watch for the squibs used in demolition

by ninja 75 Replies latest jw friends

  • Abaddon


    It's quite charming in its own way; there you go, insisting something you haven't been able to prove is possible happened.

    Don't take it personally; no one in the 911 conspiracy league has been able to prove it was possible to plant demolition charges without anyone noticing. They've not even really tried; see the pattern of behaviour? Confronted with the fact the alternative explanation they offer is impossible they carry on insisting the official story is rubbish and the towers were demolished.

    Just like Flood believers ignore the ark was impossible and carry on with their beliefs regardless.

    I cut and paste as you seem unwilling or incapable of examining evidence that refutes conspiracist claims yourself. At least if I c&p you can't pretend you haven't seen it and any excuse for not responding to the refutation of conspiracist nonsense is gone.

    The link for the data you want is already in the post; good to see you're doing thorough research, LOL, here's the spoon-feed, open wide, it's an aeroplane!!!

    I see none of the people supporting the conspiracist theories seem to have bothered looking at a reference Leolalia provided earlier

    It basically says;

    1/ The collapse of WTC1 & 2 did not look like controlled demolition. These start with an explosion at the base; WTC1 & 2 started at impact point.

    2/ Explosive charges would either have to already be in place and be put in place without anyone noticing (impossible, large amount of the outer-perimeter interior walls would need to be removed let alone all the other visible disruption wiring a building for demolition would cause) and be unaffected by impact of explosion (impossible) or put in place in 55 minutes whilst the building was on fire (impossible).

    3/ No building of the size of WTC 1,2 & 7 has ever been demolished using controlled explosive demolition

    4/ Claims the buildings fell largely in their own footprints are wrong.

    5/ So called 'squibs' are pneumatic effects of the collapse

    6/ Eyewitness reports of explosions are probably mistaken given the lack of evidence for the use of explosives and the lack of seismograph evidence for explosions - and please don't make yourself look silly by using the graph beloved of conspiracists that seems to show something but when viewed in greater detail allows better resolution of the various stages of collapse and conclusively shows no signs of demolition explosions.

    7/ No evidence has been found of thermite; Jones samples lack any proper trail of evidence that would preclude contamination and no signs of Hermite use (it's pretty characteristic) were noted in any beams in the eight months of removing debris.

    8/ Steel from the WTC site was treated no differently from other scrap steel coming out of a pile of rubble, except that the WTC steel had a lot more people examining it.

    9/ WTC7 collapsed whilst several demolition teams were nearby;

    "We were all standing around helpless... we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. ... but I never heard explosions like demo charges. We knew with the damage to he building and how hot the ire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited an a little later it went."

    Of course, conspiracists all know that they, ignorant of demolition as they are, must know better sat in front of a computer screen after the event than demolition workers a few hundred yards away on the day... or that these demolition workers are liars and part of the conspiracy. Self-deluding arrogance or what?

    10/ 'Pull it' does not mean 'controlled explosion' to someone in the demolition industry

    11/ WTC7 sustained far severer damage than is made out by consopiracists and burnt unchecked for hours.

    12/ Claims that no steel-framed buildings ever collapsed before due to fire are false and irrelevant; besides, no vessel like Titanic had ever sunk before until one did, no Space Shuttle was ever lost until one was; the argument 'no steel framed building collapsed due to fire before therefore it must have been explosives is untrue and illogical.

    But of course, all the information in a report by demolition experts that indicate explosive demolition to be a fantasy is the work of stooges, and all the eye witness testimony from firefighters that prove WTC7 was showing all the signs of collapsing due to structural damage from being hit by rubble and from uncontrolled fires hours before it finally collapsed is just ignored by conspiracists.

    After all, if a firefighter says something that means your pet theory is impossible, he must be lying and part of a cover-up that killed hundreds of his colleauges.

