Debunker says what?

[alienentity]

The contention of the debunkers on ...snip... long rant

Debunker says what?

Unfortunately for you, the debunkers are correct, and your CD theory is not.

Instead of getting mad at them, you ought to give up your delusions and accept reality, even if it isn't what you wanted.

You can always find another criticism of your government, there's plenty of areas left....don't despair!!

 

[dtugg]

HI, this is incredibly simple. We say that IF WTC was destroyed using explosives it would have taken literally tons of them and months of preparation. But that is not what happened. I honestly cannot tell if you are unable to understand this or if you are simply trolling.

 

[jaydeehess]

Hi, do you actually read anything?

The large quantity of explosives senario is A DIRECT RESULT OF THE CONTENTIONS OF THE TM.

I addressed your contention of thermite(why are you now changing the story you started with in this thread?---again)

Thermite is unreliable as far as timing goes. It is also unreliable in causing a quick and accuratecutting of large cross section , vertical columns. Thermite also has its own markers. First of all the amount required to significantly weaken, let alone cut through a thick, vertical column is quite large. YOUR contention is that little material would have to be smuggled in in the preceeding few days(or a year if bomb sniffing dogs are as useless as you wish them to be). Thermite would also absolutly have to be mounted ON the columns. Your contention previous to this page was that this was not neccessary(since you would have to explain how this was accomplished).

The show "MYTHBUSTERS" placed 2000 pounds of thermite on a car and it failed to sever the car into two pieces. That thermite was placed on top of the car. Your contention requires the cutting , horizontally, of a vertical column and an amount of metal similar to that of the car in the TV show.
Even if, somehow, the MIB managed to get a 50% better efficiency in using thermite on the coilumns of the WTC structures than Mythbusters had with the automobile, it would require the placing of 1000 pounds of thermite on every column they wished to sever.
Thermite also takes quite a bit of time to do its job and if it is placed on several columns it is impossible to time them to act in co-ordination.

WTC 7 fell victim to several things that contributed to its demise.

First it had fires on several floors,,,
,,,it also had no fire fighting action ,,,
,, it also was built with not only long span floorspaces (similar to the towers) but the construction had the floor beams and girders assymettrically placed,,,
,,,this led to thermal expansion that caused the floor beams to push a girder off its column seat,,,a situation that is resisted by structures in which the beams are symettrically placed.

(Why are you now changing the topic to WTC 7?)

 

[BigAl]

The problem with debunkers is that after they make all the proclamations about just how many explosives would be needed to bring down the towers in a CD and how long it would take in preparation, in the very next breathe they claim a plane randomly hitting the towers anywhere near the top on one side will bring the towers straight down in an hour. Even when according to their official version it’s not really the plane, the impact, or the jet fuel primarily that caused the collapse of the towers. It’s plain old building content fire.

Mr. Guthard says you are wrong.

Recently, Henry Guthard, 70, one of Yamasaki's original partners who also worked as the project manager at the [WTC] site, said, "To hit the building, to disappear, to have pieces come out the other side, it was amazing the building stood. To defend against 5,000 (sic) gallons of ignited fuel in a building of 1350 feet is just not possible.

Report from Ground Zero
http://snurl.com/j54gc (Bottom of page 188)​

 

[jaydeehess]

HI, this is incredibly simple. We say that IF WTC was destroyed using explosives it would have taken literally tons of them and months of preparation. But that is not what happened. I honestly cannot tell if you are unable to understand this or if you are simply trolling.

We of course make these statements based on the senario which the TM itself says existed(as I outlined in a previous post) and yet the TM refuses to thank the debunkers for doing the work of determining the quantity of explosive for them.

 

[jaydeehess]

The dogs were brought up because unlike the other buildings in the test you brought up , the WTC had bomb sniffing dogs.

The supposed explosives were not in a subway tunnel, they were in the building were they not? They were responsible for the initiation of collapse and the continuation of collapse as it progressed from its initial point 1000 feet above the subway, right?



Then why did you opine that a lot of explosives could be carried into a building over the course of a year?

Try to stick to one story there HI rather than changing it constantly and contradictorily.

Tell us HI, where were the explosives, if explosives were used? In the subway or in the building? On the impact floors only or throughout the building? Attached to structural members or not?

Tell us HI, where was the thermite, if thermite was used? In the subway or in the building? On the impact floors only or throughout the building? Attached to structural members or not? (vertical members or horizontal?)

Once you actually get around to sticking to one or two senarios then you can get around to determining the quantity of either explosives or thermite you will need.

You keep wanting to have several mutually exclusive things in play at once.
If there was a small quantity of explosives/thermite used then it stands to reason they would be ON the impact floors and NIST is correct in that once initial collapse began it was going to progress to global collapse.

If gravity acting on the upper section as a catalyst for global collapse is impossible then you now require more explosives or thermite.

You simply cannot have it both ways at once.

'truther' says what?

 

[FineWine]

The contention of the debunkers on this thread and in this forum from time to time has been that for explosives to have been involved in the collapse of the towers then tons and tons of them would have been needed. These explosives according to debunkers would have needed to have been strategically placed on structural supports on EVERY floor. This process according to debunkers could take as long as a year. So there is no way according to debunkers that this could have gone on without being witnessed. It is further contented in this thread by debunkers that because of the amount of explosives needed it would have easily been discovered by things like bomb sniffing dogs and security. Even though I sourced how an investigation got explosives into 10 federal buildings post 9/11 and another article where an expert claims bomb sniffing dogs are not dependable in busy populated areas. Debunkers also claim because of the amount of detonator charges needed and how loud they are the sound would have been heard by everyone in Manhattan if not upstate NY.

Some truthers also have claimed explosives and CD, but the conspiracy theory I have always heard the most is thermite. Supposedly according to debunkers though, tons and tons of thermite would also have been needed to take down the towers.

Slaves to your delusion invented the silly thermite hypothesis in desperation, as the difficulties in finding soundless explosives proved insuperable. There is a reason why thermite and thermate are not used by demolition companies, but your side has no interest in learning it.

The problem with debunkers is that after they make all the proclamations about just how many explosives would be needed to bring down the towers in a CD and how long it would take in preparation, in the very next breathe they claim a plane randomly hitting the towers anywhere near the top on one side will bring the towers straight down in an hour. Even when according to their official version it’s not really the plane, the impact, or the jet fuel primarily that caused the collapse of the towers. It’s plain old building content fire.

Well then. So much for TONS and TONS of explosives huh?

So much for months and months of preparation needed.

Well not always with debunkers. Because when you point out to them that building content fire has never caused the collapse of a steel structured high rise in the history of high rise fires then they go back to the plane impacts.

That is until the WTC-7 report. That is sometimes. Like I said they are all over the place. You corner them and then they start spouting off the same crap from 3 years ago that their own official version doesn’t even endorse. Go figure.

It's very easy to figure: you've been caught lying again. You lie constantly. Tell us more about about that "plain old building content fire." Were any plane crashes involved? C'mon, don't be shy.

Because now theoretically these days since the release of the NIST WTC-7 report according to debunkers to globally collapse a steel structured high-rise building there is absolutely no need for any kind of explosives at all on even one structural support.

There is no need for such a freak thing like an intentional plane crash going 500 miles an hour, or jet fuel ignited fires to structural supports that knocks off fire-proofing.

Nope.

There is no need at all for anything like that according to debunkers these days.

This is of course after they shot off their snotty mouths for years and years about oil tanks and 10 story gashes.

So, on your world, people imagine that tons of debris falling on WTC 7 had nothing to do with its collapse?

Theoretically according to debunkers all you need these days is one match to start a building content fire and then thermal expansion can set in to one column and the entire structure will fall down like a house of cards.

One day. That’s it. No preparation at all.

I can’t tell anymore what a debunker believes. Depending on which one you talk to and even which day it is you talk to them you can get any one or all of these excuses.

Just as long as it doesn’t involve an inside job or any kind of cover-up it’s okay by debunkers. Doesn’t matter what it is. Any excuse will do.

Or not?

I can’t tell anymore.

Make up your minds.

Debunker says what?

Debunker says frauds are lying. The towers collapsed because FULLY-FUELED COMMERCIAL AIRLINERS CRASHED INTO THEM, SEVERING PERIMETER AND CORE COLUMNS AND STARTING EXTENSIVE FIRES THAT WEAKENED STRUCTURAL STEEL. Your embarrassingly crude and dishonest attempts to distort reality have not advanced your insane cause.

 

[Oscar]

Oh, good lord, is HI still not banned yet? What does a troll like him have to do to pull at the the panties of the mods around here? It's unbelievable.

The guy's a troll. A boring one. And is about as interesting as sick on toast.

 

[1337m4n]

Why are we still spoon-feeding HI? It's clear he has no intention of ever doing research, contacting experts, or making any effort whatsoever to understand 9/11.

FACT: There is zero evidence of explosives having destroyed the WTC buildings. None, zero, zip, nada.

FACT: There is countless evidence AGAINST the idea of explosives having destroyed the WTC buildings.


Please PM me when HI refutes either of these facts, kthx.

 

[MIKILLINI]

<Snip>


I can’t tell anymore.

HI says what?

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

The point of the article I posted about bomb sniffing dogs wasn’t that they were ineffective in a subway just because it was a subway.

It was because of how busy and populated a subway is.

I pointed out that not only was the WTC busier than a subway it actually had a path train that stopped underneath it.

If you got off at that stop and wanted to walk out to the street you would come out right where WTC workers were walking in.

But it doesn’t matter. Debunkers know that the point wasn’t that it was specifically a subway stop. They just had nothing else to respond with.

Round and round the debunker goes. Where it stops? Nobody knows. Not even the debunker. Confused about what their argument even is anymore. So then they try semantics.

BRAVO

Continue.

 

[Oscar]

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for civility

 

[Stellafane]

Hi HI. (Umm, that was weird...) Guess what? You convinced me. I now believe 9/11 was an inside job, and all that other stuff you guys have been saying for the past 8 years (can't say I understand just what it is you think actually happened, but I'm sure it'll all get sorted out eventually). So here I am, ready to help the movement in any way I can.

Now what?

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

“Don't go changing, to try and please me
You never let me down before
Don't imagine you're too familiar...

I'll take you just the way you are”

Please continue.

 

[Stellafane]

Please continue.

So in other words, you're really not interested in changing anybody's mind here, or getting them to agree with you. OK, gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up (not that there was a great deal of doubt). You see, when most normal, well-adjusted adults engage in discussions -- those whose emotional makeups have advanced beyond infantile -- they do so to exchange ideas. And when those ideas differ, they present evidence in support of their ideas and consider the evidence presented by those with whom they disagree. In some cases, perhaps you'll change their minds. In other cases, perhaps it'll be your mind that changes. And perhaps nobody's mind is changed, you just agree to disagree. But at a minimum each side should learn something from the other, through good-faith discussion and debate.

Of course, in any forum there will be those few who demonstrate that they have no interest in any of this -- just as you have now done. Instead, they attempt to compenate for their inadequacies and failures by simply disrupting the discussions of others. Such people are called trolls, and they are the online equivalent of vandals, akin to children who make prank phone calls. Now most normal people don't want to be considered trolls, since it really is a very sad and pathetic way to spend your time. The thing is, in addition to being emotionally stunted, trolls often tend to be very, very stupid. Therefore they usually don't even realize how utterly ridiculous they are -- indeed, they often revel in it, heaping humiliation after humiliation on themselves while cluelessly thinking that somehow they're being clever. Unfortunately such people seldom have any real life or friends to tell them how wrong they are.

I used to find trolls irritating, but really, I can't even summon that amount of effort anymore, because it's hard to do so while simultaneously feeling sorry for them for being such immature losers. It's kind of like the movie Casablanca, where the Peter Lorre character says to Humphrey Bogart, "You despise me, don't you Rick?" To which Bogey replies, "If I ever gave you any thought, I probably would."

 

[Eyeron]

Question, how were the guys who first bombed WTC able to get their explosives past security and put the truck in the basement?

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

So in other words, you're really not interested in changing anybody's mind here, or getting them to agree with you. OK, gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up (not that there was a great deal of doubt). You see, when most normal, well-adjusted adults engage in discussions -- those whose emotional makeups have advanced beyond infantile -- they do so to exchange ideas. And when those ideas differ, they present evidence in support of their ideas and consider the evidence presented by those with whom they disagree. In some cases, perhaps you'll change their minds. In other cases, perhaps it'll be your mind that changes. And perhaps nobody's mind is changed, you just agree to disagree. But at a minimum each side should learn something from the other, through good-faith discussion and debate.

Of course, in any forum there will be those few who demonstrate that they have no interest in any of this -- just as you have now done. Instead, they attempt to compenate for their inadequacies and failures by simply disrupting the discussions of others. Such people are called trolls, and they are the online equivalent of vandals, akin to children who make prank phone calls. Now most normal people don't want to be considered trolls, since it really is a very sad and pathetic way to spend your time. The thing is, in addition to being emotionally stunted, trolls often tend to be very, very stupid. Therefore they usually don't even realize how utterly ridiculous they are -- indeed, they often revel in it, heaping humiliation after humiliation on themselves while cluelessly thinking that somehow they're being clever. Unfortunately such people seldom have any real life or friends to tell them how wrong they are.

I used to find trolls irritating, but really, I can't even summon that amount of effort anymore, because it's hard to do so while simultaneously feeling sorry for them for being such immature losers. It's kind of like the movie Casablanca, where the Peter Lorre character says to Humphrey Bogart, "You despise me, don't you Rick?" To which Bogey replies, "If I ever gave you any thought, I probably would."

BELLLLLLLLLLLLLCHHHHHHHHH....... rip

ahhhhh scuse me.

Wha...?

U say som tin?

 

[A W Smith]

OOps, I did another debunking Hi., Dont get mad again. I know you hate those.

The point of the article I posted about bomb sniffing dogs wasn’t that they were ineffective in a subway just because it was a subway.

It was because of how busy and populated a subway is.

I pointed out that not only was the WTC busier than a subway it actually had a path train that stopped underneath it.

If you got off at that stop and wanted to walk out to the street you would come out right where WTC workers were walking in.

But it doesn’t matter. Debunkers know that the point wasn’t that it was specifically a subway stop. They just had nothing else to respond with.

Round and round the debunker goes. Where it stops? Nobody knows. Not even the debunker. Confused about what their argument even is anymore. So then they try semantics.

BRAVO

Continue.

You mean the kind of busy like at airports?

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

Question, how were the guys who first bombed WTC able to get their explosives past security and put the truck in the basement?

Well that was just a little security boo boo.

In fact even after that boo boo when 9/11 happened they were still making mucho boo boos.

Apparently.

It's almost like no one ever heard of hijacking before 9/11 according to debunkers.

4 simultaneous hijackings. Not one hijacker stopped out of 19?

3 different airports.

Whoops.

we make a boo boo. we sorry.

oh well

 

[jaydeehess]

The point of the article I posted about bomb sniffing dogs wasn’t that they were ineffective in a subway just because it was a subway...........
................But it doesn’t matter. Debunkers know that the point wasn’t that it was specifically a subway stop. They just had nothing else to respond with.

Round and round the debunker goes. Where it stops? Nobody knows. Not even the debunker. Confused about what their argument even is anymore. So then they try semantics.

BRAVO

Continue.

You respond as if this was the only item I brought up concerning your contentions in this thread.

It most certainly wasn't.
see posts 570, 617 and 623

On the other hand bomb sniffing dogs are NOT "ineffective" in densely populated areas, just less effective. They also can more effective in patrols after normal business hours. They also most certainly were used at the WTC complex until a few days prior to the attacks. YOU have attempted to score points here by both saying that explosives would not be detected by these dogs because in crowded situations they are less effective(which you extrapolate to them being "ineffective"), but ignore the fact that scans after normal business hours would have to be considered as well if these supposed explosives sat in the structure for months; and you also point to the fact that the dogs were taken off duty days prior to the attacks thus suggesting that the explosivers could have been smuggled in during this time.

I have asked you several times whether the explosives were placed in the building over a long time span (in your own words, over the course of a year) or if they were smuggled in within a few days of the attacks.

I also have pointed out several times now that the conditions that the TM says existed are such that if it were explosive demoltion it would require a large amount of explosives.
Was the initial collapse sufficient to progress to global collapse as Bazant and NIST state, or did global collapse require explosives on most(if not all) levels below initial collapse zone?
Were the supposed 'squibs' indicative of explosives on many floors of the WTC towers?
Where were the explosives, if explosives were used? In the subway or in the building? On the impact floors only or throughout the building? Attached to structural members or not?
Where was the thermite, if thermite was used? In the subway or in the building? On the impact floors only or throughout the building? Attached to structural members or not? (vertical members or horizontal?)