Get Smart! Epispde 52

a reply to: twitchy

Have any of you guys even looked at that link?

I did and noticed this.

There is eyewitness testimony as well as abundant video and audio evidence of explosions at the WTC on 9/11.

Hearsay is not evidence that explosives were used because the sounds were later attributed to things that had nothing to do with explosives, and furthermore, there is no audio evidence on video that explosions occurred as the WTC buildings collapsed. Case in point are WTC videos and not one depicts the sound of demolition explosions or even nuclear detonations for that matter. Temperatures of millions of degrees F. coming in contact with cooler air would have generated a deafening loud noise that would have been heard many miles away and yet, there is not one peep of explosions involving nukes or explosives for that matter as the WTC buildings collapsed. The fact that video cameras, vehicles, and even computers continued to operate normally automatically debunks the claim that nukes were used.

I also notice this from your link:

We believe that only mini-nukes — which were probably neutron bombs

A Neutron bomb is an Enhanced Radiation Weapon (ERW) and the fact that people were still alive in the local area after the WTC buildings collapsed automatically debunks the claim that neutron bombs were used.

.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: twitchy

Hearsay is not evidence that explosives were used

What you call hearsay, others would call eyewitness testimony, in this case, strangely, eyewitness testimony from hundreds of firefighters and the like were blocked from testifying before the 9/11 committee despite their protests. There's an extensive list of reports of explosions, I'm sure you are well aware of that. Those sounds could be attributed to any number of things, we will never know 'officially' as the debris was never 'officially' tested for explosive residue before it was hauled off under the tightest security ever given to debris (one driver was fired for stopping to eat). Criminal destruction of evidence, tampering with a crime scene, insurance fraud, conspiracy, mass murder... I'm sure there's a vested interest in making sure the explosions were attributed to anything but explosives. If you can think of anything other than explosives that would turn 90 thousand tons of cured concrete into micron sized particulate rich in radioactive isotopes, register on seismographs miles away, and leave no trace of recognizable debris from above the 6th floor, I'd love to hear your theory as fire from office furniture just doesn't do that, at least it never has prior to 9-11 or afterwards. Steel framed high rises don't collapse due to fire, it's one of the perks of modern steel construction.
whatreallyhappened.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm sure you are aware that a nuclear detonation can be shaped, and can yields as low as 10kt have been tested and produced by the US. You are also aware that you can stand behind or beside a cannon being fired without being turned to jelly, right? Why do you suppose that is?

a reply to: twitchy

What you call hearsay, others would call eyewitness testimony, in this case, strangely, eyewitness testimony from hundreds of firefighters and the like were blocked from testifying before the 9/11 committee despite their protests.

The explosions they heard were attributed to things that had nothing to do with explosives, which has been confirmed with evidence. Firefighters later attributed the explosion-like sounds to collapsing floors and exploding gas lines, so once again, hearsay is not evidence of explosives.

a reply to: skyeagle409
The explosions they heard were explosions, which probably explains why the bomb sniffing dogs were pulled off the WTC site by Securacom on 9-6-2001. 'Firefighters' is pretty vague, there's a few 'firefighters' who said it was explosives planted in the building. All this has been hashed out a million times, yes there were explosives in the building. Of what type remains to be ascertained.

a reply to: twitchy

The explosions had nothing to do with explosives and as proof, point out the time lines in the following video where you think explosions are heard as WTC 7 collapses.

originally posted by: twitchy
why the bomb sniffing dogs were pulled off the WTC site by Securacom on 9-6-2001.

Oh dear, that truther lie again! How do you explain the death of Sirius?

www.911memorial.org...

Why do truthers keep posting these much debunked lies?

Also securacon were never running security, and were not there on 9/11

www.911myths.com...

a reply to: hellobruce
Ah yes, good old Sirius.. You know that came out about two or three weeks after the MSM reported the stories about the dogs being removed right?

a reply to: skyeagle409
Oh yes please let's get into WTC7.

originally posted by: twitchy
a reply to: hellobruce
Ah yes, good old Sirius.. You know that came out about two or three weeks after the MSM reported the stories about the dogs being removed right?

The MSM never reported the dogs being removed.... just extra security was removed.

a reply to: hellobruce
Like hell they didn't.

Heightened Security Alert Had Just Been Lifted
By Curtis L. Taylor and Sean Gardiner
STAFF WRITERS

September 12, 2001

The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday.

Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.

"Today was the first day there was not the extra security," Coard said. "We were protecting below. We had the ground covered. We didn't figure they would do it with planes. There is no way anyone could have stopped that."

Security guard Hermina Jones said officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against aerial attacks by installing bulletproof windows and fireproof doors in the 22nd-floor computer command center..

a reply to: twitchy

Have you found those video time lines yet?

originally posted by: twitchy
"Today was the first day there was not the extra security,"

Did you read that? "Extra security"

The bomb sniffing dogs were part of normal security.

originally posted by: hellobruce
The MSM never reported the dogs being removed.... just extra security was removed.

Yeah odd that eh? Not to mention that odd and unprecedented power down that weekend before 9-11 that disabled security cams and locks and the like. One more time... "But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed." Removed means taken away.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: twitchy

Have you found those video time lines yet?

Did you see the squibs? LOL You probably should avoid discussing WTC7, it isn't the OS's strong point.

originally posted by: twitchy
Not to mention that odd and unprecedented power down that weekend before 9-11 that disabled security cams and locks and the like.

Again, there was no building power down, another truther story!

www.911myths.com...

A floor may have been powered down, a regular occurrence in a building that large.

a reply to: twitchy

Did you see the squibs? LOL You probably should avoid discussing WTC7, it isn't the OS's strong point.

Squibs are not evidence that explosive were used. Cheek out these photos as proof and notice the squibs in each photo.

Photo 1: Squibs

Photo 2: Squbs

As you can see, those squibs had nothing to do with explosives. Now, you know why I am asking you to present the video time lines where you think, explosives were heard.

originally posted by: twitchy
Did you see the squibs? .

You mean the windows blowing out after the collapse started!

a reply to: hellobruce

LOL Oh ok. Scott Forbes, Gary Corbett weren't vetted by the MSM when they reported it? You realize some us of were actually alive and watching this stuff when it was on the news right?

originally posted by: skyeagle409Squibs are not evidence that explosive were used.

LOL great stuff there. You guys see that right, squibs are not evidence that explosives were used... How do you even write a rebuttal to that kind of drivel?

a reply to: twitchy

Let's just say that it was something I learned during my high school science class. The interior of a building consist mostly of air and when a building collapses, that air is forced out.