• 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?

jaydeehess said:
According to YOU it is a fact that the dogs could only be used effectively in patrols in less crowded areas.
Click to expand...

Nope. I sourced it.

jaydeehess said:
Thus according to you the best way to utilise bomb sniffing dogs at the WTC would be to utilise them to patrol, for instance, the parking area during the daytime (never have I seen a parking lot, or garage, crowded with people) and the other areas of the buildings during the off-hours when there were few people about.
Click to expand...

I said this? Can you SOURCE that please?

jaydeehess said:
Thus it would make sense that this is how they would be utilised and thus IF you contend that for some reason this is not how they were used by all means tell us how you know this AND SOURCE IT!
Click to expand...

You want me to backup your speculation now?

Do your own debunking. What are you lazy?
 
jaydeehess said:
You have claimed that NIST cannot be correct in saying that global collapse would be all but inevitable once the initial collapse occured, have you not? Do you or do you not believe that some other method would have to be utilised in order to have the initial collapse progress to a global collapse?

If you do then it follows that it was not a small quantity of explosive/hi-temp incindiary.
If you do not then it follows that you agree with NIST.

One or the other HI, unless you'd like to come up with some other ridiculous TM senario.
Click to expand...

So to you it's either a very small amount or tons and tons.

It can be nothing else.

It has to be one or the other.

See why you never convince anyone?

Probably not.

Please Continue.
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
So to you it's either a very small amount or tons and tons.

It can be nothing else.

It has to be one or the other.

See why you never convince anyone?

Probably not.

Please Continue.
Click to expand...


See why you're regarded as a particularly obnoxious liar?

No, jaydeehess is not claiming that a small quantity of explosives were involved--nobody thinks he is. He is claiming that NO explosives were involved. He is claiming that the NIST Report, 10,000 pages of diagrams, charts, tables, simulations, computations, and analyses that have not been challenged by physicists or engineers anywhere in the world, is substantially correct in explaining the collapse mechanisms for the towers.

You are claiming that a report you are unable to read is wrong. You have no background in any technical field and your knowledge of science and engineering is nonexistent. If the NIST report is wrong, you have failed to explain why no scientists from countries unfriendly to America have pointed the errors that are so obvious to angry, empty-headed adolescents and professional crackpots.

It isn't a few explosives or tons of them, as you know. It's the planes crashes or "many tons" (Stacey Loizeaux) of explosives. There were, in fact, two planes that crashed into the towers. There is absolutely no evidence for any amount of explosives.

You. Fail. Again.
 
Last edited:
I have shown where post 9/11 people were able to get explosives into 10 federal buildings, assemble them, and walk around undetected.

The only attempt of debunking that explosive were possible to get past security in the same way at the WTC so far here has been the far reaching pathetic attempt to claim that security pre 9/11 was better then post 9/11 and that bomb sniffing dogs would have stopped it from happening.

I showed and sourced where dogs are not always effective. If they were then why weren't they being used at the 10 federal buildings in the article?

I have also shown and continue to show with debunker help that there is absolutely no limit to a debunkers capacity for apologizing and making excuses for the people who failed to protect America on 9/11 and continue to fail by evidence of the article I posted.

Just so the debunker can pretend to debunk. Excuses and apologies are not debunking anything.

So please continue.
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
I have shown where post 9/11 people were able to get explosives into 10 federal buildings, assemble them, and walk around undetected.

The only attempt of debunking that explosive were possible to get past security in the same way at the WTC so far here has been the far reaching pathetic attempt to claim that security pre 9/11 was better then post 9/11 and that bomb sniffing dogs would have stopped it from happening.

I showed and sourced where dogs are not always effective. If they were then why weren't they being used at the 10 federal buildings in the article?

I have also shown and continue to show with debunker help that there is absolutely no limit to a debunkers capacity for apologizing and making excuses for the people who failed to protect America on 9/11 and continue to fail by evidence of the article I posted.

Just so the debunker can pretend to debunk. Excuses and apologies are not debunking anything.

So please continue.
Click to expand...

You have not "shown" that it is possible to smuggle small amounts of bomb-making materials into federal buildings. Who ever doubted that it was possible? You are making your typical dishonest leap from a trivial observation to a conclusion that doesn't follow--doesn't come close to following. The twin towers were brought down by the impacts of two fully-fueled commercial airliners and the resultant extensive fires. Your insane movement cannot accept any reality with America as the victim of an unprovoked attack. You have thrown reason and logic out the window in conjuring up fantastic scenarios that lack any plausibility, all to smear America.

There were no explosives in the towers. The amount of explosives necessary to bring down the towers would be vastly in excess of anything that could be smuggled in. You are off on another mad romp because, at this stage, you simply can't figure out what you're trying to claim.
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
I have shown where post 9/11 people were able to get explosives into 10 federal buildings, assemble them, and walk around undetected.
Click to expand...

So what? There is no evidence or account of any noises consistent with man-made explosives at WTC on 9/11.
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
I've never seen nor had a dog at any airport sniff my bags in my presence.

Now if these dogs are sniffing the checked luggage they are doing it in a secured location away from the crowds.

Which would make sense according to the article I posted.
Click to expand...

Oh please, I've had my bags sniffed by explosives/drugs etc. sniffing dogs at airports and ports of call. Just because you never saw it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
 
I fly all the time in America and never have I encountered a dog at the airport.

None of the 10 buildings in the article I posted encountered bomb sniffing dogs that I know of. If they did the dogs failed.

So what is the debunker point?

None as usual?

This thread is not about bomb sniffing dogs.

Sure. I‘ll engage. But just to watch debunkers go down a dead-end.

Please continue.

When will you really learn about 9/11?

Do you really want to?
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
I fly all the time in America and never have I encountered a dog at the airport.

None of the 10 buildings in the article I posted encountered bomb sniffing dogs that I know of. If they did the dogs failed.

So what is the debunker point?

None as usual?

This thread is not about bomb sniffing dogs.

Sure. I‘ll engage. But just to watch debunkers go down a dead-end.

Please continue.

When will you really learn about 9/11?

Do you really want to?
Click to expand...

Oh no - HI was just going to teach me what really happened on 9/11, but now he's banned!

Oh well, guess I'll cope.
 
Mashuna said:
Oh no - HI was just going to teach me what really happened on 9/11, but now he's banned!

Oh well, guess I'll cope.
Click to expand...

He had to work hard to get banned. He had countless infractions plus a 30 day suspension notice and at least one infraction right after his suspension was up. One mod blamed his bad behavior on how "we" responded to him.
 
When he comes home from work tomorrow at McDonald's he's gonna get a troll itch and log on here and realize he's banned!
 
ah but what if Satan was responsible for smuggling the explosives in

I'll get my coat
:D
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
I have shown where post 9/11 people were able to get explosives into 10 federal buildings, assemble them, and walk around undetected.

The only attempt of debunking that explosive were possible to get past security in the same way at the WTC so far here has been the far reaching pathetic attempt to claim that security pre 9/11 was better then post 9/11 and that bomb sniffing dogs would have stopped it from happening.

I showed and sourced where dogs are not always effective. If they were then why weren't they being used at the 10 federal buildings in the article?

I have also shown and continue to show with debunker help that there is absolutely no limit to a debunkers capacity for apologizing and making excuses for the people who failed to protect America on 9/11 and continue to fail by evidence of the article I posted.

Just so the debunker can pretend to debunk. Excuses and apologies are not debunking anything.

So please continue.
Click to expand...




let me help you a little bit.
Want to know why k9's arent everywhere?
To start their cost is $25,000 and up.
Then it is all the time needed to train the handler.Several reasons why you dont see k9 teams all over the place.
As for you thinking they are just some dogs,again you are welcome to walk right in my home anytime you want.Come on the door is never locked!
Of course once you enter you will change your mind and attitude!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom