Debunker says what?

Look at this poor kitten. He got stuck in a glass:

trapped_kitty.jpg
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
Debunker logic...

Playing with matches = tons of shaped charges strategically place over months on every floor attached to building supports.
Click to expand...

Crashing fuel-laden aircraft at high velocity into stationary targets > Playing with matches.

I think you get it now.
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
Go study your own gospel you are trying to defend here. You don't even know it.
Click to expand...

My gospel is, first of all my own eyes and ears as I saw things at WTC on and after 9/11 that show Twoofer claims are wrong and silly. My other book is my university engineering education that tells me why twoofer claims are wrong. The disciples are the hundreds of thousands of other eyewitnesses to aspects of the events of 9/11, none of whom, it seems have joined the "Truth Movement".
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
Wow. All in the same few minutes. Some people need to get a grip and make up their mind already.

lol
Click to expand...


Maybe we do you an injustice by constantly accusing you of lying. This post of yours suggests that you suffer from a thinking disorder. Let's see if you can be helped.

First, I call attention to the stated opinion of demolition professionals that tons of explosives and months of work to place them would be necessary to bring down such gigantic structures as the twin towers. I point out that no building of comparable size has ever been demolished.

Then, I state that we've established that other methods of taking down the towers exist, e.g. nuking them with an ICBM or flying fully-fueled commercial airliners into them.

Finally, we must all accept the incontrovertible historical fact that fully-fueled commercial airliners did crash into the towers.

To summarize, a) bringing down the towers through controlled demolition would have been a monumental undertaking; b) it didn't happen; c) there were other ways of bringing down the towers; d) commercial airliners crashing into them DID happen.

For reasons that defy comprehension, you profess to see a contradiction here. Be assured that there is none. Obviously, there is none. Your contention is so utterly mad that one is forced to conclude that you actually believe it. Nobody could lie so bizarrely. The debunkers--the sane side--do not need to "make up their minds." They are consistently asserting that the buildings collapsed as the result of the plane crashes and the resultant extensive fires. They reject the myth about explosives on the grounds that no evidence supports it and explosives violate the principle of parsimony.

The sane position is a simple one. There are no tricks. You are tricking yourself, stumbling over your own tongue in search of nonexistent inconsistencies.

Yes, you really need to get a grip, but your insane agenda won't permit it.
 
cyclonic said:
How come no "shaped charges" were heard or recorded on every 9/11 video when the towers collapsed?
Click to expand...

I doubt HI has ever witnessed a live controlled demolition. The thing I found surprising is that it isn't at all like in the movies. It's not a huge KABOOM. It's actually an unmistakable cracking sound followed by a rumble of the debris.

Nobody who's ever heard a controlled demolition (even with ear protection) would ever confuse the two.
 
stilicho said:
Crashing fuel-laden aircraft at high velocity into stationary targets > Playing with matches.

I think you get it now.
Click to expand...

What fuel-laden aircraft at high velocity crashed into WTC-7?

I already sourced that NIST does not blame the collapses of the towers on the planes and impacts and does not blame the collapse of WTC-7 on structural damage from the falling tower.

What happend to the 10 story gash or the fuel tanks you were all shooting your mouths off about for years?

Disappointed much? How sad and dysfunctional.
 
Last edited:
Homeland Insurgency said:
Much more then you. You want something?
Click to expand...
Ah, but you're the one who says no one can ever know anything. So, you can't know more than him, because no one knows anything.

As far as wanting something, I could use a Diet Coke while you're up. Thanks.

ETA: Oh, and it's "than" not "then" Mr. Knowitall. Oh, sorry, Mr. Knownothing.
 
Last edited:
stilicho said:
I doubt HI has ever witnessed a live controlled demolition. The thing I found surprising is that it isn't at all like in the movies. It's not a huge KABOOM. It's actually an unmistakable cracking sound followed by a rumble of the debris.
Click to expand...

LOL!

