• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Here is one rescue worker who was "in on it"

WildCat said:
Maybe you'll be the first truther to answer this question! What type of bomb is capable of causing severe burns to people yet doesn't blow them to smithereens?
Click to expand...


It's a great question, but the liars who were asked it by Mark never responded. I doubt that you'll have better luck.
 
Russ_Dalton said:
False.
There are eyewitnesses who think there were bombs.
Click to expand...


Here's a few questions you liars regularly ignore:

Do these "bombs" function anything like the shaped charges used by demolition companies? How do random explosions resemble the string of simultaneous explosions characteristic of controlled demolitions? Can we agree that no one--neither rationalist nor conspiracy liar--has EVER heard of anyone reporting a series of explosions followed immediately by the collapse of the building? Why doesn't this FACT end all speculation about explosives in the WTC complex?
 
pomeroo said:
Here's a few questions you liars regularly ignore:

Do these "bombs" function anything like the shaped charges used by demolition companies? How do random explosions resemble the string of simultaneous explosions characteristic of controlled demolitions? Can we agree that no one--neither rationalist nor conspiracy liar--has EVER heard of anyone reporting a series of explosions followed immediately by the collapse of the building? Why doesn't this FACT end all speculation about explosives in the WTC complex?
Click to expand...

How many FF accounts would it take for you to admit that there were reports of synchronized, series of explosions?

Just because you ignore these accounts or toss them off as confused accounts doesn't mean they don't describe precisely, the characteristics of controlled demo.
 
RedIbis said:
How many FF accounts would it take for you to admit that there were reports of synchronized, series of explosions?

Just because you ignore these accounts or toss them off as confused accounts doesn't mean they don't describe precisely, the characteristics of controlled demo.
Click to expand...


Stop lying. Absolutely no one reported a series of explosions followed by the collapse of the building. See, that last part is important. In your world, the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy rampages aimlessly, strewing clues all over the landscape while accomplishing nothing. Here on Earth, real people working at real jobs do things for a purpose. Demolition professionals, for instance, set off their charges to bring down buildings. They don't merely enjoy the sounds of explosions. So, it goes something like this: a series of explosions near the base of the building, then the building falls down, AND it isn't supposed to damage any nearby buildings.
 
Except the accounts say nothing of synchronized explosive devices going off right BEFORE the buildings colapsed.
Except for the fact that none are recorded by any video or audio equipment.
Except that fact that none of the recue workers and firemen think there were explosive devices planted in the buildings and set off to bring them down.

But you know this already. Why do you have to be dishonest about all of this again?
 
pomeroo said:
Stop lying. Absolutely no one reported a series of explosions followed by the collapse of the building. See, that last part is important. In your world, the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy rampages aimlessly, strewing clues all over the landscape while accomplishing nothing. Here on Earth, real people working at real jobs do things for a purpose. Demolition professionals, for instance, set off their charges to bring down buildings. They don't merely enjoy the sounds of explosions. So, it goes something like this: a series of explosions near the base of the building, then the building falls down, AND it isn't supposed to damage any nearby buildings.
Click to expand...

Last time I mentioned that controlled demolitions don't damage near-by buildings the response I got was:

"That these were non-conventional demolitions..."
However, that that's grasping at straws...

Besides, anybody trying to demo the WTC towers from the bottom without having pre-weakened them would have been totally stupid for neglecting the fact that the core columns were given added lateral bracing as the perimeter columns contributes less to that function on the 1st 7 floors.

In controlled demos they actually have this concept of weakening the structure to make it easier to take down, usually removing a significant amount of the building materials in the process. To demolish the buildings in their original state, would have required many thousands of tons of explosive which would need to have been packed somewhere in open office spaces...
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
I wonder why you didn't finish Gregory's quote, which states,
Click to expand...

That excerpt is contained in my quote. Right after the Interviewer's bit. Read more carefully.

I'm tempted to believe that you don't even recognize Mr. Gregory's comments when quoted in proper context.

RedIbis said:
How many FF accounts would it take for you to admit that there were reports of synchronized, series of explosions?

Just because you ignore these accounts or toss them off as confused accounts doesn't mean they don't describe precisely, the characteristics of controlled demo.
Click to expand...

Even one would be a good start. The point you fail to grasp is that even the witnesses themselves do not believe their experiences are evidence of "controlled demolition." You are working from much lower fidelity information, i.e. their words, occasionally distorted, often from much after the fact. Your feeling about what their words mean cannot trump their feeling. This is exactly what Aldo and Craig are doing with their Pentagon witnesses, and it's equally asinine.

Since you cannot produce a witness who supports your position, and the whole idea of witnesses was brought up by your side in the first place to shore up a complete absence of physical evidence, a rational investigator would drop this matter entirely at this point.
 
RedIbis said:
How many FF accounts would it take for you to admit that there were reports of synchronized, series of explosions?

Just because you ignore these accounts or toss them off as confused accounts doesn't mean they don't describe precisely, the characteristics of controlled demo.
Click to expand...
I would agree with Ryan. One would be nice. Now, to clarify, the sequence would be right BEFORE the start of the collapse and not after the collapse was already underway. BTW, "detonators" are not CD explosives. As a point of reference, it would sound like:

(notice the roof structures collapse with the section they are on top of and not faster)



I think you get the picture.
 
RedIbis said:
You sure about that? You better be sure or else it is you who is the liar.
Click to expand...


Random explosions in the preceding 45 minutes don't count, for obvious reasons. Sounds that could be described as a series of explosions during the collapse don't count, also for obvious reasons.
 
bio said:
well - when you say the explosion comes from kerosine, than you say indirectly, that the explosion does not come from a bomb ...
Click to expand...

FAIL

You claimed he said there were no bombs. You were wrong.

try again
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
That excerpt is contained in my quote. Right after the Interviewer's bit. Read more carefully.
Click to expand...

You're correct. I didn't see it. You are not correct, however, that there are not accounts of syncronized, repetitive, sounds of explosions just before collapse. There are examples of this, you chose to analyze one out of the list I presented. How about the others?
 
RedIbis said:
How many FF accounts would it take for you to admit that there were reports of synchronized, series of explosions?

Just because you ignore these accounts or toss them off as confused accounts doesn't mean they don't describe precisely, the characteristics of controlled demo.
Click to expand...

How is molten metal found for weeks after 9/11 characteristic of a controlled demolition?

How is a top down collapse characteristic of a controlled demolition?

How is extensive damage to nearby buildings characteristic of a controlled demolition?

When, in the history of controlled demolitions of buildings has the TNT and/or nitroglycerin used survive the burning of a building for over an hour?
 
RedIbis said:
You're correct. I didn't see it. You are not correct, however, that there are not accounts of syncronized, repetitive, sounds of explosions just before collapse. There are examples of this, you chose to analyze one out of the list I presented. How about the others?
Click to expand...

How many? If this was true then there would be thousands of accounts from people who were there. Also on video and audio evidence. No truther has supplied me with any evidence of this. How about you trump them?

Bring it.

Also was Willie misspoken when he claimed his story about the hijacker or was he lying?
 
WildCat said:
Maybe you'll be the first truther to answer this question! What type of bomb is capable of causing severe burns to people yet doesn't blow them to smithereens?
Click to expand...
Since bio seems to have left the building, any other truthers want to take a crack at this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom