skyeagle409
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2016
- Messages
- 2,488
As a reminder, none of the WTC buildings collapsed at free fall speed and I am very sure that you saw the video timer for each collapse of those buildings.
I found the missing Jolt.
- Thread starter Crazy Chainsaw
- Start date
As a reminder, none of the WTC buildings collapsed at free fall speed and I am very sure that you saw the video timer for each collapse of those buildings.
Axxman300
Philosopher
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 17, 2010
- Messages
- 2,329
Perfect!
Sorry, the Illuminati has certain standards, you don't qualify.
No, the name is "I laugh at twoofers" kind of has a great ring to it no?
Nah, I enjoy the free comedy, but it's not quite good enough to be compensated for. Tell us some more no planer fairy tales and I might consider it.
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 17, 2010
- Messages
- 2,329
Why would they test for explosives where there isn't single solitary piece of evidence that they existed that day?
How come all the dogs trained to detect that stuff came up empty? Are the dogs on the inside job too?
Who are you talking to? I have never claimed there were no planes.
Maybe because it's SOP?
We had this conversation before. Where is there any proof that bomb-sniffing dogs were present at GZ immediately before or after the collapse?
Last edited:
No. It's so unoriginal.
How about Fraudy McBoatface?
Or maybe Delusions of Grandeur?
Here's one all the skeptics will like - No Sea Dee
ETA: All PayPal donations must be a minimum of $20.
Last edited:
skyeagle409
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2016
- Messages
- 2,488
Explosives make a lot of noise, yet there was not a peep of a demolition explosion as the WTC buildings collapsed.
skyeagle409
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2016
- Messages
- 2,488
Why would bomb-sniffing dogs be sniffing for something that did not exist at ground zero?
1. Zero audio evidence for demolition explosions
2. Zero video evidence for demolition explosions
3. Zero seismic data evidence for demolition explosions
4. Zero demolition hardware evidence within the rubble of the WTC buildings
5. Zero evidence the WTC buildings were structurally pre-weakened.
This is what happens when a building is not properly pre-weakened.
Failed Demolition Video #1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwGE92upfQM
Failed Demolition Video #2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAdoyPoUmj0
Zero evidence for WTC demolition explosions, but overwhelming evidence that debunks the claim that demolition explosives were used.
Last edited:
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
People have these three special organs in their bodies, two are called eyes, one is called a brain, apparently you lack those organs, or you wouldn't be making dumb statements about bomb sniffing dogs.
People Humans, homosapiens can visually spot the use of explosives. LMAO.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Did they test for Pixie dusts?
No. Investigation not complete.
Simple. Keep it simple, and anyone can see the truth.
Since there was no reason to suspect explosives, even after a search for some reason to consider them, money was not allocated to test for explosives,,,, or pixie dusts.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I believe they actually did search for explosives. Didn't the dogs find a cache used by the Customs office in building 5,(along with ammunition) used in training?
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 17, 2010
- Messages
- 2,329
Oh so you finally admit 4 planes crashed that day then. Why do you think they crashed?
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 17, 2010
- Messages
- 2,329
SOP for who?
Why are you so lazy? How will you ever get that new investigation when you have such laughably bad research skills?
A 10 second google search. You're welcome.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=police+dogs+present+at+911&ie=&oe=
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 17, 2010
- Messages
- 2,329
Like your imaginary new investigation?
ozeco41
Philosopher
The subject of "testing for explosives" is a truther red herring - they focus on a secondary, minor and later part of the process and deliberately misrepresent it as the total process. It isn't.
The first physical process in any real "testing for explosives" is to select specimens which bear the visual signs of possible use of explosives. That is the key stage. If there are no suitable specimens which warrant further testing - there is no point in going further. There are no candidates for testing AND testing every piece of steel to confirm something of which there is no prima facie evidence is futile.
The processes which truthers misrepresent as "testing for explosives" are in fact the chemical tests used to confirm that observed damage was in fact due to explosives.
If there is no observed damage it is ridiculous to suggest that it should be subject to chemical testing to prove whether the non existent damage was caused by (or not caused by) explosives.
Only a truther could build an argument on such a blatant non-sequitur.
Not a peep? Is that an industry term?
The reality is that lots of peeps heard lots of "peeps" as the buildings were demolished. You just ignore this.
You should re-evaluate your understanding of "zero" and "overwhelming".
Let me use those words in a sentence you might understand.
Your overwhelming number of posts with zero facts is quite amusing.
Definitely part of the 50.
Please show me a real-world example where pixie dust was used to demolish a building.
Freefall isn't a reason?
Tons of pulverized concrete isn't a reason?