Tuesday, February 26, 2008

more from the nut jobs

65 comments:

Anonymous said...

YOur video does you a disservice. This video said it is a scientific fact the WTC were brought down by controlled demolition.

Science backs up the pancake theory more than your video.

PLease examine the link below and read the whole thing.

However you did agree with "the good DOC" this should shed more light on your nutjobness. Just like i proved building 7 was structurally dammaged and you two said it wasnt.

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_jom/eagar_0112.html


Seismic readings are an applied science. This link below shows how misleading Alex Jones is.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5

Again MT why you let these idiots dictate to you where you research stops. Serious accusations from a guy just trying to figure it out...LMAO!!!

I wish you would spend more time trying to figure it outa nd less time making musicals.

BIGDOG

Michael T Justice said...

I thought YOU were going to refute the charges. I didn't realize you were going to just post a link to the Popular Mechanics piece again (I guess your take is "My article is better than your video MT"). However you choose to respond, I think it is fair to ask you to at least target your "rebuttals" a little bit. How about you start with 2:58 (the ominously simultaneous window "explosions") and 3:49(the actual Firefighters, you know HEROES that were there) into the video that I have posted. And please friend: I posted a video on Youtube asking you to deal with Alex Jones. Since this video is not, to my knowledge, from AJ I am failing to see the point of your reference to him.

Furthermore to remain factually accurate, as you always claim to be, I'd like you to remind me when I said that WTC7 was not structurally damaged. In fact, I seem to recall you lambasting me for failing to attribute the previously acknowledged damage in my last conversation with Dr. Kendrick.(sorry that he's a Dr. but he is so I call him that. It's a bit disturbing how you pejoratively refer to his title. I do hope it's not jealousy.) I wonder if you might be able to find a case for me where one of these high rises has ever fallen due to fire, structurally damaged or otherwise.
Of course, I'd like to exempt the 3 that fell on September 11, 2001 for obvious reasons.

JANJIG

Anonymous said...

"I thought YOU were going to refute the charges. I didn't realize you were going to just post a link to the Popular Mechanics piece again (I guess your take is "My article is better than your video MT"). "

Your video claimed that it was "scientific fact" that controlled demolition brought down the towers. I used science to demonstrate otherwise. Wich BTW was first taughted by AJ (prisonplanet). PM later proved his site was being misleading. Hence my post. Your attempt to obfuscate the issue is really getting old.

YOur puffs of smoke resemble a popcorn fart in comparison to the size of this building. You mean to tell me that 2 so called puffs, the magnitude of one window and a puff of dust, was large enough to bring down this building. Only two puffs the size of a single window or vent for that matter. Yet your video called squibs....LMAO!!!

I posted another piece for you to read; the structural integrity and weight per floor. Why ignore that piece and focus on the PM article. Lets see you handle that piece, in all fairness...because you damn sure cant dismiss AJ's dis-information, later clarified by the scientists and their sciesmic readings. You know sciesmic readings that AJ said showed that there was explosions. When in fact the readings show the demolition theory, "a nice try"

You said on the air you viewed the video showing that WTC7 was damaged and it proved the good dr was wrong. I then jumped your ass the next time he was in studio, for not asking him why his information was wrong. Get it straight dood. Im beggining to believe you are deliberately misleading.


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/07/pitn.00.html


So your video of heroes is better then my transcript....lol Spare me your emotional, convuluted assinine, assumptions.

(from the link above)
DAVID LIM, N.Y. PORT AUTHORITY POLICE: I got up to the 44th floor. That's when Tower Two got hit by the second plane. I worked my way down.

HINOJOSA: David joined the firefighters from Ladder Six, helping a woman descend the stairs until she just couldn't walk anymore. Then, suddenly...

BILL BUTLER, NEW YORK FIRE DEPARTMENT: We took two steps down from the fourth floor and the building started to shake.

SALVATORE D'AGOSTINO, NEW YORK FIRE DEPARTMENT: You could hear the floors pancaking one on top of the other, huge explosions.

LIM: Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, and faster as they get closer. What I remember the most was the wind. It created almost like a hurricane-type force and actually pushed one of the firemen right by me.

MIKE MELDRUM, NEW YORK FIRE DEPARTMENT: I was flown down a flight of stairs, a little groggy for a while. I noticed somebody on a half landing just up from me, a few stairs and I thought it was one of our guys and it was David Lim.

What say you MT? Your heroes and my heroes. Whos telling the big lie? Are you sure you are not grasping at every lil straw. Like the firefighters saying what they thought was explosions...etc. It sounded like explosions well duh....(thousands upon thousands of tons colliding is realling loud, i would even associate that with explosions) or are the quotes i posted from CNN transcript right winged?


Oh crap im late for the route. Ill continue later on. Im addressing each point MT to my best ability. I hope you return the flavor...lol

Anonymous said...

"I wonder if you might be able to find a case for me where one of these high rises has ever fallen due to fire, structurally damaged or otherwise.
Of course, I'd like to exempt the 3 that fell on September 11, 2001 for obvious reasons."

I love it when you so called truethers speek jibberish. Let me ask you first and foremost. Give me an example of the same type of buildings, made structurally the same way, and giving the exact circumstances first. If you dont have the same set up and get the same results. Then how the hell can anyone claim it to be a scientific fact (your video made this claim). Thats why i say science backs up the pancake theory moreso than demolitions.

So what you want me to do is compare apples to oranges. I have demonstrated, on a number of occasions, the fallacies in your ever changing 911 theories.


Go to the NOVA link below and watch the video "Deconstructing the Towers Collapse".

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/minu-trans.html

---------------------------------

http://www.wconline.com/CDA/Archive/24ae78779d768010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0____


“Explosives used to demolish steel are called ‘linear-shape charges,” says Bill Moore, of Brandenburg Industrial Service Co., and former president of the National Demolition Association from 2003-2005. “They cut steel like a hot knife through butter and leave a very distinctive looking cut plus a copper residue. Just putting explosives on a piece of steel would do nothing unless the amount was huge. That huge amount would have blown out every window in Manhattan from the sound pressure.”

“Our team, working at Ground Zero, including myself, never saw indication of explosive use that would have been evident after the event,” says Brent Blanchard, senior writer for www.implosionworld.com. “You just can’t clean up all the det cord, shock tube, blasting cap remnants, copper backing from explosive charges, burn marks along clean-cut edges of columns, etc., nor is there any evidence in the thousands of photos taken by the press and dozens of agencies over the following days. I just can’t see how it happened that way.”

Chew on these two experts statements for awhile...NUTJOB!!!

LMAO!!!

Anonymous said...

I didnt hear any explosions in this recording from dispatch. Listen to it in its entirety MT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg2mF7eUQCc


BIGDOG

Anonymous said...

watch?v=kg2mF7eUQCc

Type this in the search engine at you tube. Link didnt work properly.

BIGDOG

Anonymous said...

I blame the mexicans for 9/11.

Jerry

Anonymous said...

Google this MT Justice..."Hardfire WTC7 Show". Its for a guy trying to figure it out...:p

BIGDOG

Anonymous said...

When will MTJ and BIGGAYDOG finally makeout?

The Q Calendar

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Cat got your tongue MT?

BIGDOG

Anonymous said...

Once again i have silenced the guy trying to figure it out. Just like any 9-11 boofer.....talks alot of smack and once again shows no fortitude to back up his claims.

You wonder why i have a problem with you MT. This thread is proof positive of one big reason.

BIGDOG

Anonymous said...

From UC Berkely to Purdue. Just another example of independent studies backed by science.


"Purdue creates animation of 9/11 attack"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NOKJ4ZXgK4Q

BIGDOG

Anonymous said...

Big Dog, Science researcher enthusiast, we can go back and forth forever arguing how "scientific" our little copy and pastes are, but who cares! and how legitimate the "scientist" we quote actually are. It is not our job to have to research it till our eyes bleed, it is THEIR job, the trusted officials we allegedly vote into office. The people who took forever to run an investigation that didn't investigate anything. The nut jobs are your fellow Americans who love this country too and you and I and MT are on the same side of the fence. To paraphrase David Icke, we have outsheeped the sheep, the sheep need a sheep dog to keep them in line but we keep each other in line, we ridicule someone who has a different point of view. What a wonderful to exploit our irrationalities.
OZ.

Anonymous said...

OZ i appreciate what you have said. It is our job to "research it till our eyes bleed". Just because a person has a point of view doesnt make them RIGHT! The only way of knowing whos full of shit is be researching till your eyes bleed. I have, at every turn, shown his opinion to be far fetched at best or atleast demonstrated how he should do more research on the subject. To rely on "joe six pack" for your scientific video clips and soundbites; makes my defering to the experts a sound defense against any "9-11 boofers" accusations. The riducling nature is there for a reason.

"I don't give them Hell. I just tell the truth about them and they think it's Hell." Harry Truman

To post an opinion is one thing. To make unfounded claims on air is irresponsible. To post something that claims a "scientific fact" is just as ignorant. As i said and will continue to say. Those 9-11 nutjobs dont care about facts, only accusations. When their accusations are challenged for proof, or atleast to have a well founded opinion, they clam up and cant back anything up. As this thread demonstrates and how their group leaders didnt even show up for a debate, wich shows their lack of proof and expert studies. Studies have been done, both independent and governmental, and they (the nutjobs) dont like the answers.

BIGDOG

Anonymous said...

If i dont get a response from you MT i will assume you are finished in the arena of 9-11 nutjobness...LMAO!!!

In fact i cant wait to bust you out on this.

BIGDOG

Anonymous said...

You say Silverstein's "Pull It" comment was NOT a demolition term. In Alex Jones' 9/11 documentary he posts the clip from the PBS doc, then right after that he posts another clip from the SAME PBS doc that shows the REAL DEMOLITION TEAM that brought down buildings 5 and 6 saying they are about to "Pull" building 5.

As for building 7, some Structural damage (assuming you mean the "Chunk" that smacked the side of it?) does not equal enough fire/impact/pressure to bring the whole damn building down in a freefall.

The point, BIG DOG, is that YES all of these things CAN within the realm of possibility, happen. But the ODDS that all of these things happening exactly in the way that they supposedly did, on the day that our military was running drills for the same thing happening, the same day that millions of dollars were wired to the Mossaud, the same day that put options were put on American airlines, WTC companies, etc. Those odds would imply that one of 3 things happened: A.) Our country and government has been so deeply infiltrated by Al Quaida that we shouldn't trust the government, B.) It was an inside job, or C.) God just hates America that bad that he personally would align every possibility to allow for the death and destruction to happen that day.

And your comment about "Unfounded Claims" man we've researched these things...and with the exception of the "Alien Death Ray" crowd (who even have interesting evidence theirselves) There is great science, support, and documents to support the theories surrounding what really happened.

The fact that they omitted building 7 from the commission instead of providing the so-called undeniable "proof" that you present doesn't raise your eyebrows?

The fact that their own inspections and investigations into this still to this day refuse to examine the greatest questions does not raise your eyebrows?

The fact that showing up to a Bill Clinton event with a 9/11 sign = jail does not raise your eyebrows?

The Fact of ABLE DANGER (something YOU brought to my attention, Big Dog) does not raise your eyebrows?

What about The Fact that the same guys listed in Able Danger...and listed as 9/11 terrorists have ALL had U.S. military sites as addresses in their life?

I mean for every "Fact" and Scientific study you propose, still leaves doubt about the issue it brought up, and there are real facts of 9/11 that cannot be denied or questioned because the documents and news reports are out there to be seen

-Miles

Anonymous said...

Funny how you believe the non-experts over those at ground zero.

Miles 1. "You say Silverstein's "Pull It" comment was NOT a demolition term."

NO, i didnt say it isnt used as a demolition term, just not in the context of conversation with the FIRE Commander, not a demolitions expert. The fact Silverstein was talking to a fire commander, not a demo guy, shows the dishonesty in you 9-11 nutjobs. The term "pull it" was used in context of "the operation" to fight the fires in building 7. The fact the damage to #7 was at its interior base (20 stories high and about 1/3 the way back) and a few core columns were badly damaged and rendered unsupportive (hence the sag along the roofline). I know you dont understand engineering, but these loads can only be shifted to a certian point and for as long as it holds up to the stress. A core column can be a "single point of failure" as explained by Structuremag.org.


Thats why 3 hours before #7 collapsed people were warned to move the emergency triages back far away. Indira Singh (triage organizer approx 1pm)"...they told us we need to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down, or be brought down." This was misquoted by Alex jones also. In fact i told danny about this instance of deception perpetrated by AJ. I still have it documented for easy access Miles.

CNN reported first (hour or so before) and then about 30 minutes later the BBC screwed up. Yeh thats right CNN said it first that #7......."has either collapsed or is collapsing" about an hour before it did. Im speculating that they got word from Indira Singh who was warned 3 hours before. The NYTimes reports that firefighters heard the creaking and snapping noises and were warned not to go into #7.

Miles 2. "...the REAL DEMOLITION TEAM that brought down buildings 5 and 6 saying they are about to "Pull" building 5."

This is very misleading on Alex Jones part. This is one of those many half truths you nutjobs use to convince the ignorant. "Pull" is used when they "Pull" a building away from another with cables during demolition. This was exactly how they were brought down (#4,5,6). There were no demolitions being used for fear of more accidents occurring while they plant the charges.

Ill let "Deputy Chief Peter Hayden" make the call. (Firehouse.com)
Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7? did you have to get all of those people out?

Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn?t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn?t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn?t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o?clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that?s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that?s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn?t seem so bad. But that?s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn?t want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody? My feeling early on was we weren?t going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn?t make it out. It was a cataclysmic event."

Notice how my reasearch lines everything up. Do you see what solid research leads you to. My strong conclusion of who is being deceiptfull lays on alex jones and his followers. Larry Silversteins thoughts are alligned with Mr Haydens. Unless of course you are willing to call a firemen at ground zero a liar.

Anonymous said...

Miles # 3. "on the day that our military was running drills for the same thing happening"

Oh man the ignorance is overwhelming. Your statement is wrong Miles. In fact it is very misleading and really disturbing that you believe such BS!!

NORAD's area of responsibility is inside the ADIZ. The Hijackings occurred outside the ADIZ.
There was no standard procedure for hijackings outside the ADIZ on 9/11. From 1991 to 2001 only one military intercept occurred over CONUS airspace. It took 81 minutes and the aircraft transponder remained on at all times.
Incident-specific conditions on 9/11 did not favour a successful intercept, based on previous experience.(Payne Stewuart)

In addition, standard FAA procedure for a hijacking is to hand over all details to the FBI; there is no procedure for involving the military in incidents outside the ADIZ. This is primarily because a hijacking inside the USA is a Federal crime rather than a threat to National Security, thus is under the jurisdiction of the FBI. As such there were delays between the first signs of hijacking, and NEADS being notified.

There were two NORAD activities happening on September 11. The first was Operation Northern Vigilance.Operation Northern Vigilance was one of these situations. The Russians were holding its largest air deployment since 1993, in Siberia. In response NORAD deployed units to Canada and Alaska. It is important to note that this was not an exercise, but a real-world operation.

Sept. 9, 2001

CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN AFS, Colo. – The North American Aerospace Defense Command shall deploy fighter aircraft as necessary to Forward Operating Locations (FOLS) in Alaska and Northern Canada to monitor a Russian air force exercise in the Russian arctic and North Pacific ocean…

… NORAD-allocated forces will remain in place until the end of the Russian exercise.


(From NORAD press release: NORAD Maintains Northern Vigilance, September 2001)
As the NORAD press release indicates, Operation Northern Vigilance commenced on 9 September, and was scheduled to continue until the Russian exercise ended. However, in light of the September 11 attacks, Russian President Vladimir Putin notified the White House that he would call off the exercise, allowing the NORAD aircraft to return home."

NORAD was also involved in a major annual exercise called "Vigilant Guardian",this is an annual event. It is usually held in conjunction with two other CPXs – “Global Guardian” (US Strategic Command) and “Apollo Guardian” (US Space Command). US Space Command are not directly involved in NORAD defense operations.

As confirmed by Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) in an exchange with Cynthia McKinney on March 11, 2005 NORAD was involved in two CPXs on September 11:


Quote:
31:25
CMK: The question was, we had four wargames going on on September 11th, and the question that I tried to pose before the Secretary had to go to lunch was whether or not the activities of the four wargames going on on September 11th actually impaired our ability to respond to the attacks.

RM: The answer to the question is no, it did not impair our response, in fact General Eberhart who was in the command of the North American Aerospace Defense Command as he testified in front of the 9/11 Commission I believe - I believe he told them that it enhanced our ability to respond, given that NORAD didn't have the overall responsibility for responding to the attacks that day. That was an FAA responsibility. But they were two CPXs; there was one Department of Justice exercise that didn't have anything to do with the other three; and there was an actual operation ongoing because there was some Russian bomber activity up near Alaska."

Most of these so called operations that you tagged identical to what was happening on 9-11 is an out out lie. Im begging you Miles to stop this credulous behavior. BTW all my sources are easily accessable.

BIGDOG

Anonymous said...

Miles #4 "same day that millions of dollars were wired to the Mossaud"

Ummmm...Massoud was assassinated before 9-11; Sep 9, 2001 as a matter of fact. So how is it Mossoud recieved millions on september 11th when he was killed on sep 9 by AlQaeda?
More dis-information from you.

Miles#5 "the same day that put options were put on American airlines, WTC companies, etc."

Indeed the options market for United and American Airlines was unusually busy in the days before 9/11, with an extremely heavy volume of "put options" (bets that the airline shares would fall). BTW they were falling rapidly (some 20% marketwatch.com) 2 months prior. Sparking put options on Sept 6 and then on Sept 10. Inclusive an options trading newsletter was sent out Sunday the 9th of sept recommending these sept 10 puts.

Not the same day as you claim Miles.


By the end of September 2001, both the Chicago Board Options Exchange and the Securities and Exchange Commission had launched investigations into the unusual trading. Since then, they've been silent. Are they trying to catch a bigger fish? Who knows.

Yet the single 2.5 million in unclaimed money is not dismissable, it isnt damning either. It is possible since the terrorists planned this event for years that the unclaimed prize is theirs (bigfish?).

BIGDOG

Anonymous said...

And your sources do not explain the drills using phantoms meant to resemble Hi-jacked aircraft...or even what the drills were for or what they were doing....nor the reason why in your post there you show the quote that they didn't impair our response time, yet they have came out repeatedly stating the opposite, in the commission reports and in the investigations.

And if it be NORAD or the FAA...its still government responsibility...military responsibility to man our jets in defense of this country...the fact that the headquarters of our military was struck is the #1 reason that FULL BLAME should be placed on the heads of our military. Rumsfeld and Bush/Cheney. You've no doubt heard the "Orders still stand" Cheney story...and the audio of all the confused pilots and controllers "Real world...cool..." I mean to say that the Drills had nothing to do with the defense of the nation, or added to the confusion is just absurd. And to believe they did, makes one wonder why...in the words of Bush and Rice "Nobody could have imagined they would fly planes into buildings" ....well if not someone should be fired...unless our military was working as intended that day.

Face it our government and media is first to toss blame and accusations around if its someone having adult sex, but if someone allows our country to be attacked via conspiracy or ignorance, then they shouldn't be protected the way the Administration has.

Which brings me to Guiliani. The man made so many mistakes that resulted in increased confusion and death on 9/11. From refusal to replace malfunctioning radios, to refusal to allow Fire dept. search for their brethren before scooping up the buildings and shipping off the steel, to not allowing a criminal investigation to go forward, to placing his command center in the one spot in NYC to be attacked before...Yet the man is "A Great Patriot" worthy of running for President. Worthy of having his own Terrorism and Security consulting firm.

You can pick apart point by point saying how one thing or everything is "Misleading" but you can't say I'm an outright false lier. In fact alot of what "Popular Mechanics" and those "Debunkers" put out can be viewed as misleading because they do not report the truth, they do the same thing as the 9/11 truth crowd in finding something to explain, finding supporting facts, and explaining a possibility.

I don't care who Silverstein was talking to...Pull is pull, you can believe the spin that he was talking about the rescue operation, but I use common sense..that when Silverstein's own demolition team talks about "pulling" the other buildings...and he uses the term on TV...without explaining pulling the effort, you'd think he would say "Pull our forces out" or "Pull our men" you know context is everything when it comes to words (which is why you accuse me and Alex Jones of misleading...you say we don't put context of Fire chief or such..no it's just irrelevant...We could debate the definition of "Pull" all day long, and it's all in how you interpret the context. I also don't buy that he was stating word for word exactly the conversation he had with the fire chief which would be relevant because the context of a conversation between a fire chief and PBS is a big difference.
That still doesn't explain how structural damage caused the blazing inferno that can melt the steel inside building 7 and "they can't contain" thus bring it down at freefall speed.

It's all in what you believe Big Dog. and you can sit here picking apart point by point the truthers' questions about 9/11 that they wash over....(like talking about the context of silverstein's comment as opposed to questioning how structural damage caused a fire that got so out of control that the building collapsed) Or the countless media and eyewitness reports of secondary explosions...or as you say it "creaking of steel")

Go ahead and "Debunk" everything I say about specific events, but just gloss over the fact that the odds of EVERYTHING you're saying that happened, happening in one day would require conspiracy or the hand of god.

Keep worrying about me, and 9/11 truth movement...worry about us Big Dog, We're the ones who put out the research piece back in the 90's begging for a "New Pearl Harbor" so our nation could become an empire, right?

The 9/11 Truth movement is the ones signing global deals, and combining military with our neighbors....dude the fact that NORAD had our planes in Canada on 9/11 should have you more than concerned about the push for combined efforts with our neighbors.

So just focus on us, and follow the cheering line when the pundits on CNN and MSNBC say that 9/11 truthers should be put in black site camps with Holocaust deniers.
(It's called the freedom of speech, idiots)

Just think about how many stories you've heard about domestic Military operations lately or Martial Law stories...man get off the 9/11 truthers and start paying attention to what is happening to your country.

As for me..I just watch This Foo Fighters Video And get myself amped up and continue to prepare mentally, financially, and strategically to keep my family safe.

-Miles

Anonymous said...

..My apoliogies, I meant Atta from Mustafa Ahmed

Anonymous said...

Miles #6 A.) Our country and government has been so deeply infiltrated by Al Quaida that we shouldn't trust the government, B.) It was an inside job, or C.) God just hates America that bad that he personally would align every possibility to allow for the death and destruction to happen that day. My eyes really strained right now so im done for now...Lates

A)Its possible. Got proof?
B)Its possible. However No proof!
C)Gods not responsible for mankinds wrongdoings.

Miles#7 "And your comment about "Unfounded Claims" man we've researched these things..."

Whos "we've"? My research and continued documentations of your so-called founded claims are easily debunked by my easily accessable facts.

Miles#8 "There is great science, support, and documents to support the theories surrounding what really happened."

Show me all this great science. Show me all this great support. I already know you are all theory. But what "really happened" cant be based on theory, unless the hypothesis is based on scientific facts or their applied science. Peer review is another factor. As i mentioned on Danny's show last night; the AE911 boofers are losing credibility and support fast.

Miles#9 "The fact that they omitted building 7 from the commission instead of providing the so-called undeniable "proof" that you present doesn't raise your eyebrows?"

The fact the 911 commissions duty was to provide an official report of the events leading up to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Not a studio breakdown of building 7 (NIST). Geeez man (raises eyebrows) where do you get this shit?

Miles #9 The fact that showing up to a Bill Clinton event with a 9/11 sign = jail does not raise your eyebrows?

Show me where this guy did jail time?

Miles #10 "9/11 terrorists have ALL had U.S. military sites as addresses in their life"

Oh really? All of them huh? please provide link or some shread of evidence.

WTF MIles # 11 "I mean for every "Fact" and Scientific study you propose, still leaves doubt about the issue it brought up, and there are real facts of 9/11 that cannot be denied or questioned because the documents and news reports are out there to be seen"

Ummm...please give more examples because these others you have posted just got shredded by those experts and my own experience in structural steel welding, erecting and inspections. Yes i am certifed by AWS...but left my 15 year career because of eye problems due to extensive welding flashburns to the retna.

BIGDOG

Anonymous said...

1.) Your "Facts" are no "Greater" or "Proof" than mine.

That is "Fact".

2.) You spend so much time focused on this 9/11 issue...when there are bigger things coming down the pipe.

3.) I don't have time to research every point in depth, or post a link to every point I bring up, but you apparently do...so you know everything I say...then you ask for "proof" like you haven't heard everything I've said before and seen the videos and AP reports just like I have.

4.) It seems you have so much time to research this that it seems you have all of this shit saved on your computer like this is all you do. You've spent so much time talking 9/11 but you won't post responses in the other threads...I mean you glossed over Able Danger....then you ask for my proof of this or that...google the shit, its there......but you already have the info on your disinfo network, probably with links to what to say when people say this or that...but its all good. We are not afraid

Anonymous said...

YOu are a sad excuse for a troofer/boofer. In fact, you make these accusations and then say i dont have time to back up your accusations. Then you accuse me of having to much time on my hands. Well Miles in all fairness you shouldnt make claims and then back away from them. Im still waiting for this great science....umm how did you put it.

"And your comment about "Unfounded Claims" man we've researched these things...and with the exception of the "Alien Death Ray" crowd (who even have interesting evidence theirselves) There is great science, support, and documents to support the theories surrounding what really happened."

Guess my comment about unfounded claims verses your comment about....ummm how did you put it?

" I don't have time to research every point in depth, or post a link to every point I bring up, but you apparently do..."

Again i ask whos the "we've" you were refering to in your first statement. Oh and how convenient you dont have time to support your claims. Typical 911 boofer fashion.

Per usual when called on to defend your claims and you have nothing to back it up...i can easily render them unfounded and you are lazy enough to allow/you lend those that perpetrate these accusations credibility. In addition, without examining all the evidences provided, by those experts, wich obviously refute your claims. The experts and their investigations render your 911 boofer rhetoric unfounded.

I just think its totally chickenshit of you to make such assertions then back down from them saying you dont have time. Well you obviously had enough time to examine the claims you have made or did someone else make them for you Miles (we've). Either way you just lost a huge amount of credibility (like your leaders of the 911 boofers) and i for one will not stop shredding your(we've) UNFOUNDED claims.

I will shred you some more and know im not ignoring Able Danger. Remember im the one that brought it up to you. However im seeing a pattern from you; talking in circles isnt a wise move on your part.

BIGDOG

Anonymous said...

Look, dude, I said Google, just like Mike says to research the shit on your own, we all say that, I read the documents, but I don't keep them on hand in a prepackaged response.

You do the research, you know its out there...I'm not here to plant shit in your face, I'm here to remind you of shit you already read.

This isn't a display of who has read more about the subject, or who is right, it's about providing points that support the sides.

It's a great disservice to the reader, what you do, and I refuse to do: plant 50 links throughout my comments expecting the reader to read a portion of my comment, stop to read an entire external article, then come back to me. Instead I expect their internet to be able to move to other places....if something I say isn't kosher, you can call me on it, and you have...but you are also calling me on things that are there because of semantics of the words I chose to use.

I don't claim to be a Harvard professor or one of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth. I just know that there is enough about 9/11 that even possible, seems far fetched and if something smells like a rat, it's probably infested.

I'm not bashing you for having time, I'm saying it's convenient that you seem to be able to grab these links on demand, and then bash me for not having the time or patience in you to do the same. I know what you've researched, it's the other readers who I'm telling to use google to trust but verify.

You know the info I'm talking about is out there, and i know you've read it, but you choose to use your petty attempts at rhetoric to try to discredit me...and I'm saying that I don't take credit for anything go look elsewhere for facts and information. I'm an informed citizen talking about something that at once I had researched. Not a reference material of exact dates and facts. The facts are there, I made my conclusion off of them, now the reader can go find them and make the same conclusions or call me a nutjob.

That is your problem, BigDog, you confuse the KKFI hosts and callers with CNN. We're not supposed to release a detailed press release with facts and copies of all our supporting information. We discuss it, and if something seems fucked up, you go look it up yourself.

This isn't a courtroom and you're not suing me. I make mistakes when I speak off the top of my head, but every one of my points can be found by simple searches that I shouldn't have to make for the reader.

Still you don't mention what the "Drills" were doing, yet you claim they aren't the same to the events of 9/11. The documents are out there, google it, they included planes being hijacked and used as weapons.

And those same firefighters, the ones that kept saying they can knock down the fires with 2 lines..in what should have been the hottest part of the inferno.

Those same firefighters who kept talking of secondary explosions.

Those same firefighters who mentioned a melted ground floor lobby before the towers fell and a molten basement afterward.

Those same firefighters who were denied finding their brethren bodies by Guiliani's rush to clean up the site.

Those same firefighters who, given the chance, would have had a better chance to survive had Guiliani given them proper equipment.

Those same firefighters who were told by the EPA and Guiliani that breathing equipment was recommended but not necessary and now have various cancers and breathing problems.

The info is out there people...look it up on your own.

-Miles

Anonymous said...

Funny how when called on your assertions you run away saying you dont have the time. MT does the same thing. BTW i named the drills and their specific operations. Scroll up dood! If you want more detail i will respond later. FAA failures dont denote an inside job. For this you need more than just phantom blips.

Heres the bottom line. All the firfighters you say they said this and that about.

1) How come no one (these same firefighters) say they found detenator cords or blasting caps or anything resembling demolitions?

They even had demo experts at ground zero the whole time during cleanup. Nothing pertaining to demolitions were found during rescue and cleanup operations.

In fact answer me this.
2)How come these same demolitions didnt explode after the first impact? I mean you say demolisions were used right????

You see Miles your claims on this stuff are shared by a dishwasher posting a video on youtube...not researched and supported by peer revue and science. The main thing is you are accusing our government of mass murder of its own citizens and this citizen isnt buying into your unfounded accusations.However let it be noted i have asked you for your sources (the we've) and i know why you wont post them. The same reasons your fellow boofer wont show up for realtime debate.

You are right about one thing i have responses ready for everything you 911 boofers have to offer. I will address your other points later on. So indulge me and answer my two main questions (off the top of your head....of course).

BIGDOG the 911 boof shredder...LMAO!!!!

Anonymous said...

There's a difference between not being willing to "Back up" what I'm saying and it not being needed to be backed up.

You only named the drills and where they were operating and why, you never went into detail.

and as for your questions.
The 9/11 movement keeps saying that we aren't sure what happened...we are sure what didn't happen. So the following is pure speculation and possibility, not what I believe happened nor am I displaying this as fact.

1.) Even Before 9/11 the government was coming out with reports that explosives may be disguised as normal household (office?) items. We know the bomb sniffing dogs were taken out of the buildings, We know they had the time to prepare.

2.) The news reports were making reports of secondary explosions for a while before the towers fell, I don't see how impact time would be relevant. Especially if the charges were placed nowhere near the impact point.

As far as my sources, as I said, I don't have every URL on hand, and I'm not going to go into every piece of research, re-watch every documentary, and hunt down every website I've seen regarding this stuff...

This is supposed to be a casual debate between citizens not a strict News Release...get off my ass about the sources

....I said google the shit, watch the documentaries, get on google, it's there.

...The "WE" is the movement.

-Miles

Anonymous said...

..and before you ask me my sources on the bombs being disguised...

What are killing our troops in Iraq?

Roadside disguised bombs...

As for cords and detonation devices?

They keep talking about cell phones and wireless devices used to detonate explosives...

Anything they claim the terrorists use, the government has access to, but with a higher scientific degree of precision.


-Miles

Anonymous said...

The main thing with "so-called" inconsistencies in my argument is, I haven't looked into 9/11 in like a year or two the sources aren't fresh in my mind, and to be honest I don't feel like wasting the time to look things up (that big dog, and most people have already seen) a third and fourth time when there are more important things to worry about in 2008.

My attention is focused on what is coming down the pipe now, from the "Terror threats" the government releases, to the threats of martial law, food shortages, and the collapsed dollar.

My points on 9/11 are out there Big Dog, and I'm done dwelling on what happened in 2001. You keep researching 7 year old news while I prepare my family for the chaos that is coming.

-Miles

Anonymous said...

2.) The news reports were making reports of secondary explosions for a while before the towers fell, I don't see how impact time would be relevant. Especially if the charges were placed nowhere near the impact point.

Your wrong. PERIOD!! The way the towers came down was from the top down. The starting point of collapse came from above impact point. If your claim of explosion was true then how come the impact of the planes didnt cause an immediate explosion in that area, above or below impact. C4 is the only answer but even then the amount of c4 needed to cause this so-called demolition would easily be seen. The rapid explosions would have been enormous and very visible. Not just a few single window puffs of dust and smoke. BTW Siesmic readings (applied science) indicated NO EXPLOSIONS!! ending any conjecture.

You didnt answer my second question. Half-assed the first one.

As far as your wireless claims. I know you dont have the sources....nice excuse.Each package of explosives require a battery powered radio link that connects it to the main computer. So where are all these battery controlled radio links? You could argue that these devices were destroyed, however many demolition controlled buildings always have remenents of their work in the rubble. How many of these devices were needed to bring down the twin towers? based on the structure and core colums how many devises would be needed? Best guess 10 or so a floor? about 900 devices.

Until you PROVIDE me evidence of these controlled demolitions devices in the rubble, you have no FOUNDED claim to this a reality or even the slightest possibility of reality. Anything else is pure speculation and/or conjecture.

The most rediculous thing out of your mouth yet.

"The news reports were making reports of secondary explosions for a while before the towers fell"

for a while huh? I thought you boofers claim it came down like a demolition style at free-fall speed?...how is it you claim demolitions when secondary explosion were heard for a while? WTF?? in fact i posted a 4 minute video clip of a man on the horn with dispatch. His conversation was recorded while the top section fell on him.

DID YOU WATCH THIS 5 Minute clip!?!(scroll up)
"watch?v=kg2mF7eUQCc

Type this in the search engine at youtube. Link didnt work properly."

I know,No you dont have the time right? There were no secondary explosion that brought the towers down. You would have easily heard them while he was on the phone talking with dispatch. Not entirely conclusive evidence but very real. So were is your example of all these (for a while) secondary explosions?

Whats this about a "WE movement" if you are not willing to converse about; your accusing our government of mass murder....PfffffT!!!!


You are done. Cooked is more like it...LMAO!!!!
BIGDOG

Anonymous said...

Dude, you are misconstruing my points...Just because devices were going off doesn't mean that was the exact time the towers fell. Nor that the secondary devices were going off at the time the towers fell.

Additionally you have alot of nerve demanding evidence of a fucking THEORY that I came up with in 2 minutes of logical thinking.

Last I knew Big Dog, I didn't think you were a wireless technology expert. Nor that you had a catalogue of everything found in the rubble at ground zero.

You want evidence of a theory, I want your evidence that there wasn't cellular trip wires or commonly moved items with wires and char in them.

You keep claiming what they didn't find...they didn't find the bodies of alot of people that have been pronounced dead, why? because before the rubble could be thoroughly searched and investigated, Guiliani had what was left shipped off to be melted...anything could have been in that debris.

You discount various media, firefighters, eyewitnesses on the basis of not hearing explosions on a 4 minute phone call? Where is your PROOF that NOBODY on 9/11 heard secondary devices? I DEMAND EVIDENCE!!!!111!one!!

You try to play physics with me Big Dog, the truth is you expect me, or the readers of your posts to believe that a random cool temperate fire brought those buildings down, and that explosive charges would have had to be exactly in the right places at exactly the right time for the buildings to fall.

You claim that the fall started in a certain point. The Impact point. I have seen videos that look like it was a top down fall, and other videos that look like internal crumbling, and some that look like the impact point crumbled first. To me, the weakened structure crumble could have began anywhere and naturally the path of least resistance would have been a big ass hole in the side of the building so that would have naturally been one of the first visible erosions. And that's factoring in the "Pancake" theory.

Just face it Big Dog, you don't "Know" for 100% sure what happened that day, and for you to make all these claims of so-called PROOF, while not even discounting what I say only makes you look like a tool.

To say that there are no experts in the Truth movement would be discounting one of the most vocal groups. Scholars for 9/11 Truth. These are college educated, specified field people ranging from your avg. working man to top college professors. Loose Change had interviews with Professors and Demolitions teams.

I'm done talking sources with you Big Dog, because I've done the research. I'm not going on a hunt for everything I've seen and watched over the last 7 years while you get all your talking points from one debunk website. I state my facts, I know they are out there, so do you, you can find it on your own, you don't need me to hold your hand.

The fact is Big Dog, that you don't have any more "Proof" of what happened that day than I do, and I have not called you a liar, I have not stated that you speak mistruth. I stated that your tactics are misleading, but not your info.

