Debunker says what?

[Disenchanted]

I didn't claim CD in your sense of the term.

You have invented a new sense of the term?

No one also found over a thousand victims, black boxes, and most of the aircraft's claimed to have hit the towers.

And those things were being looked for. Supposedly according to debunkers very thoroughly.

Who was looking for explosives evidence? And even if they were why would it have been found in light of everything else still not accounted for?

Many victims and pieces of the aircraft that hit the towers were found, not all, but many. However not one piece of evidence for a bomb and with all the people there at least one piece would have been found.

 

[triforcharity]

So 44 feet of interrupted by what? Thanks.



I didn't claim CD in your sense of the term.



No one also found over a thousand victims, black boxes, and most of the aircraft's claimed to have hit the towers.

And those things were being looked for. Supposedly according to debunkers very thoroughly.

Who was looking for explosives evidence? And even if they were why would it have been found in light of everything else still not accounted for?

I also didn't see that many computer monitors, or keyboards, or things of that nature. Then again, when any of these things were found, I rarely payed attention to it. As I was looking for survivors and such.

Also, when there is a severed arm laying next to a chair, I didn't notice the chair, but I could tell you exactly what color the person was, and if it waas female, if it was a left or right arm, and the like. I couldn't tell you the color of the chair though.

I only wish you knew the pain that people still go through to this day because of this tragedy. But, you would most likely think its funny.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Let's get to the meat(strawman) of your post.



I didn't claim that. If it was a controlled demolition it wasn't in the traditional sense of the term. I do believe it was mostly a gravity driven collapse (like a lot of cd's). I just find it hard to believe the upper so-called block had no help with the resistance it encountered during the collapse. Which wasn't covered by NIST.

In regards to the NIST report, can you explain why they would have had to check for explosives?

Explosive devices could have been in the building. Maybe even put there by the boogeyman terrorists themselves for a followup attack to kill first responders and compromise the core. They tried in 93 to get a bomb by a structural support. They knew what it took.

Yes, they figured it had to be something larger than a truck carrying explosives to be more effective. Can you think of anything larger than a truck HI?

In any case it wasn't investigated and physical evidence was systematically destroyed.

Again, can you give a reason why NIST had to specifically look for explosives?

 

[A W Smith]

So 44 feet of interrupted by what? Thanks.

your welcome

Gypsum board non load bearing partitions. which I can punch through with my fist. But I suppose you believe it would be sufficient to silence an explosive CD device cutting through box and "H" columns made of steel 2 or more inches thick at that level.

By the way I had already linked to floor plans typical for that level in the post you quoted. But apparently you cant read prints.

 

[triforcharity]

Some of the truthers have a hard time with simple english. How could you POSSIBLY expect them to understand complex blueprints???

I had an argument with some truther the other day, wish I knew which board it was on, but he saw some "clouds" on a blueprint, and claimed that was where the demolition charges were to be set later on. he believed this was a conspiracy dating back to when the building was designed!! I had to laugh at THAT blunder!!!!

 

[funk de fino]

Who was looking for explosives evidence? And even if they were why would it have been found in light of everything else still not accounted for?

Page 8, Assertion 6. Page 7, Assertion 5, Point 3

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

 

[JimBenArm]

Some of the truthers have a hard time with simple english. How could you POSSIBLY expect them to understand complex blueprints???

I had an argument with some truther the other day, wish I knew which board it was on, but he saw some "clouds" on a blueprint, and claimed that was where the demolition charges were to be set later on. he believed this was a conspiracy dating back to when the building was designed!! I had to laugh at THAT blunder!!!!

Sheesh. Didn't he know that the clouds show where the unicorns and pink elephants are stored?

 

[Justin39640]

Some of the truthers have a hard time with simple english. How could you POSSIBLY expect them to understand complex blueprints???

I had an argument with some truther the other day, wish I knew which board it was on, but he saw some "clouds" on a blueprint, and claimed that was where the demolition charges were to be set later on. he believed this was a conspiracy dating back to when the building was designed!! I had to laugh at THAT blunder!!!!

that would be 1 heck of a stundie lol

 

[Corsair 115]

HI is oblivious to the Db scale of sound perception and the inverse-square law which applies to how sound levels fall off at distance.

He's also oblivious to the physical qualities of an explosive detonating, such as the (layman's term) blast wave. Curiously, explosives powerful enough to sever steel columns in the WTC towers did not generate a blast wave that shattered every window on the floors where the explosives detonated, and did not create a spray of shrapnel from out said windows.

Strange explosives indeed...

 

[jaydeehess]

Back from holidays and on lunch, so I don't have time to read much that occured in this thread since I was away.

However, HI keeps saying that tons of explosives are the construct of the debunkers.

this is untrue except in that the TM simply cannot admit that THEIR senario does require a lot of explosives.

The TM conjecture is that the towers could not have come down in the fashion or at the rate they did without explosives severing supporting columns on the way down throughout the collapse.

This requires then that a multitude of esxplosives be in place , on those coulmns and many places in the structures. It may not be a calculation that the TM wishes to make but some debunkers have done so and this is what comes about. If HI has a problem with the conjecture then he should take it up with those who propose it.

There is ONE way that a small amount of explosives could in fact have accomplished this. That would be in a senario in which collapse initiation is brought about be the severing of a few columns, on the fire floors at the approx 1 hour mark of the fire duration.

The TM, and HI , are unlikely to care much for such a senario because it then requires that NIST be correct in stating that once collapse intitiation occured that gravity alone would suffice to bring about global collapse. It also means that the rate of collapse and the fashion by which the debris scattered are the direct result of gravity, and only incidentally related to the supposed explosives used.
This senario also begs the question of how it was arranged for the small amopunt of explosives to be on the floors that were hit by aircraft and thus on fire. (which would lead to a no-planes senario as one solution) and the question of how one arranges for explosives to not go off prematurely in a uncontrolled office fire situation.

HI calls for us to supply the audio of the loud sounds described as 'explosive' by several witnesses. However HI fails to understand that if he and the TM wish to conjecture the use of explosives and the debunkers state that they have not heard anything that resembles the sound made by explosives, then it is up to the TM(and HI) to give examples of the sounds that THEY are claiming suffice for this. This has been called for many times and the examples given have been shown to be insufficient to be explosives capable of severing large columns(and I recall one case of actually having been sufficient but the audio portion of the recording was shown to have been faked by the TM member pushing it)

 

[jaydeehess]

Well then you should be able to see immediately that the 'more extrodinary' claim for the sounds heard would be that they were caused by bombs in the building and thus this claim requires much greater evidence than does the one that they were caused by falling bodies or the explosive ignition of other items on the fire floors.

Next we note the fact that there are eyewitness accounts of people falling and creating loud noises upon hitting the ground and the fact that we know for certain that major office fires often include the explosive ignition of items, both of which bode well for those being the source of the sounds heard. In addition there is no audio recording of anything resembling the type of explosive sound that would be created by the type and size of explosive used to sever large columns.

On the other hand the only evidence that these sounds were caused by explosives is the speculation of some people that this was the source of the sounds. There are no eyewitness accounts by anyone who saw an explosion occur, only characterizations of sounds as 'explosions'. Whereas a propane bottle, or even a fire extinguisher, cooking off is indeed an explosion it is not even close to that of a charge designed to cause structural damage. Failing floor sections hitting the next floor down make even louder sounds and can easily be described as 'explosive' sounds, and although they are indicative of structural damage they are not the sounds of actual explosive charges designed to cause structural damage. Both of these situations can and do occur in major office fires.
The office fires in the towers also had two charactersitics never seen in 'normal' office fires. They were large multifloor fires within seconds of impact,('normally' it takes several hours to get to this stage) AND that impact caused major structural damage to the floor pans of several floors. (obviously a characteristic rarely, if ever , encountered especially in combination with the afore mentioned immediate multifloor fire)

A true skeptic would weigh the evidence pro and con each claim and note that it is quite obvious that logic heavily favours one over the other.
A true skeptic acknowledges that there is a small percentage chance that the bulk of evidence is pointing to the wrong claim but that it is highly unlikely that the claim with the least evidence is the correct one.

My only "claim" in this thread is that you (collectively) haven't offered any proof for your negative hypothesis - please see above quote.

It's fine for someone to believe that those eyewitnesses were hearing bodies hit the ground, but there's certainly no proof of that.

bump for deep

 

[Blender Head]

HI,

Do you believe, as Truthers such as Richard Gage do, that ACE elevator operators had rigged the Towers nine months prior to 9/11? Or, as implied but not stated in the OP, do you believe that the explosives were planted in the so-called "security stand-down" the days prior to 9/11?

Be consistent, please.

 

[jaydeehess]

HI,

Do you believe, as Truthers such as Richard Gage do, that ACE elevator operators had rigged the Towers nine months prior to 9/11? Or, as implied but not stated in the OP, do you believe that the explosives were planted in the so-called "security stand-down" the days prior to 9/11?

Be consistent, please.

In this thread HI claimed that over the course of a year a lot of explosives could be smuggled into the building. When it was pointed out to him that bomb sniffing dogs were employed at the WTC towers he pointed out that they had been removed days before the attacks. However HI seems not to have noticed the disconnect between his two statements.

 

[Justin39640]

In this thread HI claimed that over the course of a year a lot of explosives could be smuggled into the building. When it was pointed out to him that bomb sniffing dogs were employed at the WTC towers he pointed out that they had been removed days before the attacks. However HI seems not to have noticed the disconnect between his two statements.

i tried pointing that out on the 1st page i think
so did others
apparently he has his "logic filter" on
lol

 

[jaydeehess]

Smuggling materials to make a small bomb isn't comparable with smuggling tons and tons of high explosives. Not to mention actually installing them.

And how many of these office buildings had bomb sniffing dogs?

Keep going, HI, failing is what you do best.

yes
please explain exactly how they got 10 to 100 tonnes (source: Niels Harrit) past all of that security?

i would love to hear what you think

Good. Glad you got that about your so-called debunking of explosives.

Now. Why couldn't enough explosives have been put in the WTC buildings before 9/11?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fe..._finds_major_security_flaws.html?hpid=topnews

“In the past year, investigators successfully smuggled bomb-making materials into ten high-security federal buildings, constructed bombs and walked around the buildings undetected”

Wow.

I bet they could have put more then 10 in just one building in a years time.

Hey genius, here is a question that you will no doubt ignore (again):

Did the WTC have bomb sniffing dogs? Did any of these federal buildings? Quick, twoofer, pwn me!

When?

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-nyaler122362178sep12,0,1255660.story

Heightened Security Alert Had Just Been Lifted

By Curtis L. Taylor and Sean Gardiner | STAFF WRITERS
September 12, 2001

Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.

I don't see what it maters either way. Especially in a case where guards even at federal buildings post 9/11 are found sleeping and people who just smuggled inside and constructed a bomb are walking around undetected.

Do the dogs work independently?

dogs were always there
they had extra teams during the alert

one of those dogs died on 9/11

http://www.muttart.com/stonebraker/sirius-tribute.htm

just stupid

I see. In your fantasy world five days is plenty enough to covertly set up the controlled demolition of the three largest buildings ever destroyed in this manner. Makes perfect sense.

Never mind that they were just removing extra security. There were always dogs there.

so now you take the word of the media you cant ever trust?
they also said planes hit the towers in the story

there were always dogs

you fail yet again

not really
you said there was no dogs
i proved you were wrong

you fail
get over it

lol @ "not like its important"
OF COURSE IT IS YOU BROUGHT IT UP!!!!!!

You'll need to remind me where you proved anything.
Thanks.

Hi dances about demonstrating his desire to be on "Dancing with the Stars" and I eventually throw in my 2 cents worth including the direct question bolded below.

Hold on HI, did they smuggle your explosives into the towers over the course of a year(while the dogs were there) or in the few days when the dogs were not there?



In effect, yes the official story does indeed involve accessing elevator shafts and other areas not open to the public.
Fire does not respect "No Public Access" signs nor would the hundred tons of aircraft that hit the building at 450+ MPH.



Excuse me? Explosives in the building is NOT any part of any debunker's 'story'? When CT's claim that explosives were used debunkers then point out what amount of explosives would be required to accomplish the task of bringing the towers down. Now go back and research the explosive equivalent of the aircraft's kintetic energy, and the multi floor fires.



So how big a device were the ones smuggled in as part of the security tests HI? How effective would a bomb fitting that physical description (Volume and mass) be in cutting the columns of the towers? Do you suppose that all bombs are created equal?

What does the fact that the black boxes were not recovered have to do with any evidence that there were explosives in the towers? Do you suppose that the FDR/CVR recorded some evidence of bombs in the towers?





Actually you really seem to be attempting to make 'bombs in the buildings' a debunker idea. It isn't. We simply try to assist the Ct's who make the claim in understanding that IF there were bombs that did the deed there would have to be a lot of them in place, they would not be quiet explosives, and to do the job they would HAVE to be placed ON the columns.

The truck bomb attack 10 years prior was supposed to have been placed so as to destroy the foundation wall. They could not get a parking spot where they wanted it and ended up having all that explosive power do little more than collapse several floors of the basement. But you seem to be saying that in a few days, a few guys could walk into the towers with enough explosives to cause columns to fail but that it would not really be neccessary to place these smallish bombs all that close to , let alone on, the columns in order to have this effect. furthermore they would have been all rigged together somehow(wirelessly I suppose) such that they would go off in sequence.

Furthermore I addressed HI's contention that tons of explosives are a senario of debunkers in my post #570 above. I await HI's acknowledgement that NIST was correct in that after initial collapse that gravity would accomplish the task of a global collapse as seen having occured to the towers.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Hi dances about demonstrating his desire to be on "Dancing with the Stars" and I eventually throw in my 2 cents worth including the direct question bolded below.


Furthermore I addressed HI's contention that tons of explosives are a senario of debunkers in my post #570 above. I await HI's acknowledgement that NIST was correct in that after initial collapse that gravity would accomplish the task of a global collapse as seen having occured to the towers.

HI does another dance in 3..2...1

 

[Justin39640]

the real question is:
how does a thread with such a (insert your adjective here) title get to almost 600 posts?
lol

 

[MIKILLINI]

the real question is:
how does a thread with such a (insert your adjective here) title get to almost 600 posts?
lol

Because we keep on trying to show those with closed minds an open door to reality.

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

In this thread HI claimed that over the course of a year a lot of explosives could be smuggled into the building. When it was pointed out to him that bomb sniffing dogs were employed at the WTC towers he pointed out that they had been removed days before the attacks. However HI seems not to have noticed the disconnect between his two statements.

Actually I also pointed out and sourced an article that claimed bomb sniffing dogs don't work well in places like subway stations. The WTC which had a path train stop underneath it also employed thousands of people.

This was after bomb sniffing dogs were brought up to me.

On top of that I also don't know why it would have taken more then a couple days when in the initial investigation I posted in the OP any given building didn't take more then a few hours to smuggle explosives inside.

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

Hi dances about demonstrating his desire to be on "Dancing with the Stars" and I eventually throw in my 2 cents worth including the direct question bolded below.


Furthermore I addressed HI's contention that tons of explosives are a senario of debunkers in my post #570 above. I await HI's acknowledgement that NIST was correct in that after initial collapse that gravity would accomplish the task of a global collapse as seen having occured to the towers.

Anyway you want to look at it jaydees the debunkers debunk themselves every time they claim it would have taken tons of explosives strategically placed on every floor to get a building the size of the towers to collapse, then out of the other side of their mouth claim for instance that flight 175 randomly striking between the 78th to 84th floors, randomly hitting different columns, caused every floor above it to come down.

So even if just your NIST collapse initiation hypothesis is correct then it must also be true that explosive like the aircraft on just a few floors could collapse up to twenty floors above it.

It does not however mean it would continue below the impact or explosives zone, or if it did for how long.

That's why NIST never touched that part.

And none of this even gets near the main conspiracy I've also heard which is thermite. Thermite that debunkers are quick to point out doesn't explode.

The fire that supposedly caused the collapse initiation by weakening steel in the NIST version also made no noise after the impact of the plane. But according to NIST caused at least in the case of the flight 175 impact zone about 20 floors above it to collapse.

So keep talking. You debunk yourself.