• 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.

No excuse for not testing for explosives

dommyboysinjapan

Thinker
D
Joined
Apr 21, 2008
Messages
143
My name is Dom Shenher and I am very proud to belong to the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.

This message is for all those who realize that the story we are being given is wrought with lies and contrary evidence, yet somehow dismiss completely the theory of controlled demolition concerning WTC Towers 1,2, and 7.

First, please stop speculating on how much bomb material would be required. This does nothing to debunk the notion that explosives or incendiaries could have been used along with the airplanes.

In 1993, it is agreed by the mainstream community as well as all the alternative theorists that someone indeed managed to not only plant, but detonate a bomb within the WTC buildings. We know this. Furthermore it has been well established that the intention of the
terrorists who perpetrated this crime was to knock down both buildings:

http://truthcanada.freeforums.org/s...ity-concerning-demolition-theories-t1216.html


Snipped in accordance with Rule 4. Do not quote long tracts of material available elsewhere. Instead, post a short segment and a link to the other source.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This should be in the 911 CT section.

The collapses can be explained to the satisfaction of most of the world's professionals without the need to use explosives. What reason other than "they've used explosives before" do you have to suspect they were used on 9/11?
 
You have failed

dommyboysinjapan said:
My name is Dom Shenher and I am very proud to belong to the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.
Click to expand...
That's nothing to be proud of. Oh, and I might even bother reading your drivel (which I'm sure has been debunked time and time again) had you bothered to put it in the right place. Better luck next time, eh?
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
Furthermore, it took NIST over 7 years to get a handle on why WTC 7 fell, FEMA said (in its initial investigation) that their own hypothesis had a low probability and admitted that it required more research.
Click to expand...
yes, thats why more research was done. funny how that works out isnt it?

It very closely resembled a typical controlled demolition yet no-one thought to conduct a more comprehensive investigation into the theory of CD or look more closely for the presence of incendiary devices?
Click to expand...
NIST actually did test for explosives in its investigation of WTC7 after much bellyaching by the truth movement. 3 guesses what they found (the first 2 dont count)
 
Jesus, can't the Truthers at least come up with some NEW craziness that will have some entertainment value?

I love the guy's avatar, talk about a "Cool, Heroic, Rebel Against The Man" stereotype.......
 
Repeat from general conspiracy theories... Ignore....
 
defaultdotxbe,

"NIST actually did test for explosives in its investigation of WTC7 after much bellyaching by the truth movement."

It did not conduct tests for explosive residues on any of the steel samples.
 
Last edited:
I fail to see why terrorists would have needed to use explosives in addition to the planes. The planes pretty much advertise how weak our security is. And I doubt bringing the towers down was their goal, just an added bonus.
 
lol.

Hey dommyboysinjapan, have you read anything other than Truther websites? That stuff you brought up has been gone over and over and over hundreds of times, even just on this forum.

Personally I wouldn't mind so much going over them again, but the problem is that if you are aware of the criticisms of your points, why just state them again in the exact same way as if no one had ever heard them before?
 
Last edited:
dommyboysinjapan said:
First, please stop speculating on how much bomb material would be required. This does nothing to debunk the notion that explosives or incendiaries could have been used along with the airplanes.
Click to expand...
No - Claims don't need to be debunked. Claims need to be supported by evidence. Let me know when you have some.
dommyboysinjapan said:
WTC was demolished with thermite so the American government must have been involved=conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...
There is no evidence to support thermite was used to demolish the buildings.
dommyboysinjapan said:
WTC failed as a result of structural damage and fire because of Al Qaeda alone=conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...
Wrong - Claim is supported by evidence from NIST, 9/11 report etc. The NIST report has not been challenged with analysis and supporting evidence using any professionally recognized mechinism.
dommyboysinjapan said:
Based on dust samples that had unreacted nanothermite found at the site and witness testimonies as well as the historical precedent of a bomb being used in 93, let's at least do more testing of the remaining steel pieces to discern if there were also any explosives or incendiary devices present=/=conspiracy theory. There is no theory being suggested as to who commited the crime.
Click to expand...
Wrong - there is no evidence of "unreacted nonothermite.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
Jesus, can't the Truthers at least come up with some NEW craziness that will have some entertainment value?

I love the guy's avatar, talk about a "Cool, Heroic, Rebel Against The Man" stereotype.......
Click to expand...

Those glasses went out of style 30 years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom