• 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?

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...

Oh, I suspect HI will soon be back, sporting some clever name like "DeDebunker" or "RevealTheTruth." Actually, I'd even vote to let him back, under the condition that we get to choose his nick and he can't change it. I suggest "AnotherStupidSock."
 
Last edited:
triforcharity said:
Wow, I am not suprised that HI is banned. I say good. Piece of garbage he was.
Click to expand...


I just don't see much sense in banning such types. It's much better to keep whamming on them. That way they don't get to slink off and claim victory. Why silence a punching bag, a guy who buries the "truth" movement every time he opens his mouth?
 
FineWine said:
I just don't see much sense in banning such types. It's much better to keep whamming on them. That way they don't get to slink off and claim victory. Why silence a punching bag, a guy who buries the "truth" movement every time he opens his mouth?
Click to expand...

I think it is because, as others have said, he was actively trying to goad other members into breaking the membership agreement.
 
Oh yeaah, I stopped reaading HI's posts, because on more than one occasion, he tried bating me into getting into a shouting match. I almost did, but stayed within the rules.

Had I kept resopnding to him, I most likely would have been suspended at least.
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
jaydeehess said:
According to the link YOU provided 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.
Click to expand...

Fixed my statement. Is that better?



Originally Posted by jaydeehess
Thus it follows from the link you provided that 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
reply by HI
I said this? Can you SOURCE that please?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I would have assumed you understood my original post, however
, I fixed my statement in this post. Care to address it?

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
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!
reply from HI
You want me to backup your speculation now?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

No, I garner from the article that you provided that the best way to utilise the dogs would be as I outlined. It is you who is postulating that the dogs were used in the least effective fashion and thus it is you who has to back up the more incredible assertion. If you cannot then there is no basis for assuming that the least probable usage was in effect.
(Is logic not one of your strong suits?)
While it is possible that the dogs were employed in an ineffective fashion one can, without any evidence to the contrary, assume they were used in an effective fashion. In other words I want you to back up your speculation that the dogs were employed in an ineffective fashion. That IS your contention after all.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. You have asserted that the security measures were in fact ineffective. Part of this demands that the dogs were employed in an ineffective fashion. You have not backed up that assertion and thus have not shown that security would not have managed to intercept the loading of any explosives.



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?
Click to expand...

We do not know why they were not used at the other buildings (I would speculate that cost was an issue, as it always is) but we do know they were used at the WTC. We also know they are used at large airports in the USA and you have not shown that they are ineffective when used there, in uncrowded areas.
Again then it is up to you to provide some evidence that the dogs were used, in the WTC complex, exclusively in the least effective manner in order to state that smuggling explosives into these buildings would not have been intercepted by the dogs.
This is a simple concept, why can you not do it?

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.
Click to expand...

The flip side of that of course is that you make excuses to deflect blame from those we know to have been responsible and to this end you will employ many low probability senarios and extrapolate minor details to bolster claims that one can easily determine, through simple logic, to be ridiculous. Yours is a politically driven agenda not unlike the past administration's use to the supposed 'yellow cake' from Nigeria to Iraq claim. THAT is the style that you are using, do you enjoy being in that company?
 
Last edited:
Mashuna said:
Oh no - HI was just going to teach me what really happened on 9/11, but now he's banned!

.
Click to expand...

Awww, this was just getting interesting as we saw HI ignore logic and extrapolate minor and far related items to arrive at a conclusion that he already had arrived at via a personal political world view.

I was hoping to get back to the small versus large quantity of explosives used and whether or not NIST was correct in stating that once collapse had initiated that global collapse was the most likely outcome.
 
Sheesh, have to work for a few days, and I miss all the fun! HI got banned? Who will I mock now?
 
Back on topic please.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode
 
dtugg said:
No, there were no explosives (or superdupernanothem*te) in the towers, planted by al Qaeda or anybody else. The evidence to support this is non existent despite what your fraudulent heroes say. Nobody is ever going to "admit" that there were any explosives and you are even crazier than I thought if you actually believe this.
Click to expand...

Bill doesn't believe it.Bill is a troll who will say anything just to get a reaction.
 
I highly doubt that bomb making materials would be "proof" or "evidence" that tons of the stuff would be able to get into the WTCs'.

Homeland Security needs to face the facts, evidence & get a dose of reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom