Debunker says what?

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
dtugg said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.


Homeland Insurgency said:
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
Click to expand...

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


Homeland Insurgency said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.


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


Homeland Insurgency said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
Google is not your friend

Homeland Insurgency said:
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
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
Homeland Insurgency said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

these distractions could be avoided at the towers

next?
 
This article is not your friend

UNLoVedRebel said:
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
Click to expand...


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.
 
Justin39640 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Science is not your friend

Homeland Insurgency said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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
 
UNLoVedRebel said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
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?
Click to expand...
I dunno. Was it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom