• 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.

Debunker says what?

Foolmewunz said:
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.
Click to expand...

HAAHAHAHAHA ROFL

You beat me to it! :eye-poppi
 
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.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
Hey genius, what type of explosives can survive high speed plane crashes and intense fires in your fantasy world?

Homeland Insurgency said:
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?
Click to expand...

Not enough to destroy the towers, no. I hope this clears up the issue for you.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
Homeland Insurgency said:
bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.
Click to expand...
Besides dead people being disrespected why is it the cockroaches known as truthers are disrespectful of dogs?

inlovingmemory.bmp
 
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;)
 
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
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
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?
Click to expand...

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
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:
Homeland Insurgency said:
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.
Click to expand...

The entire thread is archived here for context.

As you can see, his posts are those of a mouth-frothing ideologue. Please don't waste your time arguing with him.
 
Last edited:
T.A.M. said:
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;)
Click to expand...

His last few posts show clearly that he is just posting for the "fun" of it.
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
How many explosive were against the beams in your story?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
triforcharity said:
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

he pretty much debunks himself
i have a new question for HI
first he says this:
Homeland Insurgency said:
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?
Click to expand...


and:

Homeland Insurgency said:
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.
Click to expand...

(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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom