Debunker says what?

[Homeland Insurgency]

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.

My consistent claim is that 9/11 was not properly investigated and debunkers don't know what happened anymore then anyone else.

And when you get them talking for pages and pages it's painfully obvious how true this is by how all over there place and easily turnaround they can get in their so-called debunking when trying to cover all the bases when none of the bases have been properly investigated.

The debunking here is all bull.

 

[dtugg]

My consistent claim is that 9/11 was not properly investigated and debunkers don't know what happened anymore then anyone else.

And when you get them talking for pages and pages it's painfully obvious how true this is by how all over there place and easily turnaround they can get in their so-called debunking when trying to cover all the bases when none of the bases have been properly investigated.

The debunking here is all bull.

Do you manage to convince yourself of this by saying it over and over again? Because nobody else here is fooled by you.

 

[triforcharity]

Sweet Fluffy Jesus.........

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..

Um, it WOULD take tons and tons of explosives if you DIDN'T CRASH A F***** Plane into it!!

It wasn't the plane crash that caused the buildings to collapse. It was the plane crash and the UNFOUGHT fires that burned in the building, over many floors.

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 didn't collapse 20 floors, it collapsed a few floors, which caused the global collapse. If you had read the NIST report, you would know this. The collapse was not caused by the plane crash alone. That is evident by the fact that the towers stood for some time even after the initial inpact.

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..

Once the collapse started, it was not able to be stopped. The WTC was not designed to hold the top 30 floors on a single floor. Der.

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..

It doesn't explode. Plus, not to mention, the amount of therm*te that would have been required would have been astronomical!! Well beyond 500,000 pounds. Don't go there, it's a sinking ship.

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.

BS. Just BS. Fire DOES make noise. No matter how small, it will ALWAYS make noise. This is just a dumb*** assumption. Almost as bad as Heiwa's assertion that fire will not heat the air around it.

How did you turn out to be a complete failure in regards to logical thinking?

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

Um, it WOULD take tons and tons of explosives if you DIDN'T CRASH A F***** Plane into it!!

Then out of the other side of his mouth...

It wasn't the plane crash that caused the buildings to collapse. It was the plane crash and the UNFOUGHT fires that burned in the building, over many floors.

BRAVO! What did I say about debunkers trying to cover all the bases? lol

And how loud was the fire?

It didn't collapse 20 floors, it collapsed a few floors, which caused the global collapse. If you had read the NIST report, you would know this. The collapse was not caused by the plane crash alone. That is evident by the fact that the towers stood for some time even after the initial inpact.

Oh please you read it. Still talking out of both sides of your mouth. Your version claims the towers took the impacts and would have remained standing if not for the fires. It was the fires that caused how many floors in your so-called falling block to collapse? Were they not all falling?

Once the collapse started, it was not able to be stopped. The WTC was not designed to hold the top 30 floors on a single floor.

So it WAS 30 floors now collapsing because of the fires? Taking out ONE floor can bring down 30 floors? So why the need to wire every floor? Make up your mind DEBUNKER.

Der.

That's some vocabulary you got there.

It doesn't explode. Plus, not to mention, the amount of therm*te that would have been required would have been astronomical!! Well beyond 500,000 pounds. Don't go there, it's a sinking ship.

Really? What amount equates the heat of building content fire?

BS. Just BS. Fire DOES make noise. No matter how small, it will ALWAYS make noise. This is just a dumb*** assumption. Almost as bad as Heiwa's assertion that fire will not heat the air around it.

Really? Louder then your exploding rockets that also wasn't recorded by anyone? lol Keep talking debunker.

How did you turn out to be a complete failure in regards to logical thinking?

What does that make you?

Oh yeah.... Der

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

Do you manage to convince yourself of this by saying it over and over again? Because nobody else here is fooled by you.

No. I'm convinced by posts like yours. Triforcharity is pretty good too. Did you read his last dribble?

It was classic pretend debunking.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

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.

1. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the World Trade Center Towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why was the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 not arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm

Once again you show your ignorance on this matter. Do some reading please.

 

[triforcharity]

The fire was loud enough that I personally heard it.

Therm*te, in its common form, will only burn for a few seconds. Not nearly enough time to equate to an unfought fire that covered MANY floors.

The initial collapse was a few floors. Not 30 floors. Look at the thousands of upclose videos. You can see the intial collapse starting at a few floors.

You logic is rediculous!!

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

1. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the World Trade Center Towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why was the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 not arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm

Once again you show your ignorance on this matter. Do some reading please.

Ignorance? Did you ignore that's from the frequently asked questions part in their supplement?

Gee I wonder why people were frequently asking that after the report came out?

hmmmm....

Could it be BECAUSE THE NIST REPORT STOPS AT COLLAPSE INITIATION??????

ya think?

 

[dtugg]

No. I'm convinced my posts like yours. Triforcharity is pretty good too. Did you read his last dribble?

It was classic pretend debunking.

Sure. Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. Twoofers must need some comfort after eights years of complete and total failure. Just realize that saying it over and over and over again will not make it come true and that you will fool exactly zero rational people with your faux confidence.

 

[Baylor]

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.

I know what the NIST report says.

 

[FineWine]

Then out of the other side of his mouth...



BRAVO! What did I say about debunkers trying to cover all the bases? lol

And how loud was the fire?



Oh please you read it. Still talking out of both sides of your mouth. Your version claims the towers took the impacts and would have remained standing if not for the fires. It was the fires that caused how many floors in your so-called falling block to collapse? Were they not all falling?



So it WAS 30 floors now collapsing because of the fires? Taking out ONE floor can bring down 30 floors? So why the need to wire every floor? Make up your mind DEBUNKER.



That's some vocabulary you got there.



Really? What amount equates the heat of building content fire?



Really? Louder then your exploding rockets that also wasn't recorded by anyone? lol Keep talking debunker.



What does that make you?

Oh yeah.... Der

You thrash and babble and squirm and flail and twist yourself into knots, all to avoid acknowledging the brute FACT that planes hit the towers causing extensive, unfought fires. In those fires, as in all office fires, things blew up. You cannot acknowledge this indisputable FACT, as doing so would cause your house of cards to fall down. Yet, refusing to acknowledge it makes you appear insane. What is an agenda-driven liar to do?

Try as you might, you can't hope to find any contradictions in what the sane side is saying. There are none.

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

The fire was loud enough that I personally heard it.

Really? Did you record it? Because if not I might have a problem believing how loud you claim it was.

Therm*te, in its common form, will only burn for a few seconds. Not nearly enough time to equate to an unfought fire that covered MANY floors.

A match only burns for a short time on it's own too. But I bet it could start a hell of a building content fire. Didn't they teach you that in firefighter kindergarten?

The initial collapse was a few floors. Not 30 floors. Look at the thousands of upclose videos. You can see the intial collapse starting at a few floors.

Did it bring down the 30 floors above it or not? Maybe you don't believe the official version huh?

You logic is rediculous!!

Well we can't all be "Der". BTW did you mean "ridiculous"?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Ignorance? Did you ignore that's from the frequently asked questions part in their supplement?

Gee I wonder why people were frequently asking that after the report came out?

hmmmm....

Could it be BECAUSE THE NIST REPORT STOPS AT COLLAPSE INITIATION??????

ya think?

You said "That's why NIST never touched that part.".

I showed you that they did. You didn't say "That's why NIST REPORT never touched that part." There you go moving the goal posts yet again. They addressed it in the FAQ, and not in the report, because to them, and any reasonable person, the results after it started dropping were glaringly obvious to (again) reasonable people.

 

[FineWine]

Really? Did you record it? Because if not I might have a problem believing how loud you claim it was.



A match only burns for a short time on it's own too. But I bet it could start a hell of a building content fire. Didn't they teach you that in firefighter kindergarten?



Did it bring down the 30 floors above it or not? Maybe you don't believe the official version huh?



Well we can't all be "Der". BTW did you mean "ridiculous"?

You made up mad, utterly baseless claims to argue about serial-numbered parts with air crash investigators. You flaunt your total ignorance of the NIST Report in comical pseudo-debates with real engineers. Now, you are arguing about firefighting with a firefighter.

Shhh. Listen. Do you hear it? No, not those voices. Do you hear the laughter? Listen harder.

 

[Baylor]

Could it be BECAUSE THE NIST REPORT STOPS AT COLLAPSE INITIATION??????

I know what the NIST report says.

 

[triforcharity]

I am absolutely done with HI. He is trying to get me to lash out at him, but I am better than that.


YOU HEAR THAT HI!!! I AM BETTER THAN YOU!! DEBUNK THAT SON!!!!

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

You said "That's why NIST never touched that part.".

I showed you that they did. You didn't say "That's why NIST REPORT never touched that part." There you go moving the goal posts yet again. They addressed it in the FAQ, and not in the report, because to them, and any reasonable person, the results after it started dropping were glaringly obvious to (again) reasonable people.

Oh give it up...

http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse".

But you can right debunker?

 

[Baylor]

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse".

But you can right?

 

[dtugg]

Oh give it up...

http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse".

But you can right debunker?

Nobody is impressed by your cherry picking and lack of reading comprehension.

 

[DavidJames]

I am absolutely done with HI. He is trying to get me to lash out at him, but I am better than that.

Good for you! I know it will be hard, but I hope you can stick to it. I wish others would reach the same conclusion, if so, without the responses to feed his ego, trolls like HI will disappear from the site.

Don't worry about the lurkers, anyone persuaded by HI won't respond to intelligent arguments anyway.