Debunker says what?

Your post is about 95% correct.
If you dont mind let me correct one small thing for you.
I will never train a bomb dog to scratch.........the resulting boom maybe bad for the both of us.
Bomb dogs will be trained to sit!
As for what they can and can not smell.......for obvious reasons that must remain a mystery!

Amen as to the scratching. I was actually thinking of the ones at LAX and in Sydney. Their training is for drugs or contraband fruits/veggies/animal-plant matter, respectively. And they scratch. I also have this recollection of a terrific docu on the TV about dogs trained to listen for termites and hunt 'em behind the walls and they, also alerted the trainer with a scratching.

I'd suspect scratching at a bomb might be a bad idea, though. So yeah, I'll concede.

ETA: I love it when a professional arrives in these threads! What would you say about the "poor tired doggie sitting down on the job and causing a mass panic" concept? That's my particular fave. (Ever worked one of your charges 'til he keeled over from exhaustion?)
 
Well now...

What have we learned about debunkers and what they believe about 9/11?

There are three ways a steel structured high rise can globally collapse.

Okay, looks like you've got us bang to rights. I don't know why we ever thought we could get away with this story. Two ways or four ways would be plausible, but three is just ridiculous.

Dave
 
I have been on hand for a lot of bomb scares at Ft Lewis, usually while I was working at the commissary or shoping at the main PX. When they bring the dogs around the perimeter of the building, the handlers just know automatically that the dogs will stop and get all excited as they pass the open-air part of the garden section, even if they are up-wind of it. Lawn-care products are full of what the dogs are sniffing for. The dogs go up to the wall and bark a lot, but they do not seem to be trying to dig.



Exactly.....the hardest part of training a k9 team is training the human!
Received a little dog humor in my e-mail this morning and it fits right here so....



A man had just settled into his seat next to the window on the plane when
another man sits down in the aisle seat and puts his black Labrador
in the middle seat next to the man.

The first man looks very quizzically at the dog and asks why the dog is
allowed on the plane ?

The second man explains that he is a Drug Enforcement Agency officer
and the dog is a 'Sniffer dog'. 'His name is Smithy and he's the best there is.
I'll show you once we get airborne, when I put him to work.'

The plane takes off, and once it has leveled out, the agent says:
Watch this.' He tells Smithy to 'search'.

Smithy jumps down, walks along the aisle, and finally sits very
purposefully next to a woman for several seconds.

Smithy then returns to his seat and puts one paw on the agent's arm.

The agent says, 'Good boy', and he turns to the man and says:
'That woman is in possession of marijuana, so I'm making a note of her
seat number and the authorities will apprehend her when we land.'

'Say, that's pretty neat,' replies the first man.

Once again, the agent sends Smithy to search the aisles.
The Lab sniffs about, sits down beside a man for a few seconds,
returns to his seat and this time, he places TWO paws on the agent's
arm.

The agent says, 'That man is carrying cocaine, so again, I'm making
note of his seat number for the police.'

'I like it!' says his seat mate.

The agent then tells Smithy to 'search' again.

Smithy walks up and down the aisles for a little while, sits down for a
moment and then comes racing back to the agent, jumps into the
middle seat and proceeds to ◊◊◊◊ all over the place.

The first man is really amazed out by this behavior and can't figure
out how or why a well-trained dog would behave like this, so he asks
the agent 'What's going on?'
The agent nervously replies, 'He just found a bomb !'
 
are you familiar with the 1993 WTC bombing? An entire truck bomb went off and didn't bring down the WTC and yet you think someone sneaking in a small bomb in their pocket is something? Must have been thousands of people sneaking in bombs for months.

Kind of like Andy Dufresne sneaking out bits of wall into the prison yard to facilitate his escape. What did that take him? 29 years?
 
Amen as to the scratching. I was actually thinking of the ones at LAX and in Sydney. Their training is for drugs or contraband fruits/veggies/animal-plant matter, respectively. And they scratch. I also have this recollection of a terrific docu on the TV about dogs trained to listen for termites and hunt 'em behind the walls and they, also alerted the trainer with a scratching.

I'd suspect scratching at a bomb might be a bad idea, though. So yeah, I'll concede.

ETA: I love it when a professional arrives in these threads! What would you say about the "poor tired doggie sitting down on the job and causing a mass panic" concept? That's my particular fave. (Ever worked one of your charges 'til he keeled over from exhaustion?)



Yes for other types of things we may train for a scratch or other action that each individual k9 has a personality to do.
As for just sitting down when it felt like it I say......BULL!
Any kind of work a k9 is doing is all play to them,it's a game and I have yet to see one grow tired of playing the game and just sit down!
I am sure if I ever were to run into HI he would hope and pray my 4 legged friends would just sit,but I can assure you he is one word a way from a encounter he would never forget!....................PAUKIN!
 
Yes for other types of things we may train for a scratch or other action that each individual k9 has a personality to do.
As for just sitting down when it felt like it I say......BULL!
Any kind of work a k9 is doing is all play to them,it's a game and I have yet to see one grow tired of playing the game and just sit down!
I am sure if I ever were to run into HI he would hope and pray my 4 legged friends would just sit,but I can assure you he is one word a way from a encounter he would never forget!....................PAUKIN!

Thanks for confirming my anecdotal bias. I work in shipping and have managed a couple of branches where we deconsolidated cargo in our own facility. Any time I saw the dogs come to work, they were all as happy as clams to do the job, literally leaping out of the van and tails a-wagging to get at it. And as I said above (and you confirmed) they don't really tire of play. Plus, I've never seen a human partner who'd think of working the dog 'til it was "dog tired",... most of the relationships were pretty strong and it was rather nice to see.
 
Say whaaa...?

According to your story one hour and no explosives at all are needed to demolish a skyscraper.

Or is it tons and tons of explosives and months of preparation?

Some people need to make up their mind.


Some people need to fight to avoid losing their minds.

The "one hour and no explosives" just happens to include the crash directly into the building of a fully-fueled 100-ton jet airliner moving at roughly 500 mph and the resultant extensive fires. Why do you incredibly silly frauds always act as though you really expect sane people to forget that little detail?

In the absence of such a devastating crash, yes, demolition professionals would require many tons of charges and months of prep work.
 
Or if they claim they did they must be crazy or a liar.

Don't forget that part. It's very important in debunking.


People heard explosions. Things blow up in office fires. Nobody--absolutely NOBODY--heard any sounds consistent with a controlled demolition. Don't you get tired of hearing the same inconvenient FACTS over and over and over?
 
Funny that. The penetration of building security in the official version did not involve accessing elevator shafts and attaching explosives to load bearing structures behind walls and out of the publicly available areas.

But the buildings still fell.

Right? :rolleyes:


Yes, the buildings fell after they were hit by fully-fueled commercial airliners moving roughly 500 mph.

Do enjoy being slapped down all the time? Are you related to Bill Smith?
 
Some people need to fight to avoid losing their minds.

The "one hour and no explosives" just happens to include the crash directly into the building of a fully-fueled 100-ton jet airliner moving at roughly 500 mph and the resultant extensive fires. Why do you incredibly silly frauds always act as though you really expect sane people to forget that little detail?

In the absence of such a devastating crash, yes, demolition professionals would require many tons of charges and months of prep work.

Not to mention to facilitate the "faster than freefall" and "neatly in its own footprint" collapse Truthers imagine took place. But again, and I really can't stress this enough, we're dealing with an individual who believes Interpol is involved in America's plot to take over the world. To say that rational thought eludes him is like saying Michael Jackson hasn't been feeling too well lately.
 
Yes, the buildings fell after they were hit by fully-fueled commercial airliners moving roughly 500 mph.