Then why don't you set cyclonic straight for me buddy? He's looking for recorded KABOOMS from 9/11.

stilicho said:
Nobody who's ever heard a controlled demolition (even with ear protection) would ever confuse the two.
Click to expand...

Two what?
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
Oh stop with the jet fuel and 500 mph crap already. Don't you even know your own story?

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_latest_findings_1004.htm

Post-impact capabilities of the WTC towers assessed. Demand to capacity ratios—the calculations indicating whether or not structures can support the loads put on them—showed that for the floors affected by the aircraft impacts, the majority of the core and perimeter columns in both towers continued to carry their loads after the impact. The loads from damaged or severed columns were carried by nearby undamaged columns. Although the additional loads strained the load-bearing capabilities of the affected columns, the results show that the columns could have carried them. This shows that the towers withstood the initial aircraft impacts and that they would have remained standing indefinitely if not for another significant event such as the subsequent fires. NIST previously reported that the towers had significant reserve capacity after aircraft impact based on analysis of post-impact vibration data obtained from video evidence on WTC 2, the more severely damaged tower.

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cach...+than+10+minutes.”+”&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

In the case of the towers, the jet fuel was unusual, but even there we talked about normal building fires since the jet fuel burned within a matter of a few minutes. What burned over the next hour to hour-and-a-half were normal fires where the combustibles were building contents plus the airplane contents
Click to expand...


Yes, we all understand that the towers withstood the initial impacts. They didn't fall down immediately, as some of us noticed. Sadly, your desperation has reached the stage where you are compelled to humiliate yourself by citing information that destroys the insane rubbish you peddle. The planes did not knock the buildings down, but they severed and damaged columns, both perimeter and core, and caused extensive fires that weakened structural steel. What you hope to gain by posting information that every debunker can recite in his sleep, information that you are incapable of understanding, is a mystery.

You have been totally discredited, HI. Either throw in the towel or join Christopher7, Bill Smith, Heiwa, Ultima1, and roundhead in grotesque orgies of self-degradation. The result, however, is in: you lose.
 
Homeland, I wish you'd stop ignoring every post that rips you to pieces. And I do wish you'd stop replying with silly childish questions that have been answered a hundred times over.

It just makes you look like a prat. Perhaps you are one and can't help it. I wouldn't like to say.
 
Last edited:
Homeland Insurgency said:
Well will everyone just listen to this debunker dribble?

They point out that the experts say tons of shaped charges would have been
required to bring down two of the tallest skyscrapers in the world.

But then turnaround and claim planes can do the same thing. Even though NIST their Gospel tells them the planes and impacts did not take down the towers. It was normal building content fire. Besides this in the case of WTC-7 there was no plane impacts or jet fuel. Just normal building content fire.

Debunker logic when painted into a corner...

normal building content fire = tons of shaped charges strategically place over months on every floor attached to building supports.

Hilarious.
Click to expand...


Why do you strange, incredibly stupid people pretend to laugh whenever you make an insane assertion?

For the thousandth time, the planes did not knock the towers down. They caused the collapses by doing damage to the structure and by starting extensive fires. Granted, you are not playing with a full deck, but can even you describe a fire that resulted from the crash of jet airliner as a "normal" office fire? Does your head ever feel like it's about to explode? Is there anything so absurd that you won't resort to it to salvage your idiotic fantasy?
 
FineWine said:
Yes, we all understand that the towers withstood the initial impacts. They didn't fall down immediately, as some of us noticed. Sadly, your desperation has reached the stage where you are compelled to humiliate yourself by citing information that destroys the insane rubbish you peddle. The planes did not knock the buildings down, but they severed and damaged columns, both perimeter and core, and caused extensive fires that weakened structural steel. What you hope to gain by posting information that every debunker can recite in his sleep, information that you are incapable of understanding, is a mystery.
Click to expand...

I'm not peddling rubbish I'm refuting it. Get it straight already. I'm not the one peddling and defending a fable. That would be you and your ilk. Your story is just as delusional as your claims of victory.

Keep reading back in the thread. Your babbling was a great example for me to use.

Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom