You just can't debunk this

I've been thinking some /\ /\ /\ people were really just mentally handicapped, but in the meantime I've figured this might be untrue. Always ignoring the tough points, always reiterating the same old same old, what gives?

From what I've read electrical components don't cause earthshaking explosions. Where were these natural gas lines installed?

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
Can you prove otherwise?

Yes! I can. On September 11th, 2001 I saw two planes hit the world trade center in New York City.

-- Boat

I haven't watched it yet, but I did skim through - it certainly looks interesting one way or another.

You should beware of propoganda from either side though, you can watch very convincing programs telling the official story and unless you are one of the people that wants explosives to be involved then almost end up feeling satisfied. In the same way though that people can pick apart the official ones these alternative programs usually have their faults too.

It basically boils down to the presentation and bias of the program and the individual, I can't comment fairly yet on this but a number of times I've gone into watching these sort of things being prepared to face the awful truth, only to find it as full of inconsistancies and errors as the official line is accused of having.

Obviously there is more to the whole thing than they wish us to believe, even I've never disputed that (from what I can remember anyway), but as I've said time and time again you can bet your ass it won't be as simple as 'The Government did it' by any means. As I've pointed out elsewhere too, even if explosives were ever proven to be involved, it still does not mean it was an inside job in the context of Government, the buildings security may have been compromised over the years by foreign powers or organisations just as easily.

I do believe that the Government seized the opportunity to go on a violent rampage in the Middle East though, sad as it is.

Why would it be so hard to understand ones government doing something to get an agenda across.


Its been done a zillion times, we aren't special man.. Bush and all knew this happened and would happen. its just the point of proving we are write or wrong that's all.. just like a half ass'd investigation turn real.

Ohh and to say Bush had nothing to do with this would be saying the Easter bunny kills little kids on Easter. Remember Bush's brother or something was chief security guy at the WTC before this happened. 2 weeks before the attacks all bomb sniffing dags weren't allowed near the towers.

Why do something yourself when you can just poke a hornet's nest enough and then let nature take it's course... If you know what I mean..
Plausible deniablilty, saves money, iron tight alibi.

Why is it so hard, because the governemtn does not need a reason, that's why.

They did not need 9/11.They did not want 9/11, they did not plan 9/11, yet they get all the blame. The blame lies on Al-Qeada,the ones who purportrated this obscene act.

You have newcasters stating" it is falling like a demolition", and "there were 3 explosions, bom boom boom'. First, 3 explosions would not ahve bought down the WTC, and secondly, again I will state, it is known that these were either electrical or gas explosions.


ONe thing that it always not mentioned, is that the man in charge of the WTC, was on the upper floors and radioed down that he saw major structural damage to the elevators and the support structure, and he was scared the tower would fall. He needed someone up there to verify. This was the exact same man who in Jan 2001 in an interview stated that the WTC could take a hit from a 707 and survive. So, the same guy who you quote as saying it would survive a hit, was calling for help because he knew it was going to collape. This occured less than 20 minutes after the impact.

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
Remember Bush's brother or something was chief security guy at the WTC before this happened. 2 weeks before the attacks all bomb sniffing dags weren't allowed near the towers.

That's not strictly true, there was at least one permanent bomb dog there that was killed in the collapse:

(AP) More than 100 K-9 dogs and their police handlers gathered Wednesday in a tribute to Sirius, the only police dog to die in the World Trade Center disaster.

As Officer David Lim went to help evacuate the trade center when it was attacked Sept. 11, he expected to return for the dog he left behind in a basement kennel.

But the towers collapsed, and Lim, a Port Authority of New York and New Jersey officer, was trapped in the debris for several hours. No one was able to save the 5-year-old yellow Labrador retriever, a bomb-sniffing dog for the trade center.
www.cbsnews.com...

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, the Explosive Detector Team for the World Trade Center – consisting of Lim and Sirius – were in their South Tower basement office when the first plane struck the North Tower. Officer Lim put his 4-year-old partner in his kennel and headed off to the damaged tower to help

“I told him, ‘I think we’re in a lot of trouble right now,’” said Lim, who assumed he and Sirius had somehow failed to detect an explosive. “I said, ‘I’ll be back for you.’”

But before Lim could return, the events of the day unfolded, the South Tower collapsed followed by the North Tower, burying Lim on the fourth floor with six firefighters and an injured woman. The people were all safely rescued five hours later.
www.downtownexpress.com...

What you are referring too is the period of heightened security that was reverted back to normal prior to the disaster.
The question is, as this one-man/dog team was responsible for finding even a small explosive package in the towers, how come the dog didn't go mental with all the explosives suggested to be lining both buildings?

Well, of course there were explosions. There were explosions as trapped gasses ignited. There were explosions as the support beams began to buckle and flaming gasses were compressed and expanded. Water pipes exploding as they were heated to steam. All kinds of things exploding and blazing away. Even a lot of falling stuff that was so noisy and boomy that I'm sure they sounded and felt like explosions.

Why? Because a couple of jets crashed into the buildings.

What's to debunk?

Ok Agent smith guess you've never been in any contact with explosives or detector dogs?

The dogs have to be trained to a certain smell, not just a catch all but a specific smell, and can only work for short periods of time till they need a rest. Certain types of C4 and Hex have no detectable trace smells, along with a variant of semtex the czechs made. the only reason why semtex is traceable now is because after the cold war ended the west asked th czechs to add this ingredient.

Ok you say, the dogs will have gone mental with the large volumes of explosives? not at all... if it cannot smell it, then its not even going to know its there! The British army learnt this the hard way in NI during the war with the IRA.

Originally posted by MadGreebo
[....]
Ok you say, the dogs will have gone mental with the large volumes of explosives? not at all... if it cannot smell it, then its not even going to know its there! The British army learnt this the hard way in NI during the war with the IRA.

Oh fair enough, I didn't realise that. But then surely there would not be the need to reduce security back to normal and remove the additional dogs either, which is implied as being indication of an inside job due to the chance the dogs would detect it.
Surely, bearing what you said in mind and there was no danger of bomb dogs detecting it anyway, it would have made it seem even more realistic to have kept them all there? Then it would have made an even better case in defence of explosive theories?

Basically what I'm saying is:

1) How is removing the bomb dogs indication of an inside job if they didn't need too, due to using undetectable explosives.

2) If 1 became null and void for some reason, then why did the assigned dog not detect them?

Either way, I see at the least no proof of foul play by removing these additional animals and at most indication that there were no explosives present.

[edit on 10-3-2006 by AgentSmith]

Fair comment agent and I can see where your coming from.

The removal of the dogs isn't an indicator IMHO, because of the fact that those who may have organised 9/11 would of had the records of all the dogs training and specific threats they were primed to find ie a dog trained to hunt fertalisier bombs would just blank semtex, Hex ect ect. They would of used an un-traceable explosive and left it till it blew.

What concerns me though is the pattern it fell, and the speed the floors dropped. Oh, and the dancing Israelis don't make it any easier to figure out either.

This in years to come will either be unmasked as the most grotesqe act against civilians by a Goverment, or the biggest black ops cover for the real reasons the world trade center fell.

(Funny how it all stayed super hot for months after, and so many people profited from such a terrible disaster!)

Originally posted by esdad71
First, 3 explosions would not ahve bought down the WTC

And yet you believe that no explosives did?

ONe thing that it always not mentioned, is that the man in charge of the WTC, was on the upper floors and radioed down that he saw major structural damage to the elevators and the support structure, and he was scared the tower would fall. He needed someone up there to verify. This was the exact same man who in Jan 2001 in an interview stated that the WTC could take a hit from a 707 and survive. So, the same guy who you quote as saying it would survive a hit, was calling for help because he knew it was going to collape. This occured less than 20 minutes after the impact.

Care to link to this? I've never heard of this before. Thanks.

Originally posted by Enkidu
Well, of course there were explosions. There were explosions as trapped gasses ignited. There were explosions as the support beams began to buckle and flaming gasses were compressed and expanded. Water pipes exploding as they were heated to steam. All kinds of things exploding and blazing away. Even a lot of falling stuff that was so noisy and boomy that I'm sure they sounded and felt like explosions.

So, you're saying that the firemen that stated they heard explosions had never heard explosions at other fires? Why would the firefighters call them (the explosions) out and not say "oh, yeah, they were just regular fire explosions"? Maybe because they weren't regular explosions due to fire?

The people who actually did this are starting to feel the heat on their butts and in order to deflect the pressure are starting to shift the blame more and more on the white house.

Myself I'm not surprised at this tactic, but in the end it won't work because 911 will go on even when GWB is not in the White House. Who will they pin it on then?

They know who they are and why they did it, just fess up before the truth comes out and there is nothing you can do about it. It will only get a lot worse than it is now.

Only my perspective on the issues.

Judging from Alex Jones and what he has gathered from credible sources I will have to stick with the....911 was an operation drill to begin with using real live arab highjackers, limited passengers.then changed to a live drill....the plane was gassed to knock everyone out and the planes were taken over by remote. Reason tower control was confused when they said "Is this a drill or real world"?

The whole operation was to open a door to the middle east and a overt and subtle take over through force and exchange. Reason you see some exchanges going on with the UAE and US ports in the works now $$$$$ cha ching cha ching $$$$$$ Deals made awhile back going through.

OIL

Theres no mystery here and they knew with time many would become apathetic to it while some still are smoking about terrorists etc...it will all die down and they will eventually turn their eyes on another group that will be the boogeyman...perhaps liberals, anti-war folks, government bashers, conspiracy whackos, bipolar people, free speechers, whistle blowers , yadda yadda.

There are so many smoking guns around 9/11 that still need to be investigated.

Outside apathy, people simply refuse to accept that there could be an alternative explanation for the events of 9/11. That video is full of witnesses mentioning explosives. That should warrant further investigation to anyone who was interested in finding out everything about one of the worst terror attacks this era.
Instead, we accept the narrative that has been given and to not accept it is to bring doubt on your allegiance.

". . .Whereas the investigation of the Challenger disaster received $50 million, Bush promised only $3 million for the investigation of the much more deadly and complex disaster of 9/11. He then initially resisted when the commission asked for an additional $8 million."

from David Ray Griffin's The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. p.284

That's not much of a budget, considering the gravity of the situation.
That alone, is smoking gun enough.

Whoa, magnito_student - sig jinx!

[edit on 10-3-2006 by shanti23]

The quote is from the book 102 minutes. The mans name is DeMartini

In an interview in Jan 2001 he stated...

"Te building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

However, the book he is quoted as calling down and telling a co-worker that he needed to talk to someone because the structure was failing.


I was trying to show that someone who had so much faith lost it all that day when he realized that the support columns and the elevators, that it was built around were preparing to collapse. It is his quote about withstanding a hit that is mentioned most often, and people don't know hte other side, that he knew that they were going down based on the damage from the planes.

Please pay attention.

There is little doubt that the planes that hit WTC 1 and WTC 2 played a roll in bringing the 2 towers down..... however the Towers were built to withstand the impact of large jet airliner slamming into it.... don't dismiss this fact.

Another thing I've seen in the attempts to debunk is the fact that the debunkers aren't touching WTC 7 at all.

This is not a shell game people.

Bomb Sniffing dogs were removed from both WTC buildings days before 911

911research.wtc7.net...