Do enjoy being slapped down all the time? Are you related to Bill Smith?
To some basement dwellers, bad attention is better than no attention at all. HI and BS both understand what you and the rest of us are saying. But that doesn't serve their purpose. By regurgitation the same old lies, they get what they are craving. They think that they have some sort of power over us because we respond while they control the conversation. Once it gets out of their control, they move on to another thread or move the goal posts where it starts all over again.
 
tsk tsk

How many explosives were needed in your story? Reliable or not?


Time to send you running for the hills.

Demolition professionals, who unanimously reject your nonsensical moonshine, insist that tons of shaped charges would have been required to bring down two of the tallest skyscrapers in the world. No structure of that size has ever been demolished. Teams of demolitions workers would have required months to prep the buildings. Then, of course, there is that other teensy-weensy problem, namely, the collapses just sort of happened to start at the precise floors impacted by the planes. A trifling detail for you, perhaps, but a major consideration for anyone not driven by a mad political agenda, for anyone unwilling to disfigure reality to promote idiotic myths.

So, the question that sends all the frauds fleeing: What do you know that the experts don't and how did you learn it?

What--you refuse to tell us? Who would have guessed?
 
To some basement dwellers, bad attention is better than no attention at all. HI and BS both understand what you and the rest of us are saying. But that doesn't serve their purpose. By regurgitation the same old lies, they get what they are craving. They think that they have some sort of power over us because we respond while they control the conversation. Once it gets out of their control, they move on to another thread or move the goal posts where it starts all over again.



The more I think about it, the more I find myself agreeing with you. What is going on here can't be regarded as honest debate. Why would the same fools endlessly recycle the same discredited garbage? Good grief, Bill Smith has been reduced to braying about Judy Wood's dustified steel! HI's desperation has driven him make a foray into that most alien of territories for him, logic. He is now peddling the quaint notion that either tons of shaped charges were required to take down the towers (the position of demolition professionals) or something strange occurred. For the sane portion of the human population, a large jet airliner slamming into a building qualifies as something strange. But always the thought intrudes on me, he knows this--he really does know this. He really doesn't expect us to forget about the planes, does he?

The bizarre antics of its members brings into focus the nature of the "truth" movement: one part stupidity; one part dishonesty; one part sheer insanity. The mix varies from individual to individual, but all three components are always present.
 
Whoops. You missed that one. Maybe you should quit while you're are ahead.

Or maybe you can answer.

Could it have been possible to get explosive devices inside the WTC buildings without anyone noticing?

Yes or no?


No--emphatically NO: it would have been utterly impossible for demolition crews to bring in tons of explosives and place them without many people noticing.

Please stop this idiocy.
 
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?



Oops! You have been caught lying again:

http://911myths.com/html/wtc_bomb_sniffing_dogs.html
 
When did I ever claim no planes? I claim no plane debris matched to serial numbers.

Now stay on topic or don't bother.

Could it have been possible to get explosive devices inside the WTC buildings without anyone noticing?

Yes or no?


Your claim that no debris matched serial numbers was comprehesively dissected and refuted by air crash investigators, pilots, and avionics techs. You cling to the thoroughly discredited rubbish because your mad political agenda gives you no choice.

You keep asking the same idiocy. The answer, as always, is NO, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to sneak in tons of explosives without anyone noticing.

As usual, you are doing very badly.
 
Funny that. The penetration of building security in the official version did not involve accessing elevator shafts and attaching explosives to load bearing structures behind walls and out of the publicly available areas.

But the buildings still fell.

Right? :rolleyes:

Funny that. There is absolutely zero direct evidence, none, that anybody penetrated the buildings and placed any kind of explosives in any of the WTC buildings.
There is just the same amount of evidence that aliens landed on the buildings and vaporized them with disruptor beams.

Neither idea is plausible, although both would make fun plots for Hollywood movies.

ps, even if you do believe that the Harrit/Jones super-duper-nanothermite does exist, even they can't tell you which buildings the material came from!! There's no way to single out any one building, or any particular part of a building, as the source of the red chips.

If you were truly skeptical, you'd be raising your eyebrows much further, and for the right reasons as well.
 

Back
Top Bottom