Ghosts of the Firemen

Also... do you think they wanted it to look like a controlled demolition?


That's what makes WTC 7 so compelling... because they did pull it more like a traditional CD, where all the floors fell together.


People only reference a CD, because that is the closet thing to what happened on 9/11 i.e. explosives being used to bring down tall buildings. When Peter Jennings... says that it looked like a controlled demolition.... well that's because the only other time we have seen images like this (tall buildings collapsing to the ground) is when an old building is CD.


These buildings weren't CD... they were demolished, but in a very crafty way




Damn, he just mousepawed himself again. Three times in one post! A new Forum Record!


949045971fa0b9755.jpg


Do you think he even realizes that he contradicts himself in one part, and then uses arguments that work against his thesis just as well as they work for it in the other two?

No, I thought not.
 
And the bomb sniffing dogs that were in the building weeks previous to 911 didn't catch a single ounce of explosive? Did they have nose plugs and their jaws wired shut? it is simply NOT POSSIBLE to covertly plant any amount of explosives in such a building that could bring it down without Tennant or security detection IMPOSSIBLE!! it is YOU who are wildly speculating. You suffer from a learning disability called Right Brain syndrome. aside from your delusional wild speculation you are completely absent of hard evidence. PROVE it. Let me tell you ignoring dozens of members here does not help your case at all and reveals you as a fool.

FINALLY... someone got caught in one of my traps... You perfectly illustrated the point I was making in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2231931#post2231931

You are debunking with pure speculation. How does one even prove whether or not they could have brought (the amount of explosives required to bring down the towers) into the buildings without people noticing? Tell me, how I would prove (without using speculation) that it's possible to get these explosives in the buildings unnoticed.

Honestly, you just want to drag the debate down into a place, where only speculation can provide answers... in a place like this, you will always be able to "debunk" things... for the only thing required is speculation - which is at your sole discretion.
 
28IQ, Stop slipping in your stupid lie about "pulling" bottom floors. No demolition expert anywhere thinks that "pulling" means blow up the building. Cut the crap. You frauds have been completely exposed on this falsehood.

You are an ignoramus who uses bogus jargon to attempt to con people who actually know something about the subject.

Pull this.
 
How does one even prove whether or not they could have brought (the amount of explosives required to bring down the towers) into the buildings without people noticing? Tell me, how I would prove (without using speculation) that it's possible to get these explosives in the buildings unnoticed.

Then your entire CD theory is BUNK !

You show us how you came to this conclusion that explosives were used, WITH EVIDENCE, please.
 
FINALLY... someone got caught in one of my traps... You perfectly illustrated the point I was making in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2231931#post2231931

You are debunking with pure speculation. How does one even prove whether or not they could have brought (the amount of explosives required to bring down the towers) into the buildings without people noticing? Tell me, how I would prove (without using speculation) that it's possible to get these explosives in the buildings unnoticed.

Honestly, you just want to drag the debate down into a place, where only speculation can provide answers... in a place like this, you will always be able to "debunk" things... for the only thing required is speculation - which is at your sole discretion.

The problem here is that we DO have evidence. Evidence of nobody noticing such a big operation going on right under their noses, right under their feet. On the other hand, you have nothing, zip, nada as to prove such a big operation WAS carried out.
 
Did you ever see a building collapse before that wasn't a controlled demolition? People's reference for buildings falling down all are based on the footage of controlled demolitions. (emphasis added)

Thank you... Thank you... Thank you - no, I haven't ever seen a building completely collapse, that wasn't a controlled demolition. No, I haven't ever seen a high-rise building collapse that wasn't brought down by explosives - Pre 9/11 or AFTER 9/11.

BECAUSE HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS DON'T JUST COLLAPSE... THAT'S WHY CD ARE THE ONLY REFERENCE WE HAVE FOR HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS COLLAPSING! GET IT!
 
Last edited:
Thank you... Thank you... Thank you - no, I haven't ever seen a building completely collapse, that wasn't a controlled demolition. No, I haven't ever seen a high-rise building collapse that wasn't brought down by explosives - Pre 9/11 or AFTER 9/11.

BECAUSE HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS DON'T JUST COLLAPSE... THAT'S WHY CD ARE THE ONLY REFERENCE WE HAVE FOR HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS COLLAPSING! GET IT!

AND IF I USE ALL CAPS, MY THEORY MUST BE TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Thank you... Thank you... Thank you - no, I haven't ever seen a building completely collapse, that wasn't a controlled demolition. No, I haven't ever seen a high-rise building collapse that wasn't brought down by explosives - Pre 9/11 or AFTER 9/11.

BECAUSE HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS DON'T JUST COLLAPSE... THAT'S WHY CD ARE THE ONLY REFERENCE WE HAVE FOR HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS COLLAPSING! GET IT!

Pure and unadulterated idiocy.

It's not because you haven't seen a building collapse that wasn't because of a controlled demolition that buildings can't collapse for other reasons.

9/11 was a unique event.

You've just debunked your own Peter Jennings argument about CD.
 
suffice to say, buildings collapse for several reason that isn't due to CD.
some collapse due to earthquakes
some collapse due to faulty engineering.
some collapse due to fire (and fire alone).

high rise buildigns DO collapse. we had three of them already prove that.
 
BECAUSE HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS DON'T JUST COLLAPSE... THAT'S WHY CD ARE THE ONLY REFERENCE WE HAVE FOR HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS COLLAPSING! GET IT!

Whats the tallest building brought down by controlled demolition?
 
28th Kingdom " Side Note: Maccy, yer on ignore... I don't put up with tyranny... isn't that obvious by now?"

28k you don't just put up with Tyranny you fantasize about it. Nothing gets you hotter than imagining hiding out from FEMA death squads with your band of rebels - suddenly you're an outsider and somehow significant. Even though you benefit from freedoms that people entirely unlike you have fought to achieve and preserve, you prefer to roll over in front of things like the Patriot Act, inflate them into a private masturbatory dictatorship and auto-erotically whine about them on internet message boards. You'll claim that you're taking the high-road with your conspiracy delusions while all those schmucks in the ACLU are idiots for actually engaging in the political process and attempting to address the serious issues of personal liberty versus collective security. In reality, you want to feel persecuted: so you'll never get involved in a campaign that might achieve something - especially as the ideals of a campaign are always tempered by the reality of the world and so real political activists have to accept failure and still keep fighting. Only unrealised fantasies remain unsullied - but they are the ultimate failure because they also remain unfulfilled. Luckily, not everybody is as spineless and solipsistic as you, and so liberty remains largely intact and vigourously fought for always, requiring you to fantasize all the harder. I suppose this is the only way you can preserve your self-importance; you'd be happier if you let the ego go, I should think, but I doubt you'll ever realise this.

LashL: feel free to quote this for 28th's benefit and to elaborate on its themes, if that doesn't get you ignored I'm not sure what will. Suggested insult: lickspittle.

Here you go, 28th.

Maccy is 100% correct. You and the rest of the tinhatters spew such utter twaddle without even recognizing that you constantly act completely opposite to the words that you type so furiously upon your keyboards, with one hand.

Your posts are boring and predictable. You have nothing new to say. You have nothing original to say. Your mother should really take your internet access away.

Oh, and lickspittle.

 
Last edited:
These buildings weren't CD... they were demolished, but in a very crafty way... that made it look like the buildings collapsed due to the plane impact. Obviously, they couldn't have just pulled the bottom floors first, because that would look too suspicious.

But they didn't fool you, hey?

This is so stupid I feel compelled to add it to my signature, thank you 28th.
 
Pure and unadulterated idiocy.

It's not because you haven't seen a building collapse that wasn't because of a controlled demolition that buildings can't collapse for other reasons.

9/11 was a unique event.

You've just debunked your own Peter Jennings argument about CD.

What is this?

It's not because you haven't seen a building collapse that wasn't because of a controlled demolition that buildings can't collapse for other reasons.

Then where are your reports of high-rise buildings...collapsing to the ground for any other reason than explosives? We've had many other high-rise buildings with huge fires... other high-rise buildings that were hit by planes.... high-rise buildings that were severely damaged in hurricanes or from earthquakes... but, still no other high-rise buildings falling to the ground in seconds from something other than explosives.

So, why should we take this leap of faith and say that on 9/11 it (high-rise buildings collapsing to the ground without explosives) not only happened once... or twice... but three times? All three buildings with different degrees (and types) of damage, yet all falling magically to the ground (in seconds) unlike anything we have ever seen before.

You don't have to agree with the PET, to say... that given the odds... planted explosives are more than likely the cause of the collapses... simply based upon the information we knew before 9/11 about the history of these types of tall structures.
 
Last edited:
Ok, must decloak.

28th Kingdom you are an idiot.

cloak back on.

Please be kind to me mods.

I will be kind to you, if you play nice. Please don't use insults.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Check it Out

Check out the entire "Ghosts of the Firemen" thread on 911bloggers.com.

This one's a pip!
 
You don't have to agree with the PET, but that doesn't mean you can't say... that given the odds... planted explosives are more than likely the cause of the collapses... simply based upon the information we knew before 9/11 about the history of these types of tall structures.

Why are you focused on "information we knew before 9/11"?

What about the information we know about the events of 9/11? How do you account for this information?

Hmm, where have I seen a posting style that utilizes ... frequently before?
 
FINALLY... someone got caught in one of my traps... You perfectly illustrated the point I was making in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2231931#post2231931

You are debunking with pure speculation. How does one even prove whether or not they could have brought (the amount of explosives required to bring down the towers) into the buildings without people noticing? Tell me, how I would prove (without using speculation) that it's possible to get these explosives in the buildings unnoticed.

Honestly, you just want to drag the debate down into a place, where only speculation can provide answers... in a place like this, you will always be able to "debunk" things... for the only thing required is speculation - which is at your sole discretion.


Nope you side stepped the question. Nice dance routine you have there but it wont work here. I have succeeded in "dragging the argument" to a place where your scenario falls on its face. Not that I needed to because you cannot prove any of your other points elsewhere. You are caught in a trap where you cannot even speculate on the plausibility of a CD setup. even Judy Wood idiot that she is realized the impossibility of CD which is why they went to a star wars space ray.
 
Why are you focused on "information we knew before 9/11"?

What about the information we know about the events of 9/11? How do you account for this information?

Hmm, where have I seen a posting style that utilizes ... frequently before?

Why do we always reference scientific laws from the past? So on 9/11 the world just turned up side down... and history was out the window... and scientific laws that we have used for hundreds of years are suddenly debatable and in question... don't you see what you're doing friend?

No, not anything is possible, because planes hit buildings... it doesn't warp the universal laws of nature.
 

Back
Top Bottom