    I'd love to see some of these conspiracists take their self-obsessed (well, you'd have to be to unreasonably ignore facts in favour of your own opinion) excreta into a New York firestation, find Deputy Fire Chief Peter Hayden and Fire Chief Daniel Nigro and tell them they were liars and parts of the conspiracy... because free of all the sanctimonious 'ooo, we're making the 'truth' know', that is what the conspiracists do. Accuse thousands of men and women of being liars, without one piece of solid evidence to support their claims.


    The quote from NORAD by AP says 'scrambled', not 'intercepted'. The same news item confirms the events of the day and shows changes were made to procedures after 911.

    Funny how a conspiracist website can take 'scrambled' to mean 'intercept' when it suits them, but also fail to note in their article the source of their quote actually supports what they are arguing against.

    How like the Borg - who use clever quotes from die-hard evolutionists to make it look like evolution is in doubt in the scientific community.

    To be honest, I wouldn't wipe my arse with the website you quoted it is so biased; it starts with a fallacy and goes downhill from there. It also supports 'a missile hit the Pentagon' theory another classic of Conspiracist bullshit where the eye-witness testimony of the majority, those people who saw a passenger jet fly into the Pentagon (dozens on the Interstate it flew over just before impact alone) and concentrates on those few that support their preconception.

    And the testimony of someone like Scott Forbes, which Leolalia dismantles nicely, is taken as gospel truth...

    And still we wait for the explanation of how explosives were planted without anyone knowing about it.

    And it won't be coming any time soon because it is impossible.

  • Gill

    Well, something odd is going on!

    From today in the UK phone calls made from land lines or mobiles are recorded as to where when to whom etc they were made and any government official can know who and where and what you were doing with your phone, talking to who, saying what etc!

    And you know what! No one has batted an eye lid!

  • Homerovah the Almighty
    Homerovah the Almighty

    Utter nonsense , that was compressed air popping those windows when the upper portion was falling air pressure from air ducts blew also blowing the windows out

    Folks the terrorists never knew the buildings were going to collapse it was all a added bonus

  • funkyderek

    I have my own conspiracy theory. Perhaps those who created the 9/11 conspiracy theories deliberately and consciously decided to test just how gullible people could be. So they took the most recorded events in human history - events that were witnessed live by hundreds of millions of people, and recorded in virtually second-by-second detail by thousands of independent devices, and claimed they didn't happen. Instead, they claimed it was one of the most elaborate and pointless covert operations ever attempted, involving tens of thousands of people, all willing to play a part in mass murder and high treason with not a trace of a guilty conscience among them. Simultaneously, they claim that this flawless work of genius was bungled so badly that the mistakes could be easily seen on film and the mastermind of the operation accidentally let slip that he planned it all.

    And people buy it! Most people dismiss it of course, but many many people just seem to lap it up. Any puzzling piece of information is taken as absolutely solid evidence for a conspiracy, and no amount of expert opinion is enough to convince these people otherwise. That strikes me as something more than just gullibility. It shows a shocking willingness to believe some guy from the Internet over every other source; government agencies, intelligence reports, eyewitnesses, video footage, all dismissed in favour of the ramblings of some loonie with a website and too much time on his hands (or indeed, a secret cabal trying to plumb the depths of American idiocy).

    I fear for the future of the human race.

  • Abaddon


    1/ What you say has nothing to do with the bunch of bullshit paraded by us by the conspiracists in this thread. Start another thread about communication privacy by all means.

    2/ Retaining details of number dialled, time and length of call and (if a mobile) what cell the call is made in has been extended to one year. There have been a mismash of laws applying previously and this is not the big change one can make it out to be on a slow news Monday if your are a Journo with space to fill.

    You say "what you were... saying what etc!"

    That's simply not true; the calls are LOGGED, not RECORDED.

  • zeroday

    That's simply not true; the calls are LOGGED, not RECORDED.

    Abaddon, I have been following these threads as they appear and have resisted commenting on them. I applaud your effort but I believe even you know it is fruitless to try and reason with these people. There is nothing you or anyone can say to reason with them. It is laughable to believe this could have been pulled off by what hundreds if not thousands of people and NOT ONE PERSON would spill the beans. I just shake my head and laugh at them...

  • berten

    >...To be honest, I wouldn't wipe my arse with the website you quoted it is so biased...

    And "Popular Mechanics" is not ?

    Here's another site to "wipe your arse with" :

    And here's another thing to "wipe your arse with:(Watch out for the splinters)

    >...How like the Borg

    Pot Kettle and Black ...

  • Abaddon


    LOL. Errrr... you don't notice the difference between what we do is that you make a claim, and it is refutted you ignore it's been refutted.

    No comment on the misleading way the website you quoted regarding interception of the flights presents a quote from an article which actually supports the official story? Just like the WT does over evolution? No, of course not, you knew you were right at the beginning, what difference does being shown to use misleading claims and inaccurate data make when you have already decided you are right?

    You also seem to ignore what you allege happen is, until proven otherwise is physically impossible. It was not possible to plant the explosives required to take those buildings down without people noticing.

    As YOU are the one making the extraordinary claim YOU need to provide the evidence YOUR claim is even possible... and as all the numb nuts running conspiracy websites can't prove planting demolition charges was possible without detection, it is not surprising you are in the same boat.

    So, me saying your behaviour has cultic aspects (ignoring inconvenient facts, holding things you cannot prove as possible as factual, utlilizing misleading quotations), is reasonable and supported by your behaviour, and you doing the same to me is sour grapes.

    Now, let's see; the photo of the cut beams is a good illustration of your credulity and low standards of evidence. You assume that it is evidence of the use of thermite without;

    • Knowing when it was taken
    • Thinking that as the WTC was not Lego, when it collapsed maybe they needed to cut bits of it up to remove the debris
    • Knowing how they managed to plant explosives in the WTC without anyone noticing

    Here's a more comprehensive rubbishing of this particular piece of Conspiracist stupidity or deception;

    The other link shows you have had the arrogance or laziness not to read material already posted that show;

    • the collapse of WTC7 took longer than 6.5 seonds,
    • that it was not symetrical,
    • that the building showed signs of collapse three hours before it finally went down, which is not really a characteristic of demolition now, eh?


    Abaddon, I have been following these threads as they appear and have resisted commenting on them. I applaud your effort but I believe even you know it is fruitless to try and reason with these people. There is nothing you or anyone can say to reason with them. It is laughable to believe this could have been pulled off by what hundreds if not thousands of people and NOT ONE PERSON would spill the beans. I just shake my head and laugh at them...

    Oh, you're quite right, in fact I predicted their behaviour at the outset. I suppose I am curious about exactly how foolish they are willing to make themselves appear, I also enjoy a good discussion and live in the hope one day a conspiracist will give me a good discussion and presnt an argument that doesn't require me to believe something impossible without evidence, ignore contrary evidence or use fallacies.

    Other than personal enjoyment I adopt this approach to maybe sometime accurately inform those on the edge; the people who are not psychologically predisposed towards this rot but who might put credit in ridiculous claims - be they about the Flood, Evolution or 911 because they have busy lives and might not have the time to research the subject independently. The volume of noise generated by 911ers and ID-ots is such it can mislead people into thinking they have an argument that is credible.

    I also find the psychology of belief very interesting and seeing its pathology at work in these threads is instructive.

  • berten

    So all those architects and engineers have it wrong.

    So says the wise Abaddon...

    >...the collapse of WTC7 took longer than 6.5 seonds...

    It took probably a little over 7 secs,happy now?

  • ninja
    ninja doesnt anyone else find it funny that marvin bush ...that is marvin BUSH...was involved with the company who provided security for dulles airport and the wtc complex?....securacom/stratosec....think about it....nah sorry ...probably just a coincidence....

Share this