• 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.

Debunker says what?

Homeland Insurgency said:
How does that fairytale go again? You know, the one about how explosives could never have gotten close to the WTC because of all the security and people who would have witnessed it?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/08/national/main5143545.shtml?tag=stack

Bomb Materials Smuggled into Fed Buildings

Whaaa...?

How did that happen?
Click to expand...

Dumbest. Thread. EVER.

So let me get this straight, HI finds an article about a bunch of lazy security guards getting busted and this somehow makes a case for explosives being planted on 9/11?

I work in property management. Let me clear up a few things:

I could drive a tank past my security staff if I wanted to. This is why there are others measures taken in a properly managed building. Most tenants have their own security measures, building staff such as housekeeping, engineering, valets and such have their own security routines they follow. Elevator techs are fiercely protective of their cars and hoistways becuase tampering with elevator equipment is often fatal on the rare occassion when it happens.

So why even hire uniformed guards to begin with? My insurance requires it.

What you wind up with is layers of security that prevent people from doing things like, you know, ripping down walls in the middle of the night or having nefarious agents scurrying about in elevator shafts. There's other measures we take too, but I'll play those close to chest for the moment.

Hope that clears things up, but I doubt it. HI will go on thinking that building managers rely on one level of security and a poor one at that. This is the same guy that wonders why his barbeque won't melt like the "steel in the towers did", need I remind you.













lol
 
deep44 said:
Well, it shouldn't be a surprise, since you can't really debunk many of the eyewitness accounts. If someone says they definitely heard a bomb go off, you can't debunk it by saying, "they were mistaken, it was a body hitting the ground". That can't be proven, nor can it be proven that they heard a bomb.

The eyewitnesses I'm referring to above heard a very loud noise (or noises). Nobody knows for sure what they were.
Click to expand...

Yes, it can be proven. We have explicit evidence of people jumping, including but not limited to video and witness testimony. Hell, four of the first ten Oral Histories at the NYTimes contains such testimonies from first responders. And in some of those testimonies, such as firefighter Gerard Gorman's, the jumpers impacting the roof were explicitly noted as the source of the explosive noises.
... Also, while I was there in the lobby, the guy who was looking up when the bodies were jumping, the bodies would jump and you'd hear a huge explosion and you'd see just blood splatter on the windows. It was like gruesome.
Click to expand...

On top of that, logic dictates that, in the complete absence of any evidence of explosives, from the columns showing zero signs of explosive destruction and many signs of shear and other mechanical stress (NCSTAR 1-3C), from no victims being reported as having been shredded by fragments (various sources, including CDC "Morbidity and Mortality Weekly" reports and surveillance summaries, to studies published in journals like European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery to Topics in Emergency Medicine), from the complete lack of first responders and others reporting other components like det cord (NYTimes Oral Histories), to the complete lack of signs inside the building of any sort of work to implant explosives (multiple testimonies from various sites. And no, single instances of people people smuggling in explosives in briefcases don't work; a whole damn truck bomb didn't work in '93), you cannot propose explosives as the source of the sounds. That's elementary logic. The fact of the matter is that you cannot separate individual testimonies from the entire context of the event. Even when one witness is unsure of what he/she heard, others are, and even when the noise is unsourced, explosives are still eliminated as a possibility on the strength of all the other existent evidence. It defies logic and simple intelligence to write off all the converging and mutual supporting evidence in favor of a proposal that not only has no positive proof, but is contraindicated. The one explanation for the testimonies that has no proof behind it is the one citing explosives being present. You have no proof. That is the bottom line. Welcome to ignore for blatant logic abuse and no ability to comprehend the totality of the evidence presented. I'm happy to be patient with new people, but you've been here long enough and have had the evidence presented to you enough times to understand the utter lunacy of proposing explosives when no proof of such exists.
 
In the ABSENCE OF PROOF, one goes with what is more likely.

In this case, given the other more common sources (falling bodies, transformers, collapsing structure, etc...) that could explain said explosions, and given THE ABSENCE OF PROOF or EVIDENCE indicating the use of Explosives, the LOGICAL conclusion, the SANE conclusion, is that the "explosions" were caused by one of the more common sources, NOT explosives.

Why is this so hard for people with IQ's presumably above 100, to understand?

TAM:)
 
deep44 said:
So the sound of unknown explosions, which could potentially be evidence of explosives, could not possibly be caused by explosives.. because there's no evidence of explosives?
Click to expand...
“The sight was amazing. I was just totally awestruck. I reported to the command post, showed my ID and asked if I could be of use. They said ‘Absolutely. Stand off on the side with the other medical people.’ I couldn’t fight any fires because I did not have that kind of gear with me, but would have done it if asked.

“I decided to walk closer to the South Tower. I was about 100 ft from the South Tower looking up when the bodies started coming down. I counted 35. They were just piling up on the Marriott Marquis hotel. They were 10 to 15 thick piling up one after another. You could hear them hitting on the side streets. They were hitting cars, and there were lots of explosions.

“I have seen plenty of death in my life, and burned bodies and so forth, but this was incredible. As I was looking up, I saw a body coming down, hit a lamppost and explode like a paint ball. Its arms and legs got torn off and the head ripped off and bounced right by me.”

http://september11.ceenews.com/ar/
electric_broadway_electrical_supplys/
Click to expand...
The sounds would be explosives if there was evidence of explosives. Since there has been no evidence of explosives, the sounds are absolutely not explosives. Please provide even one video of the towers and/or WTC 7 with these sounds.
 
"...with IQ's presumably above 100..."

That's a big assumption, considering who we're talking about.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
On top of that, logic dictates that, in the complete absence of any evidence of explosives, from the columns showing zero signs of explosive destruction and many signs of shear and other mechanical stress (NCSTAR 1-3C), from no victims being reported as having been shredded by fragments (various sources, including CDC "Morbidity and Mortality Weekly" reports and surveillance summaries, to studies published in journals like European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery to Topics in Emergency Medicine), from the complete lack of first responders and others reporting other components like det cord (NYTimes Oral Histories), to the complete lack of signs inside the building of any sort of work to implant explosives (multiple testimonies from various sites. And no, single instances of people people smuggling in explosives in briefcases don't work; a whole damn truck bomb didn't work in '93), you cannot propose explosives as the source of the sounds. That's elementary logic. The fact of the matter is that you cannot separate individual testimonies from the entire context of the event. Even when one witness is unsure of what he/she heard, others are, and even when the noise is unsourced, explosives are still eliminated as a possibility on the strength of all the other existent evidence. It defies logic and simple intelligence to write off all the converging and mutual supporting evidence in favor of a proposal that not only has no positive proof, but is contraindicated. The one explanation for the testimonies that has no proof behind it is the one citing explosives being present. You have no proof. That is the bottom line. Welcome to ignore for blatant logic abuse and no ability to comprehend the totality of the evidence presented. I'm happy to be patient with new people, but you've been here long enough and have had the evidence presented to you enough times to understand the utter lunacy of proposing explosives when no proof of such exists.
Click to expand...


Umm, I haven't said that explosives were present - I have no proof of that. I said that you cannot prove that they were not present by telling us what certain eyewitnesses really heard (as opposed to what they reported).

Your assertion that certain eyewitnesses were all mistaken is an unsubstantiated counterclaim. You think you can pass off all kinds of assumptions about what else should have happened in order for a bomb to have been present - but those are not facts.

The worst part is, people in this forum will use that unsubstantiated counterclaim as "proof" in other arguments.

It is what it is - lots of witnesses heard what they believed were bombs and/or loud, unidentified explosions. That doesn't prove that bombs were present, and it doesn't disprove it.
 
deep44 said:
Umm, I haven't said that explosives were present - I have no proof of that. I said that you cannot prove that they were not present by telling us what certain eyewitnesses really heard (as opposed to what they reported).

Your assertion that certain eyewitnesses were all mistaken is an unsubstantiated counterclaim. You think you can pass off all kinds of assumptions about what else should have happened in order for a bomb to have been present - but those are not facts.

The worst part is, people in this forum will use that unsubstantiated counterclaim as "proof" in other arguments.

It is what it is - lots of witnesses heard what they believed were bombs and/or loud, unidentified explosions. That doesn't prove that bombs were present, and it doesn't disprove it.
Click to expand...
All audio of the collapses substantiate our counterclaim. That is the absolute proof that no explosives were used.
 
deep44 said:
Umm, I haven't said that explosives were present - I have no proof of that. I said that you cannot prove that they were not present by telling us what certain eyewitnesses really heard (as opposed to what they reported).
Click to expand...

Based on experience with the 1993 bombing, on 9/11 there were no man-made explosives large enough or numerous enough to cause the collapse.

There is no technical evidence (seismic records, audio, etc) that indicates man-made explosives.

There is no eyewitness that says he saw man-made explosives in any way that isn't explained by the use of simile, hyperbole or metaphor or by a big piece of steel or a human body hitting the ground.

Here's an eyewitness architect that knew the explosive noises he was hearing was the building coming apart. Steel buildings make explosive noises in a fire.

"... On the 56th floor, an architect believes the building was failing structurally. Architect Bob Shelton had his foot in a cast; he'd broken it falling off a curb two weeks ago. He heard the explosion of the first plane hitting the north tower from his 56th-floor office in the south tower. As he made his way down the stairwell, his building came under attack as well. "You could hear the building cracking. It sounded like when you have a bunch of spaghetti, and you break it in half to boil it." Shelton knew that what he was hearing was bad. "It was structural failure," Shelton says. "Once a building like that is off center, that's it."
Click to expand...
 
There is nothing unsubstantiated about anything I said. For starters, as I noted above, witnesses explicitly reported jumpers, and first responders explicitly noted they were the cause of the sounds they heard. Furthermore, the fact that the steel showed zero signs of explosive damage and multiple, repeated signs of mechanically induced defomations is absolutely, positively substantiated; again, NCSTAR 1-3C is devoted to such damage and failure modes. So are the injury and death reports regarding traumatic injuries at thhe WTC that I noted were published in the journals I listed. So is the fact that no first responder in the NYTimes Oral Histories, or cleanup workers in any published report ever reported materials found consistent with explosives use; read the histories.

The fact is that the witness testimonies of explosions cannot be divorced from the totality of evidence. And the totality of evidence stands: There were no explosives used. Attempting to argue otherwise is to evade the established facts of that day and to ignore the plethora of evidence that exists.

----

People, this is exactly why Deep has eared a spot on my ignore list. He's been around long enough to understand what the totality of the evidence is, and that's apparent by his attempt some of you written responses for to isolate individual aspects from the context of the remaining evidence. There is no "no one knows what really happened", not when you examine the mass of evidence as a whole. A person can be confused about what he heard, but when the rest of the evidence rules out a possibility, it takes real, intentional dishonesty to try to argue the statement in isolation of all that other evidence. He's got nothing substantial to add. I suggest others consider putting him on your ignore list as well.
 
deep44 said:
So the sound of unknown explosions, which could potentially be evidence of explosives, could not possibly be caused by explosives.. because there's no evidence of explosives?
Click to expand...

Der. Now your getting it!!! Only one piece of evidence for explosive devices, and 1000 other pieces of evidence of something else. Get it???
 
Every fourth of july there should be a massive gun shot investigation since all those explosions could be evidence of gun fire. Good work Deep. It's no wonder the world listens to you!

Explosions sounds in a building collapse? Who wouldn't be stumped by that?
 
Last edited:
My five year old was watching a movie with me last night (9/11-The Directors Cut) and as the first building collapsed, he said, "Daddy, if your friends could have put the fire out, the big building wouldn't have fallen, would it?"

HOLY LOGIC BATMAN!!! This is my five year old, who WASN'T EVEN ALIVE AT THE TIME!!!

Now, my 11 year old remebers Daddy being gone for a long time, but that is about it.

Maybe HE should come on here and explain it to these idiot "Truthers". Heck, he understands what happened that day.
 
triforcharity said:
Der. Now your getting it!!! Only one piece of evidence for explosive devices, and 1000 other pieces of evidence of something else. Get it???
Click to expand...

I wouldn't even call it "one piece of evidence". He has to deliberately remove context from witness statements in order to present them as arguments in favor of explosives. In reality, they're testminonials on the audible aspects of a building disintegrating. But conspiracy peddlers routinely separate context from individual pieces of evidence in order to make them sound the way they want them to sound like. Gravy has examples on one of his pages that show this exact method of distortion.
 
Believe me, if there was ONE firefighter that thought that CD took down the towers, there would be a HUGE uproar!! Heck, we have ridiculed the top brass of FDNY because of radio issues. We have ridiculed FDNY top brass because of problems with certain equipment failure. You think that we would just keep quiet because we could loose our jobs?? BS, pure, unfiltered BS. We lost 343 friends that day. We wouldn't just sit by idle while the death of our Brothers goes by the wayside.

Plus, were union, we wouldn't loose our jobs. We have contracts. If we are a whistleblower, the union protects us.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
I wouldn't even call it "one piece of evidence". He has to deliberately remove context from witness statements in order to present them as arguments in favor of explosives. In reality, they're testminonials on the audible aspects of a building disintegrating. But conspiracy peddlers routinely separate context from individual pieces of evidence in order to make them sound the way they want them to sound like. Gravy has examples on one of his pages that show this exact method of distortion.
Click to expand...


Yes, that webpage you provided is the source of the unsubstantiated counterclaims. Following eyewitness accounts from 16 first responders who heard bombs, explosions, or loud noises (please see the webpage for the exact quotes), we're told that they were all hearing bodies hit the ground.

You may suspect that they were hearing bodies, for whatever reason, but there is no proof provided.

Now, this is important: that does not prove that bombs were going off. Furthermore, I'm not suggesting that bombs went off.

Please read the bolded text before you reply and accuse me of "peddling conspiracies", or whatever else.
 
triforcharity said:
Believe me, if there was ONE firefighter that thought that CD took down the towers, there would be a HUGE uproar!!
Click to expand...


Right. Please understand: if (HYPOTHETICALLY) one of these eyewitnesses really did hear a bomb, would that prove the CD hypothesis? No, of course not. Bombs come in all shapes & sizes, with varying levels of destructive ability. The presence of one bomb does not prove the presence of multiple-tons of explosives, or anything like that.

Please stop associating my argument with the CD hypothesis.
 
lapman said:
By George, I think you've got it.
Click to expand...

No. His reply was deliberately and carefully framed in a particular matter to make it look like agreement, but leave room for semantic quibbling.

I don't see that any further effort at communication under those circumstances is warranted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom