled out, the agent says:
Watch this.' He tells Smithy to 'search'.

Smithy jumps down, walks along the aisle, and finally sits very
purposefully next to a woman for several seconds.

Smithy then returns to his seat and puts one paw on the agent's arm.

The agent says, 'Good boy', and he turns to the man and says:
'That woman is in possession of marijuana, so I'm making a note of her
seat number and the authorities will apprehend her when we land.'

'Say, that's pretty neat,' replies the first man.

Once again, the agent sends Smithy to search the aisles.
The Lab sniffs about, sits down beside a man for a few seconds,
returns to his seat and this time, he places TWO paws on the agent's
arm.

The agent says, 'That man is carrying cocaine, so again, I'm making
note of his seat number for the police.'

'I like it!' says his seat mate.

The agent then tells Smithy to 'search' again.

Smithy walks up and down the aisles for a little while, sits down for a
moment and then comes racing back to the agent, jumps into the
middle seat and proceeds to s**t all over the place.

The first man is really amazed out by this behavior and can't figure
out how or why a well-trained dog would behave like this, so he asks
the agent 'What's going on?'
The agent nervously replies, 'He just found a bomb !'

[johnny karate]

are you familiar with the 1993 WTC bombing? An entire truck bomb went off and didn't bring down the WTC and yet you think someone sneaking in a small bomb in their pocket is something? Must have been thousands of people sneaking in bombs for months.

Kind of like Andy Dufresne sneaking out bits of wall into the prison yard to facilitate his escape. What did that take him? 29 years?

[doobiedoright]

Amen as to the scratching. I was actually thinking of the ones at LAX and in Sydney. Their training is for drugs or contraband fruits/veggies/animal-plant matter, respectively. And they scratch. I also have this recollection of a terrific docu on the TV about dogs trained to listen for termites and hunt 'em behind the walls and they, also alerted the trainer with a scratching.

I'd suspect scratching at a bomb might be a bad idea, though. So yeah, I'll concede.

ETA: I love it when a professional arrives in these threads! What would you say about the "poor tired doggie sitting down on the job and causing a mass panic" concept? That's my particular fave. (Ever worked one of your charges 'til he keeled over from exhaustion?)



Yes for other types of things we may train for a scratch or other action that each individual k9 has a personality to do.
As for just sitting down when it felt like it I say......BULL!
Any kind of work a k9 is doing is all play to them,it's a game and I have yet to see one grow tired of playing the game and just sit down!
I am sure if I ever were to run into HI he would hope and pray my 4 legged friends would just sit,but I can assure you he is one word a way from a encounter he would never forget!....................PAUKIN!

[Foolmewunz]

Yes for other types of things we may train for a scratch or other action that each individual k9 has a personality to do.
As for just sitting down when it felt like it I say......BULL!
Any kind of work a k9 is doing is all play to them,it's a game and I have yet to see one grow tired of playing the game and just sit down!
I am sure if I ever were to run into HI he would hope and pray my 4 legged friends would just sit,but I can assure you he is one word a way from a encounter he would never forget!....................PAUKIN!

Thanks for confirming my anecdotal bias. I work in shipping and have managed a couple of branches where we deconsolidated cargo in our own facility. Any time I saw the dogs come to work, they were all as happy as clams to do the job, literally leaping out of the van and tails a-wagging to get at it. And as I said above (and you confirmed) they don't really tire of play. Plus, I've never seen a human partner who'd think of working the dog 'til it was "dog tired",... most of the relationships were pretty strong and it was rather nice to see.

[FineWine]

Say whaaa...?

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

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

Some people need to make up their mind.


Some people need to fight to avoid losing their minds.

The "one hour and no explosives" just happens to include the crash directly into the building of a fully-fueled 100-ton jet airliner moving at roughly 500 mph and the resultant extensive fires. Why do you incredibly silly frauds always act as though you really expect sane people to forget that little detail?

In the absence of such a devastating crash, yes, demolition professionals would require many tons of charges and months of prep work.

[FineWine]

Or if they claim they did they must be crazy or a liar.

Don't forget that part. It's very important in debunking.


People heard explosions. Things blow up in office fires. Nobody--absolutely NOBODY--heard any sounds consistent with a controlled demolition. Don't you get tired of hearing the same inconvenient FACTS over and over and over?

[FineWine]

TONS or none?

Which is it?


Tons! (Unless a commercial airliner hits the building, of course.)

What did I win?

Oh, by the way, you are making a total fool of yourself as usual.

[FineWine]

Funny that. The penetration of building security in the official version did not involve accessing elevator shafts and attaching explosives to load bearing structures behind walls and out of the publicly available areas.

But the buildings still fell.

Right? :rolleyes:


Yes, the buildings fell after they were hit by fully-fueled commercial airliners moving roughly 500 mph.

Do enjoy being slapped down all the time? Are you related to Bill Smith?

[johnny karate]

Some people need to fight to avoid losing their minds.

The "one hour and no explosives" just happens to include the crash directly into the building of a fully-fueled 100-ton jet airliner moving at roughly 500 mph and the resultant extensive fires. Why do you incredibly silly frauds always act as though you really expect sane people to forget that little detail?

In the absence of such a devastating crash, yes, demolition professionals would require many tons of charges and months of prep work.

Not to mention to facilitate the "faster than freefall" and "neatly in its own footprint" collapse Truthers imagine took place. But again, and I really can't stress this enough, we're dealing with an individual who believes Interpol is involved in America's plot to take over the world. To say that rational thought eludes him is like saying Michael Jackson hasn't been feeling too well lately.

[lapman]

Yes, the buildings fell after they were hit by fully-fueled commercial airliners moving roughly 500 mph.

Do enjoy being slapped down all the time? Are you related to Bill Smith?
To some basement dwellers, bad attention is better than no attention at all. HI and BS both understand what you and the rest of us are saying. But that doesn't serve their purpose. By regurgitation the same old lies, they get what they are craving. They think that they have some sort of power over us because we respond while they control the conversation. Once it gets out of their control, they move on to another thread or move the goal posts where it starts all over again.

[FineWine]

tsk tsk

How many explosives were needed in your story? Reliable or not?


Time to send you running for the hills.

Demolition professionals, who unanimously reject your nonsensical moonshine, insist that tons of shaped charges would have been required to bring down two of the tallest skyscrapers in the world. No structure of that size has ever been demolished. Teams of demolitions workers would have required months to prep the buildings. Then, of course, there is that other teensy-weensy problem, namely, the collapses just sort of happened to start at the precise floors impacted by the planes. A trifling detail for you, perhaps, but a major consideration for anyone not driven by a mad political agenda, for anyone unwilling to disfigure reality to promote idiotic myths.

So, the question that sends all the frauds fleeing: What do you know that the experts don't and how did you learn it?

What--you refuse to tell us? Who would have guessed?

[FineWine]

To some basement dwellers, bad attention is better than no attention at all. HI and BS both understand what you and the rest of us are saying. But that doesn't serve their purpose. By regurgitation the same old lies, they get what they are craving. They think that they have some sort of power over us because we respond while they control the conversation. Once it gets out of their control, they move on to another thread or move the goal posts where it starts all over again.



The more I think about it, the more I find myself agreeing with you. What is going on here can't be regarded as honest debate. Why would the same fools endlessly recycle the same discredited garbage? Good grief, Bill Smith has been reduced to braying about Judy Wood's dustified steel! HI's desperation has driven him make a foray into that most alien of territories for him, logic. He is now peddling the quaint notion that either tons of shaped charges were required to take down the towers (the position of demolition professionals) or something strange occurred. For the sane portion of the human population, a large jet airliner slamming into a building qualifies as something strange. But always the thought intrudes on me, he knows this--he really does know this. He really doesn't expect us to forget about the planes, does he?

The bizarre antics of its members brings into focus the nature of the "truth" movement: one part stupidity; one part dishonesty; one part sheer insanity. The mix varies from individual to individual, but all three components are always present.

[FineWine]

Whoops. You missed that one. Maybe you should quit while you're are ahead.

Or maybe you can answer.

Could it have been possible to get explosive devices inside the WTC buildings without anyone noticing?

Yes or no?


No--emphatically NO: it would have been utterly impossible for demolition crews to bring in tons of explosives and place them without many people noticing.

Please stop this idiocy.

[FineWine]

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?



Oops! You have been caught lying again:

http://911myths.com/html/wtc_bomb_sniffing_dogs.html

[FineWine]

Should I stundie this?



Only if you want to set in stone yet another example of your obtuseness. Triforcharity's statement is, of course, correct.

[FineWine]

When did I ever claim no planes? I claim no plane debris matched to serial numbers.

Now stay on topic or don't bother.

Could it have been possible to get explosive devices inside the WTC buildings without anyone noticing?

Yes or no?


Your claim that no debris matched serial numbers was comprehesively dissected and refuted by air crash investigators, pilots, and avionics techs. You cling to the thoroughly discredited rubbish because your mad political agenda gives you no choice.

You keep asking the same idiocy. The answer, as always, is NO, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to sneak in tons of explosives without anyone noticing.

As usual, you are doing very badly.

[alienentity]

Funny that. The penetration of building security in the official version did not involve accessing elevator shafts and attaching explosives to load bearing structures behind walls and out of the publicly available areas.

But the buildings still fell.

Right? :rolleyes:

Funny that. There is absolutely zero direct evidence, none, that anybody penetrated the buildings and placed any kind of explosives in any of the WTC buildings.
There is just the same amount of evidence that aliens landed on the buildings and vaporized them with disruptor beams.

Neither idea is plausible, although both would make fun plots for Hollywood movies.

ps, even if you do believe that the Harrit/Jones super-duper-nanothermite does exist, even they can't tell you which buildings the material came from!! There's no way to single out any one building, or any particular part of a building, as the source of the red chips.

If you were truly skeptical, you'd be raising your eyebrows much further, and for the right reasons as well.

[FineWine]

Why not both planes and explosives? Who ever thought before 9/11 that a plane could globally collapse the WTC? Explosives don't make the planes and initial fires disappear. Did al-qaeda in your story even expect as much from just the planes? How about the designers of the WTC before 9/11? Did they somewhere claim that a plane could knock down a tower? Did anyone ever predict before 9/11 that just a plane could do the job?

Anyway I'm glad we got one thing straight in this thread.

It's not just TONS and TONS of explosives with months of setup that can knock down a skyscraper. Other ways are possible too. Even according to the debunkers.

Are we done?

Now according to the newly revealed investigation pointed out in the OP, could it have been possible to get explosive devices and/or incendiaries inside the towers before 9/11?

Yes or no?


You are making splendid progress. We have established that two of the world's tallest skyscrapers could be brought down by means other than controlled demolition. An ICBM with a nuclear warhead could do the job, for instance, as would heavy conventional bombing by B-52s. Fully-fueled commercial airliners crashing into the buildings, we have learned, would damage support columns, and the resultant fires would weaken structural steel, causing eventual collapse. So, let us all agree that controlled demolition, a method that would require teams of professionals placing tons of shaped charges over a period of months, is just one way of bringing down tall buildings.

"We" are not done, but you are quite done.


No, it would not have been possible to smuggle in tons of explosives without anyone noticing (let us know when you get tired of hearing this).

[lapman]

No--emphatically NO: it would have been utterly impossible for demolition crews to bring in tons of explosives and place them without many people noticing.

Please stop this idiocy.
Actually, I would say that yes you could get an explosive device inside the WTC without anyone noticing. However, to install said device in a place that would cause the cutting of columns is another matter.

[BigAl]

Actually, I would say that yes you could get an explosive device inside the WTC without anyone noticing. However, to install said device in a place that would cause the cutting of columns is another matter.

This is a fair description of the 1993 WTC bombing. A truck with about 1,000 pounds of explosive made a mess but caused no immediate structural damage to a tower.

Assuming that properly placed, such a bomb would cut one core beam (A big assumption), there are 45(?) to go and I'm sure that most of the beams are not accessible by simply parking a truck and that is only one tower and doesn't explain WTC7, anyway.

In any case, a collapse caused by destroying the core beams would look nothing like what happened on 9/11 and there is this little detail of nobody hearing any demolition bombs go off.

[FineWine]

Well now...

What have we learned about debunkers and what they believe about 9/11?

There are three ways a steel structured high rise can globally collapse.

1) A steel structured high rise needs to be prepared and wired for months ahead of time by teams of professionals with tons of high grade explosives on every floor near structural supports for global collapse to occur. This is the tried and true traditional way.

or...

2) A steel structured high rise just needs to suffer random explosive damaged and random building content fire to a small percentage of the building near the top for it to globally collapse in less than an hour. This almost seems to be the most efficient according to debunkers. That is until you read the spiffy new option three.

3) These days a steel structured high needs only random building content fire and it will cause global collapse from thermal expansion. Takes a few hours longer than option two but it still drops just like option one according to debunkers. This thermal expansion excuse for the collapse of a steel structured high rise is the newest rage amongst the debunker crowd. Apparently debunkers are very fickle and trendy.

The only other requirement I can tell debunkers have is that it helps if it is 9/11/01. Special unreal first time in history things were possible on that day. It's almost like it was a religious experience for them. The miracles just get more elaborate and magical with time.

What doesn't work for debunkers? Anything that might imply an inside job in even the slightest way. Even any of the above options only work for debunkers if the right people are behind it.

It really helps for debunkers if the right people are mysterious (in a foreign way (brown)), small in number, and invisible after the fact.

Thanks for sharing debunkers.


Oh, you forgot something else that helps sane people, aka "debunkers"--if the right people declare war on America and attack American interests with increasing ferocity for over a decade, it certainly does bolster the evidence-based case the debunkers make.

To pretend that the Islamists have been invisible after the attacks of 9/11 is breathtakingly stupid and astonishingly insane even by the standards (shared only by the likes of roundhead, Heiwa, Bill Smith, 9-11 Investigator, Ace Baker, and Christopher7) of Homeland Insurgency. We're really hitting rock bottom here.

