• 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.

Witness describes explosions at North Tower

ergo said:
Well, then, why wasn't it debunked a long time ago? Why did it take nine years for someone to find the rest of that clip?
Click to expand...

Because the BeeTwoofers are very good in manufacturing lies, I guess.

Plus, it wasn't Nine Years, was it? Was it? Have the BeeTwoofers been wetting their pants over this interview for that long? Nah, some scum bag chopped up the video long after that, right?

/Do you like BeeTwoofer? Or maybe Ther-tooters? Oof-tooters? Well what ever you like because that Bee Dunker thing in no way makes you look like a complete and total douchebag.
 
ergo said:
Good answer. You don't know, because you didn't know who it was prior to the new clip appearing this fall. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, I'm pretty sure I didn't really give a **** either.

No, I'm really sure I didn't give a ****.

Hell, I don't give a **** right now, BeeTruther.
 
ergo said:
Dave Rogers, the clip finally identifying the "Harley" dude, the "man on the street" only appeared this year, as far as I know. Since it was a source of controversy, and since the only debunking done on that was to refute the rumour that he was actor Mark Humphreys, why wouldn't anyone have pointed his real identity out a long time ago? And why are all the clips with his true identity dated from this fall, 2010?
Click to expand...

Because the truth movement isn't worth the bother of investigating the more groundless claims it makes. Let me remind you, the substance of the claim here was that the Harley guy didn't sound like a genuine witness, so there was speculation he could have been a plant. After pointing out that it's an argument from incredulity with no supporting evidence whatsoever, why bother dignifying it with any further answer?

More to the point, why did a truther edit out the part of the clip in which the Harley guy was identified, then allow the claim to stand that his identity was somehow in doubt? Someone here has been extremely dishonest, and it isn't anyone on the debunking side.

Davge
 
Dave Rogers said:
Here are a couple.

Jeff Birnbaum, president of Broadway Electrical Supply Co.


http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/evidence/on_scene_lucy.htm

Click to expand...

Thanks. So you have one witness, who claims that the bodies hitting cars produced explosions. And then some description in Esquire magazine, based on nothing that they cite. That same article also describes a photographer's account of the North Tower "exploding like a mushroom." Would you agree with that account?

So is this one misinterpreted account what you use to discredit the reports of a hundred-something witnesses who heard loud explosions? Do you really think that people would hear the sounds of dropping bodies as massive explosions coming from the towers?
 
Dave Rogers said:
Because the truth movement isn't worth the bother of investigating the more groundless claims it makes. Let me remind you, the substance of the claim here was that the Harley guy didn't sound like a genuine witness, so there was speculation he could have been a plant. After pointing out that it's an argument from incredulity with no supporting evidence whatsoever, why bother dignifying it with any further answer?

More to the point, why did a truther edit out the part of the clip in which the Harley guy was identified, then allow the claim to stand that his identity was somehow in doubt? Someone here has been extremely dishonest, and it isn't anyone on the debunking side.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt it was the truther who edited it out, since someone could have easily come along and set them straight on that point right off the bat. Whoever first posted that only had that section of the clip.

As for your first claim, I beg to differ. JREF bee dunkers appear to have far too much time on their hands and even seem to be actively looking for stuff to bee bunk, as is evidenced by the plethora of idiotic threads that appear here on a weekly, and sometimes daily, basis. In fact, when I first joined I was getting most of my 9/11 research news from this forum, because bee dunkers are actively seeking it out.
 
ergo said:
As for your first claim, I beg to differ. JREF bee dunkers appear to have far too much time on their hands and even seem to be actively looking for stuff to bee bunk, as is evidenced by the plethora of idiotic threads that appear here on a weekly, and sometimes daily, basis. In fact, when I first joined I was getting most of my 9/11 research news from this forum, because bee dunkers are actively seeking it out.
Click to expand...

ok, is it "bee dunking" or "bee bunking"?

please let us know when you have decided.
 
ergo said:
That same article also describes a photographer's account of the North Tower "exploding like a mushroom." Would you agree with that account? ?
Click to expand...

the collapses and ensuing dust clouds did not look like a true mushroom cloud.

therefore, this account is faulty.
 
ergo said:
Thanks. So you have one witness, who claims that the bodies hitting cars produced explosions. And then some description in Esquire magazine, based on nothing that they cite. That same article also describes a photographer's account of the North Tower "exploding like a mushroom." Would you agree with that account?

So is this one misinterpreted account what you use to discredit the reports of a hundred-something witnesses who heard loud explosions? Do you really think that people would hear the sounds of dropping bodies as massive explosions coming from the towers?
Click to expand...
"Exploding like a mushroom"? Never seen a mushroom explode! Darn the similes, bring on your failed moronic delusions of what you think did it. You have evidence of loud noises, not explosives. Did the reporter with exploding mushrooms use them too? Do you have any clue what a simile is, because you are presenting them constantly as your evidence for your moronic 911 delusions?

The release of 130 tons of TNT kinetic energy did the damage to the towers, due to gravity; your lack of physics and knowledge is your problem.

130 tons of TNT for each tower, due to gravity. E=mgh, being released after impacts and fire. Physics is good, learn it and stop exposing your ignorance on 911.

You bee dunk yourself with each moronic post spewing similes; how many more years will you fail after 9 solid years of stupid lies? Could your failure be as simple as not listening in high school physics, and lack of math skills? What were those SAT scores?
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Thanks. So you have one witness, who claims that the bodies hitting cars produced explosions. And then some description in Esquire magazine, based on nothing that they cite. That same article also describes a photographer's account of the North Tower "exploding like a mushroom." Would you agree with that account?

So is this one misinterpreted account what you use to discredit the reports of a hundred-something witnesses who heard loud explosions? Do you really think that people would hear the sounds of dropping bodies as massive explosions coming from the towers?
Click to expand...

Is that the sound of hand waving I hear?
 
ergo said:
Bee bunking. Hmm...
Click to expand...

Dude, both are good.

And neither of them make you look like a Class A jackaninny.

So keep doing it, secure that you have 16.5's personal assurance:

People who use the words "Bee Dunkers" are NOT Complete Douchebags.

Thanks for your input, sport. You are a credit to the BeeTruther race.
 
twinstead said:
Is that the sound of hand waving I hear?
Click to expand...

Only your own, if you're going to deliberately misinterpret one eyewitness account in an attempt to discount a hundred others.

Please read what Dave Rogers posted. Your "star witness" never claims the bodies hitting ground sounded like explosions!
 
ergo said:
Only your own, if you're going to deliberately misinterpret one eyewitness account in an attempt to discount a hundred others.

Please read what Dave Rogers posted. Your "star witness" never claims the bodies hitting ground sounded like explosions!
Click to expand...

There doesn't need to be a claim. There were bodies falling out of the Trade towers!
 
ergo said:
Only your own, if you're going to deliberately misinterpret one eyewitness account in an attempt to discount a hundred others.

Please read what Dave Rogers posted. Your "star witness" never claims the bodies hitting ground sounded like explosions!
Click to expand...

I could care less what any witnesses claim, for or against. YOU are the one endlessly debating what witnesses heard or didn't hear instead of dealing with the ENTIRETY of the evidence that points directly to the commonly-held narrative of events.

There is no such thing as a "star witness" in this situation. What is "star" is the fact most rational people know that the preponderance of evidence when taken as a whole supports the commonly-held narrative of that day.

I am supremely uninterested in your delightful little arguments about irrelevant minutiae, sorry.
 
Explosions @ the WTCs' on 9/11 doesn't mean that explosives were used.

Explosions can take on alot of charactoristics such as:

A fuel tank explosion.
Tire or car explosion.
Bodies hitting hard ground from heights.
Glass exploding from fire.
Backfiring of a vehicule.
Implosions from sinking vessels (water pressure).
Gas or steam explosions.
Wood exploding in a fire.
Computer monitors exploding.
Battery or generator explosions.

So Ergo, take your pick at which type of explosions the people heard near Ground Zero.
 
leftysergeant said:
No. Because the lying SOB said it was happening "right above us."

And he didn't even get dust. You really need to learn to analyse evidence a bit better.

The dude was probably just looking to get his ugly mug on televison.
Click to expand...

or he was a shill sent by the NWO to make the inevitable conspiracy theorist look stupid when they fail to notice that his story matches none of the other evidence.....the clean clothes were a masterstroke don't you think:)
 
ergo said:
So is this one misinterpreted account what you use to discredit the reports of a hundred-something witnesses who heard loud explosions?
Click to expand...

No, it's what I use to point out that you're wrong when you say only an idiot would mistake the sound of a falling object for the sound of an explosion. But keep moving those goalposts.

ergo said:
I highly doubt it was the truther who edited it out, since someone could have easily come along and set them straight on that point right off the bat. Whoever first posted that only had that section of the clip.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense. If somebody who wasn't a truther edited it out, then a diligent researcher for the truth movement would instantly have checked, found out the real identity of the Harley guy and used the fact that he worked for Fox as a pro-truth argument. Oh, sorry, I forgot... there aren't any diligent researchers in the truth movement; you all stop researching as soon as you've confirmed your prejudices.

My theory, on the other hand, that a lot of 9/11 truthers are stupid liars, explains the whole thing perfectly.

Dave
 
ergo said:
If you did, you'd probably be an idiot. I think people know the difference between those two sounds.
Click to expand...
The bodies hitting the roof in the Naudet film sound more like explosioins than any of the crap that twoofers call demolition charges.
 
Dave Rogers said:
No, it's what I use to point out that you're wrong when you say only an idiot would mistake the sound of a falling object for the sound of an explosion. But keep moving those goalposts.
Click to expand...

Witnesses describe some of the bodies hitting the streets as "exploding" when they hit. If they hit a vehicle, it would be even louder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom