TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
They drove it in. People were able to do things like that in 1993. Business usually is conducted like that until somebody, you know, tries to blow up your building and kill you.
Debunker says what?
- Thread starter Homeland Insurgency
- Start date
They drove it in. People were able to do things like that in 1993. Business usually is conducted like that until somebody, you know, tries to blow up your building and kill you.
Homeland Insurgency
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,705
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.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Many people did raise the concern that the USA was open to hijacking because of lax security measures.
You ask if no one had heard of hijackings in the past? Well yes, I am glad that you acknowledge that they had occured. I also then can assume that you are aware that Islamic para-military groups have also in the past hijacked several aircraft at once in a co-ordinated fashion, and used suicide bombing missions in the past. You then should find it non-surprising at all that in this case the perpetrators simply married the three ideas, hijacking, co-ordinated multiple hijacking and suicide mission, in this attack against an enemy whom they believed themselves to be at war with.
Quite happy to see you coming around HI.
(BTW, why the topic change yet again?)
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
,,,,,,,,,,,,and where were the dogs in the WTC used? Did they do patrols of the building after normal business hours HI. You know, in a fashion that would make sense according to the article you posted?
Homeland Insurgency
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,705
If they are less effective then they very well could have been ineffective leading up to 9/11.
Especially if there were less of them. If any.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Not like that kind of thing never happens.
There was an intersection in this town that was a two way stop. It was fine until the 1970's when the town grew and this became a very busy intersection. Time and again residents would petition for this to be made a 4 way stop, and it eventually was. After two school girls got hit by a car!
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Read,,,,the,,,,entire,,,,post,,,,Homeland Insurgency.
Homeland Insurgency
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,705
Why don't you tell me?
I'm not the one claiming there is no way explosives could have gotten in the building because of some dogs.
Don't you know? And if you do? Source it.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Read,,,,the,,,,entire,,,,post,,,,Homeland Insurgency.
ie.
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?)
ie.
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?)
Homeland Insurgency
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,705
I read the entire post. I never claimed to know there were explosives in the building.
I just know you don't know there weren't.
Especially because you think some dogs would have stopped it.
You got anymore ridiculous debunking to wow me with?
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
According to YOU it is a fact that the dogs could only be used effectively in patrols in less crowded areas. 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.
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!
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
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.
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
At this point allow me to summarise what we can deduce from HI's 'points' thus far.
Please feel free to add, in point form anything I miss.
-Explosives were successfully smuggled into Federal buildings thus explsoives could have been smuggled into the WTC towers.
-Bomb sniffing dogs were not utilised as they should have been, instead they were used in the least effective means possible
-It was not neccessarily a large amount of explosive since once initial collapse took place no other explosive were required to have it progress to global collapse.
-It was more likely a small amount of thermite anyway, again small because thermite is so very effective in severing large vertical columns and because once initial collapse took place no more were required to have it progress to global collapse.
Please feel free to add, in point form anything I miss.
-Explosives were successfully smuggled into Federal buildings thus explsoives could have been smuggled into the WTC towers.
-Bomb sniffing dogs were not utilised as they should have been, instead they were used in the least effective means possible
-It was not neccessarily a large amount of explosive since once initial collapse took place no other explosive were required to have it progress to global collapse.
-It was more likely a small amount of thermite anyway, again small because thermite is so very effective in severing large vertical columns and because once initial collapse took place no more were required to have it progress to global collapse.
Homeland Insurgency rips a page from the Kirk Cameron Playbook.
Have you been watching the Way of the Master? Because your "logic" is suspiciously similar to an actor from Growing Pains.
Have you been watching the Way of the Master? Because your "logic" is suspiciously similar to an actor from Growing Pains.
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
No they never use sniffer dogs in locations where there are thousands of people.
http://http://www.highland-news.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/3815/Rock_Ness_drugs_blitz.html
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
I've never seen that before. Yikes.
lapman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,717
Wrong. We are saying that there is no way TONS of explosives could have gotten by the dogs. We are saying that there is no way TONS of explosives, det chord, "thermite fuses," etc. could be installed in a building that's open and used 24/7 without anyone noticing.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
You postulated the posibbility of explosives in the building. YOU contend that this is possible based on what? That the manner in which the buildings fell suggests to you that some other action was employed besides that of aircraft impact and instantaneous multi-floor large area office fires.
Once AGAIN I point out that IF this was the case then according to the senario put forth by the TM it would require explosives on many floors and in many locations. If you and others in the TM are going to contend that only a small amount of explosive or thermite was used then it stands to reason that it would have been employed on the impact floors otherwise the supposed orchestrators of this conspiracy would have been relying on the impact and fires to initialise collapse. It follows then that if only a small amount was employed that the resulting global collapse and the manner by which it collapsed were the result only of the forces of gravity after that initial collapse.
IF you and the TM claim that explosives or thermite was utilised on other floors in order to ensure global collapse and obtain the distribution of debris witnessed to have occured then it is NOT a small amount of explosives/thermite.
If YOU or the TM further contend that the steel and/or concrete was pulverised by means other than the force of gravity on the structure that requires yet more explosives/thermite.
For explosives to be at their most effective at severing large steel columns the are mounted ON the columns. Placing explosives near the columns requires more explosive power to do the same job. In the case of thermite it is absolutely required that it be mounted on the structural member that is to be cut AND it is very difficult to cut through a vertical columns with thermite. Placing thermite somewhere near a column in order to cut that column such that it will allow a co-ordinated global collapse is simply ridiculous.
Thus although you contend that it is possible that explosives/thermite were used you have no evidence whatsoever that they were and when one thinks logically about what such a senario would entail one quickly sees that it is very unlikly that it was.
You have extrapolated minor details in an attempt to bolster your contention of the possibility of explosive/thermite use. You take a report that explosives were smuggled into Federal buildings and extrapolate that to meaning that all the explosives that may have been required to bring down the towers could have been smuggled into the buildings. When the security measure of bomb sniffing dogs was brought up you point out that they do not work effectively in crowds of people and extrapolate that to mean that they would be ineffective at the WTC because during the day, in many parts of the complex, there are lots of people thus assuming that this is where the dogs were employed. You assume the dogs were employed in the most ineffective fashion imaginable based soley on your desire to bolster your contention that explosives/thermite could have been smuggled in..
In short you have taken a lot of thin probabilities and tried to manufacture a high probability senario out of them.
I will refrain from giving my personal evaluation of the type of person who would do this.
Last edited:
MIKILLINI
Incromulent Logic
- Joined
- May 3, 2007
- Messages
- 2,979
You are, as always, wrong. Demolition experts know that no explosives were in the towers because there is no--zero--physical evidence of explosives. Metallurgists know there were no explosives in the buildings because the chemical signatures of explosives used in demolition were nowhere to be found. Structural engineers know there were no explosives because the impact/fires theory explains the collapses parsimoniously. Firefighters know there were no explosives in the buildings because they are trained to recognize arson.
The agenda-driven fantasy of your insane movement requires many tons of explosives. You keep overlooking that minor detail. You haven't been wowed by the facts debunkers present; you've been crushed, humiliated, and exposed as a fraud. It happens to you all the time.