[FineWine]

Actually, I would say that yes you could get an explosive device inside the WTC without anyone noticing. However, to install said device in a place that would cause the cutting of columns is another matter.


Please don't play HI's lunatic game. Getting an explosive device, or two, or three, past the dogs doesn't solve the problem of bringing down the towers. To accomplish that feat, teams of demoltion workers need to place tons of charges.

[FineWine]

And Jet fuel can cut steel columns or was it the building content fire? Thermal expansion?

So it was RDX or HDX that cause the collapses? Really?

Genius?

lol


What does a dishonest fool who has been beaten to a pulp and humiliated have to laugh about?

What steel columns, other than the ones actually hit by the planes, were "cut"? Who says columns were "cut"? Are you pretending that the inward bowing of the external columns, observable on EVERY video, didn't occur?

What caused the collapses? Oh, I don't know. NIST published over 10,000 pages answering the question. Will you ever get around to looking at any of the information contained in those 10,000 pages? Why not?

[lapman]

Please don't play HI's lunatic game. Getting an explosive device, or two, or three, past the dogs doesn't solve the problem of bringing down the towers. To accomplish that feat, teams of demoltion workers need to place tons of charges.
That is true, but that's not his question. However, you are correct. Placing the explosives on the columns would require a lot of demo work to remove both drywall and fireproofing to expose the bare metal. Twoofers don't get this. They think that you just have to place a suitcase full of RDX by a wall and that will work. In the movie Valkyrie, it explains very well about how explosions will reflect off of hard surfaces.

[FineWine]

I've had the feeling for some time now that they are moving towards some kind of admission that explosives were used in the WTC on 9/11. Not that they have any choice really what with all the powerful evidence that is gathering and slowly permeating society- mainstream media or no mainstream media..

Equally I have the strong impression that any admission will be coupled with the absolute insistance that Al-Quaeda was at the root of the explosives too. That's one of the reasons I find the article you post so interesting. It may be part of layng the groundwork for a statement that Al-Quaeda or their agents smuggled the explosives into the WTC.

It would be a high-risk strategy to be sure but there may be few other realistic choices for the perps.

A useful spinoff for the Truth Movement would be the fact that we would be instantly rehabillitated- heroes even.


Bill, the competition for the title of Dumbest "Truther" is keen. But HI's lead on this thread is just too wide for you to overcome.

The evidence for explosives anywhere in the WTC complex is nonexistent. Your insane movement has produced absolutely nothing. Your typically stupid lie about the "powerful evidence" that is obviously NOT gathering is a good example of your insatiable appetite for self-humiliation. But, as I said, this thread already has a winner. Go back to parroting Heiwa's idiocies.

[FineWine]

That is true, but that's not his question. However, you are correct. Placing the explosives on the columns would require a lot of demo work to remove both drywall and fireproofing to expose the bare metal. Twoofers don't get this. They think that you just have to place a suitcase full of RDX by a wall and that will work. In the movie Valkyrie, it explains very well about how explosions will reflect off of hard surfaces.


Notice how these lying imbeciles have to twist themselves into knots to avoid bumping into the elephant in the parlor: the collapses obviously started from the impact floors.

[FineWine]

It's funny--I start at the beginning of the thread and respond one-by-one to HI's stupidities. By the time I reach the end, the dishonest fool has run away and everything I've written is piled up in a heap of old letters: addressee unknown, return to sender.
Attempting to engage these mindless trolls is the ultimate waste of time.

[jaydeehess]

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.
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?

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?


Funny that. The penetration of building security in the official version did not involve accessing elevator shafts and attaching explosives to load bearing structures behind walls and out of the publicly available areas.

But the buildings still fell.

Right? :rolleyes:

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.

tsk tsk

How many explosives were needed in your story? Reliable or not?

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.

Why would they need to in full view of anyone? They said they constructed the bombs and walked away undetected.

new or no?

Because there was no evidence left of a lot of things after the WTC attacks. The black boxes were never found and more then 1,000 victims were never found. And who investigated for explosives evidence and how?

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



Fire? So everything you previously said is needed to take down a skyscraper isn't needed now?

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.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Not to mention to facilitate the "faster than freefall" and "neatly in its own footprint" collapse Truthers imagine took place. But again, and I really can't stress this enough, we're dealing with an individual who believes Interpol is involved in America's plot to take over the world. To say that rational thought eludes him is like saying Michael Jackson hasn't been feeling too well lately.
Not to mention HI pulled the race card when discussing the performance of contructed facilities. That's how stupid he is. He pulls the race card when discussing building collapses and all anyone can do is shrug their shoulders and say "That's HI!"

[jaydeehess]

If it does happen dtugg, it is all over for you debunkers. Your raison d'etre evaporates instantly as our star rises.

Of course if your prediction never occurs you will just claim that its because they just don't want to tell us the truth.:D

If your star never rises B.Smith what does that say about your claims?

[jaydeehess]

Well now...

What have we learned about debunkers and what they believe about 9/11?

There are three ways a steel structured high rise can globally collapse.

1) A steel structured high rise needs to be prepared and wired for months ahead of time by teams of professionals with tons of high grade explosives on every floor near structural supports for global collapse to occur. This is the tried and true traditional way.

Well it does if you wish it to bring the building down with the relatively small amount of explosive force that would be generated by several tons of high explosive. It has to be directed where you want it to go.


2) A steel structured high rise just needs to suffer random explosive damaged and random building content fire to a small percentage of the building near the top for it to globally collapse in less than an hour. This almost seems to be the most efficient according to debunkers. That is until you read the spiffy new option three.

For MOST buildings this will not occur since they are not long span structures that concentrate all vertical members in a small core and along the perimeter thus contributing to a slowing of the progression of collpse and thus disallowing large parts of the structure that do fall to gain a great amount of momentum.

3) These days a steel structured high needs only random building content fire and it will cause global collapse from thermal expansion. Takes a few hours longer than option two but it still drops just like option one according to debunkers. This thermal expansion excuse for the collapse of a steel structured high rise is the newest rage amongst the debunker crowd. Apparently debunkers are very fickle and trendy.

Once again you ignore the details such as if a building has its floor beams symettrically placed then thermal expansion will not have the ability to push girders off their column seats.
Seems CT's are very lacking in the study of important details.

The only other requirement I can tell debunkers have is that it helps if it is 9/11/01. Special unreal first time in history things were possible on that day. It's almost like it was a religious experience for them. The miracles just get more elaborate and magical with time.

So when the shuttle broke up during descent was that on 9/11/01 too? I could swear that not all first time in history things occured on 9/11/01.



It really helps for debunkers if the right people are mysterious (in a foreign way (brown)), small in number, and invisible after the fact.



Very odd statement given that one oft stated canard of the CT crowd is that these same brown people, living in caves and what not, could not possibly have accomplished such a complex deed.

[jaydeehess]

It's funny--I start at the beginning of the thread and respond one-by-one to HI's stupidities. By the time I reach the end, the dishonest fool has run away and everything I've written is piled up in a heap of old letters: addressee unknown, return to sender.
Attempting to engage these mindless trolls is the ultimate waste of time.

Given the utter fantasy that HI was pushing, that explosives in the building is a debunker notion, I assume he was just trolling.

He's pushing buttons and getting his jollies ( right handed or left handed ) when people get angry.

[TexasJack]

I just feel we are giving HI and Bill Smith way too much attention, they both lack the ability to use logic and reason and are left with delusions that are beyond repair. Anyone who can't even acknowledge through evidence presented that Flight 11 and 175 hit the towers, 77 hit the pentagon, and 93 crashed into Shanksville (a no-planer in my book), that thinks Interpol was involved in a 9/11 cover-up, is beyond help. I know they are fun to play with, but this is the attention they seek and enjoy.

[Bobert]

WOW HI just craves abuse.

[1337m4n]

It's probably better to just leave him on Ignore, but he's actually kind of entertaining.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Some people need to fight to avoid losing their minds.

The "one hour and no explosives" just happens to include the crash directly into the building of a fully-fueled 100-ton jet airliner moving at roughly 500 mph and the resultant extensive fires. Why do you incredibly silly frauds always act as though you really expect sane people to forget that little detail?

In the absence of such a devastating crash, yes, demolition professionals would require many tons of charges and months of prep work.


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

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

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

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

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

[Homeland Insurgency]

No, it would not have been possible to smuggle in tons of explosives without anyone noticing (let us know when you get tired of hearing this).

Was Oklahoma City tons of explosives? Was the bomb even inside the building?

[beachnut]

Some people need to fight to avoid losing their minds.

The "one hour and no explosives" just happens to include the crash directly into the building of a fully-fueled 100-ton jet airliner moving at roughly 500 mph and the resultant extensive fires. Why do you incredibly silly frauds always act as though you really expect sane people to forget that little detail?

In the absence of such a devastating crash, yes, demolition professionals would require many tons of charges and months of prep work.
HI does not understand fire. So you lost him on the fires and he will post NIST information that confirms the fires did it and think he has posted support for his failed delusions; failed poorly defined moronic delusions. He is stuck with silent explosives as his failed conclusion. HI could earn a PhD since 911 in structures after 7 years and 9 months; but posting hearsay, lies and failed opinions is much easier.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Demolition professionals, who unanimously reject your
nonsensical moonshine, insist that tons of shaped charges would have been
required to bring down two of the tallest skyscrapers in the world. No structure
of that size has ever been demolished. Teams of demolitions workers would have
required months to prep the buildings.

We have established that two of the world's tallest
skyscrapers could be brought down by means other than controlled demolition.

Wow. All in the same few minutes. Some people need to get a grip and make up their mind already.

lol

[Foolmewunz]

Was Oklahoma City tons of explosives? Was the bomb even inside the building?

Yeah, that was some fine "smuggling".

Just curious, what dictionary do you use in Bizarro World?

[Foolmewunz]

Wow. All in the same few minutes. Some people need to get a grip and make up their mind already.

lol

I am beginning to suspect that you're not a troll, merely extremely dumm. One cite is referring to the requirement of a CD and the other is referring to what happened on 911. They are exclusive. (Not "same", exclusive.)

[dtugg]

HI, I know that you aren't the sharpest tool in the shed so I will try to explain this to you as simply as possible:

IF the WTC was destroyed using explosives, it would have required tons of explosives and months of prepartion. Doing this undetected would have been impossible, and every sane person agrees.

However, the WTC wasn't destroyed using explosives. It was destroyed because large planes flew into it at high speed, releasing a large amount of kinetic energy and starting large fires. The end.

I hope this cleared up any confusion that you might have but I doubt it. You seem incapable of understanding reason.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Well will everyone just listen to this debunker dribble?

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

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

Debunker logic when painted into a corner...

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

Hilarious.

[Foolmewunz]

Well will everyone just listen to this debunker dribble?

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

No. You pointed out that some people proved that you can smuggle explosives into a building. We have repeatedly asked you to show that that ploy would work on the thousands and thousands of charges. You have not done that.

But then turnaround and claim planes can do the same thing. Even though NIST their Gospel tells them the planes and impacts did not take town the towers. It was normal building content fire. Besides this in the case of WTC-7 there was no plane impacts or jet fuel. Just normal building content fire.
In absence of you proving that thousands of charges were actually smuggled into the towers and planted and primed, we then show you Occam's Razor. That it was, as that little guy on Fantasy Island used to say, "The Plane, Boss! The Plane!"


Debunker logic when painted into a corner...

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

Hilarious.

Pathetic. You have been taken out behind the woodshed and had the tar whupped out of you, and your defense is "Nyah nyah, but you didn't break my leg!"

[T.A.M.]

I am beginning to suspect that you're not a troll, merely extremely dumm. One cite is referring to the requirement of a CD and the other is referring to what happened on 911. They are exclusive. (Not "same", exclusive.)

no he is not dumb...just trolling. The one thing I will give HI credit for, is he behaves like a GRADE "A" TROLL.

TAM:)

[Shalamar]

Well will everyone just listen to this debunker dribble?

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

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

Debunker logic when painted into a corner...

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

Hilarious.

Amazing. Look at this twoofer logic!

They seem to think that a person could smuggle a small amount of explosives into a building, and that means its proof that the buildings were brought down by controlled Demolition!

They fail to note that there could in fact be multiple ways to bring down a building. There is a rather messy and dangerous way: Fly a fully fueled airliner at cruising speed into it! The resultant damage and fires weakened the struture enough that it would collapse! Alas, this is messy, spreading fire and debris over a wide area.

You could even bring it down via explosives! You could place demo charges onto exposed beams, run a great deal wire and set them up to collapse. Of course, this means there would be obvious evidence of explosives. Like the sound of multiple charges going off, perhaps even flashes! Unfortunately for the twoofers, neither were evidence on 9/11.

It seems that some twoofers think that it is an either/or scenario. It is not. With a great deal of evidence showing an aircraft flying into a building, and extensive fires, we conclude that this was the cause of the unfortunate events that fateful day.

Of course, in twoofer land, the fact that some people managed to smuggle small amounts of bomb components into federal buildings is absolute proof that the Twin Towers were brought down by.. an unknown amount of secret silent explosives.

Hilarious!

[beachnut]

Was Oklahoma City tons of explosives? Was the bomb even inside the building? Yes, almost 4 tons. Very close to the building; I would call it just like inside, next to, right next to it so it would kill the kids in day care.


So you have a Ryder truck on the 78th floor with 4000 pounds of fertilizer and fuel, and racing fuel as a kicker; apologize for McVeigh now because 19 murderers at not enough?
It was almost in the building. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12447453f8494776fe.jpg
See the car, essentially in the building and the blast was able to get up under the floors. See how McVeigh used the nicest people on earth to blow them up. How pathetic can you get making up lies to satisfy your failed moronic delusions?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1244747d1e1941156c.jpg

Is there a truck ramp to the 78 floor? Why did we not hear a bomb go off on 911? Do you want me to tell you how far away they heard the OKC bomb from nut case McVeigh who was dumb enough to be a truther?

[Homeland Insurgency]

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

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

SL: Right.

NOVA: Can you explain why?

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

KABOOM!

lol

[dtugg]

no he is not dumb...just trolling. The one thing I will give HI credit for, is he behaves like a GRADE "A" TROLL.

TAM:)

Perhaps he is dumb and trolling?

[Shalamar]

Is there a truck ramp to the 78 floor? Why did we not hear a bomb go off on 911? Do you want me to tell you how far away they heard the OKC bomb from nut case McVeigh who was dumb enough to be a truther?

In Twoofer land, they smuggled it in, with the explosives in their pockets!

[Homeland Insurgency]

Is there a truck ramp to the 78 floor? Why did we not hear a bomb go off on 911? Do you want me to tell you how far away they heard the OKC bomb from nut case McVeigh who was dumb enough to be a truther?

No there was a freight elevator that could bring up things like dumpsters. There was also out of service elevators in the core and vacant floors.

[dtugg]

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

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

SL: Right.

NOVA: Can you explain why?

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

KABOOM!

lol

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

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

[Homeland Insurgency]

Debunker logic when painted into a corner...

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

[Homeland Insurgency]

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

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

What amount was necessary to bring down three buildings in your story genius?

lol

[dtugg]

Are you really this dumb or are you just pretending?

[Homeland Insurgency]

Debunker logic...

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

lol

[Bobert]

Perhaps he is dumb and trolling?
YES!

[Shalamar]

Twoofer Logic: If they think its true, Then it must be true!

Twoofer Logic: Planes flying into buildings causing massive fires = INSIDE JOB WITH EXPLOSIVES! There were no planes!

[Foolmewunz]

What amount was necessary to bring down three buildings in your story genius?

lol

Two large fully fueled aircraft, fires, and lack of firefighting. (And add "big building that fell on smaller building" in the case of WTC 7.)

Our scenario does not require explosives.


Please list the empty floors in the WTC on 9/11/09.
Please show us the records for the "out of service" elevators you claim.
Not some guy on the internet who said so. Show the actual evidence.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Twoofer Logic: If they think its true, Then it must be true!

Twoofer Logic: Planes flying into buildings causing massive fires = INSIDE JOB WITH EXPLOSIVES! There were no planes!

There were no planes that hit WTC-7.

Did you forget?

lol

[Shalamar]

There were no planes that hit WTC-7.

Did you forget?

lol

Twoofer logic: One building falling on another means: NO DAMAGE!

[beachnut]

No there was a freight elevator that could bring up things like dumpsters. There was also out of service elevators in the core and vacant floors.
There was no blast damage on 911. No one died from blast damage, no sounds of blasts, and you have no evidence to support your failed poorly formed conclusions based on lies.

A large blast is heard and felt miles away. A 600 pound bomb at 2000 feet up and 3000 feet away blows out windows and is felt and heard. Your delusion is missing the blast effects. Got some more nut case moronic ideas on 911 based on faulty logic and failed opinions?

[beachnut]

There were no planes that hit WTC-7.

Did you forget?

lol
You already debunked yourself. You posted the NIST stuff saying the buildings stood after the aircraft impacts and the fires caused the collapse. This includes the fact the fire protection systems had failed; no water due to the aircraft impacts. And in WTC 7 fires burning all day caused WTC 7 to collapse and there were no fire fighting efforts or water to save WTC 7. I have found buildings on fire can be destroyed and gone after large fires; thousands of examples around the world.

You are self debunking as you post. Good job.

[BigAl]

No there was a freight elevator that could bring up things like dumpsters. There was also out of service elevators in the core and vacant floors.

Why do people that have never been in the freight elevator of a big Manhattan building make sh*t up?

[BigAl]

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

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

SL: Right.
...
KABOOM!

lol

Well, in 1993, 1,000 pounds of high explosive didn't make a dent in the structure of a WTC tower, so "The smallest amount possible" must be many, many times half a ton.

[Jackanory]

Well, in 1993, 1,000 pounds of high explosive didn't make a dent in the structure of a WTC tower, so "The smallest amount possible" must be many, many times half a ton.

Seeing as HI is so clued up, I wonder if HI could answer this off the top of his head without doing a wiki/google search. If 10 Tonnes of C4 or PE4 where stacked up in the center of a football field and covered in aviation fuel then set alight - how big would the crater be?

I will give you a clue HI - no crater would exist! Why?

[cyclonic]

Debunker logic when painted into a corner...

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

Both towers had a b767 fuselage burning in them, you call that normal content?
both towers collapse started where the fuselages and office contents piled up, the core in the north tower and the northeast corner in the south tower.
go study airplane fires.

eLpuo63kc8E

[Homeland Insurgency]

Both towers had a b767 fuselage burning in them, you call that normal content?

Actually NIST does. You're welcome.

both towers collapse started where the fuselages and office contents piled up, the core in the north tower and the northeast corner in the south tower.

Yeah? And does that equate every floor loaded with charges on structural supports?

go study airplane fires.

Go study your own gospel you are trying to defend here. You don't even know it.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Debunker logic...

Playing with matches = tons of shaped charges strategically place over months on every floor attached to building supports.

[JimBenArm]

Gospel? Did Jesus make the towers collapse? Did he cut the columns? Did you ever say where you found the cut columns? Did you cut the columns? Are you Jesus? Quick, let me see your palms!

[cyclonic]

Go study your own gospel you are trying to defend here. You don't even know it.

What do you know?

[JimBenArm]

He knows his name, and can spell it correctly three out of five times!

[Homeland Insurgency]

Debunker logic...

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

[Homeland Insurgency]

What do you know?

Much more then you. You want something?

[cyclonic]

Truther fact.

Alex jones never lies.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Truther fact.

Alex jones never lies.

Friend of yours?

[BigAl]

Debunker logic...

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

Which, according to all the eyewitnesses and video, never exploded.

Somebody needs to get their money back.

[cyclonic]

Much more then you. You want something?

How come no "shaped charges" were heard or recorded on every 9/11 video when the towers collapsed?

[dtugg]

Look at this poor kitten. He got stuck in a glass:

http://newmedia.funnyjunk.com/pictures/trapped_kitty.jpg

[Homeland Insurgency]

Twoofer logic: One building falling on another means: NO DAMAGE!


It didn't mean much to NIST. Did you forget?

Hey? What happened to your old signature? Somebody take that away from you? lol

[stilicho]

Debunker logic...

Playing with matches = tons of shaped charges strategically place over months on every floor attached to building supports.

Crashing fuel-laden aircraft at high velocity into stationary targets > Playing with matches.

I think you get it now.

[Homeland Insurgency]

How come no "shaped charges" were heard or recorded on every 9/11 video when the towers collapsed?

What shape charges?

[BigAl]

Go study your own gospel you are trying to defend here. You don't even know it.

My gospel is, first of all my own eyes and ears as I saw things at WTC on and after 9/11 that show Twoofer claims are wrong and silly. My other book is my university engineering education that tells me why twoofer claims are wrong. The disciples are the hundreds of thousands of other eyewitnesses to aspects of the events of 9/11, none of whom, it seems have joined the "Truth Movement".

[Shalamar]

It didn't mean much to NIST. Did you forget?

Hey? What happened to your old signature? Somebody take that away from you? lol

Yup. Some twoofer terrorist must of complained. I'm thinking 'inside job'.

[FineWine]

Wow. All in the same few minutes. Some people need to get a grip and make up their mind already.

lol


Maybe we do you an injustice by constantly accusing you of lying. This post of yours suggests that you suffer from a thinking disorder. Let's see if you can be helped.

First, I call attention to the stated opinion of demolition professionals that tons of explosives and months of work to place them would be necessary to bring down such gigantic structures as the twin towers. I point out that no building of comparable size has ever been demolished.

Then, I state that we've established that other methods of taking down the towers exist, e.g. nuking them with an ICBM or flying fully-fueled commercial airliners into them.

Finally, we must all accept the incontrovertible historical fact that fully-fueled commercial airliners did crash into the towers.

To summarize, a) bringing down the towers through controlled demolition would have been a monumental undertaking; b) it didn't happen; c) there were other ways of bringing down the towers; d) commercial airliners crashing into them DID happen.

For reasons that defy comprehension, you profess to see a contradiction here. Be assured that there is none. Obviously, there is none. Your contention is so utterly mad that one is forced to conclude that you actually believe it. Nobody could lie so bizarrely. The debunkers--the sane side--do not need to "make up their minds." They are consistently asserting that the buildings collapsed as the result of the plane crashes and the resultant extensive fires. They reject the myth about explosives on the grounds that no evidence supports it and explosives violate the principle of parsimony.

The sane position is a simple one. There are no tricks. You are tricking yourself, stumbling over your own tongue in search of nonexistent inconsistencies.

Yes, you really need to get a grip, but your insane agenda won't permit it.

[cyclonic]

Debunker logic...

Playing with matches = tons of shaped charges strategically place over months on every floor attached to building supports.

Those "shape"" charges.

[stilicho]

How come no "shaped charges" were heard or recorded on every 9/11 video when the towers collapsed?

I doubt HI has ever witnessed a live controlled demolition. The thing I found surprising is that it isn't at all like in the movies. It's not a huge KABOOM. It's actually an unmistakable cracking sound followed by a rumble of the debris.

Nobody who's ever heard a controlled demolition (even with ear protection) would ever confuse the two.