You are the one attacking me for doing what everyone does in debates, present the facts.

How would the Democratic debates look if Obama and Hillary were showing off different websites all night stating sources and shit. Fuck showing off sources..know that what I'm saying is true, or look it up yourself and then tell me I'm wrong.

Don't accuse me of Lying just because I won't hold your hand and guide you through the internets full of information. That is what google is for. To guide you. That's not my responsibility. I'm not your mom. I shouldn't have to repeat this shit, but I guess like Bush said, you have to say things three times.

-Miles

Anonymous said...

You brought up these points of conjecture (look that word up), you say these are your experts and im waiting for your experts links.

You make these claims, i showed you links and quotes from my experts refuting what you claim to be experts and "off the top of your head" is not an expert Miles. BTW Im still waiting, but your excuses keep getting larger and more general.

You make these points, you should bare the burden of proof and show them to me. The Scholars for 911 trueth?

One of your leaders, Dr. Steven E. Jones, was dismissed by his University (BYU). One reason i found was his paper on 911 didnt pass peer review. He wanted the University to back him up, so it failed under peer review. As i mentioned before on Danny's show. He then started his own website and posted his paper with some more boofers to back him up. I knw for a fact he didnt show up to public debate, calling on all comers. Not one boofer showed up. A NYFD Chief and a key guy who battles the 911 boofers all the time correcting the boofers misquotes and misrepresentations. These two were the only ones who showed up. Not even a minion of these so called Scholars showed up.

Furthermore it sounds just like someone(Miles), making all these claims and not willing to back them up. Typical behaviour from you 911 boofers and you are following them in the same fashion. The burden of proof lies on your claims. SO PROOVE THEM.

You still havent answered my questions (half-assed maybe). I want to know what your experts are saying (off the top of their heads...of course)...LMAO!!!

BIGDOG

Anonymous said...

I'm not making claims, I've never said anyone is "My Expert." The claims have already been made before I started in this comment thread, which I found to be intelligent, researched, and possible. You still have yet to "Debunk" anything. You show possibility, but so do I.

I never claimed to be an expert, or have a team of experts working for me.

You have shown none of this "Hard Evidence Proof" that you demand.

You claim that I haven't answered your questions, and that I am making claims, Yet I called you on not knowing 100% positive what was found in the rubble, or what could have been in the rubble, when you're here claiming that they didn't find wires and blasting caps. I'm not saying they did, but you are saying they didn't and for you to define either way something that we just don't know is a little misleading.

You claimed that radio explosives would have been possible, yet you do not know the extent of the govt's knowledge of wireless technology...you have no proof, you do not back your claim up.

I'm not here to show what other people say, I'm here to defend what I say, and Big Dog, you can't even defend what you said.

So now you've taken the argument from being about the events of September 2001, to who is more credible, you or I. I have not made a single statement personally that you either A. can't find elsewhere, or B. I labeled as hypothetical.

Whereas YOU make a baseless claim that you know what was in the rubble and what is possible in wireless explosive technology.

I'm done debating with you, because in typical neocon doublethink fashion you turn the debate from the events and the facts, to sources and credibility once you start getting in too deep.

It's not going to work with me, Johnny Six-Pack.

-Miles

Anonymous said...

Edit into the above post----: You claimed radio explosives would ---NOT--- have been possible ...sorry..i typed too fast and left out the NOT

-Miles

Anonymous said...

Recap for those of you can read. Obviously Miles is having a tough time. My first premise Miles, was very easily understood (guess he dont read much). You chimed in with all these points and then i answered them one by one. You even chastised me for posting quotes and links and now you claim im not backing anything up. The reality is my original premise, the double speek is coming from you.

My Premise is very accurate and backed up. You have not spent anytime reading what i have posted. Examples are in this thread.

Recap: BIGDOG said refering to MTJ video post.
"YOur video does you a disservice. This video said it is a scientific fact the WTC were brought down by controlled demolition.

Science backs up the pancake theory more than your video."

Notice my premise; please be advised asto the "pancake theory" and how seismi-graph reading shows no bombs (plural/controled demo) as YOU stated were used. Notice i used the word theory in my first post. You and your leaders wont even back anything up, to me its all conjecture. They have been misleading, use misquotes and taking things out of context, all perpetrated by these so called troofers. In addition one of your So-called scholars was debunked by his peers and dismissed by BYU.

Larry Silverstein is your first one. Wich BTW a spokesperson for Larry did explain his comments and how they were taking out of context. Secondly and one very important fact. The insurance company paid his insurance claim.

Get this, my confused, lil friend. If the insurance companies would have a way out of this claim, it would be called insurance fraud. You are making some idiotic claim out of context and the insurance companies investigation DID NOT deem his so-called purposefull destruction of his buildings (WTC 1,2,7)unpayable due to fraud. Yeh get this MIles, they paid his claim because they didnt find anything (fraud or willfull destruction) to say otherwise. BTW this is called backing things up with real time facts.

Can you explain why he got paid and why isnt the insurance company using his quotes against him, like you boofers apparently are trying to do. You know the ones you say show this willfull destruction of his properties and his colaboration with a NYFD chief. Maybe you should go to work for this insurance company, you would have saved them MILLIONS of paid out moneys.

This pull it example of yours is out of context and im sure your lil mind cant grasp anything at this point. The only intellegent thing you said was this.

MILES: "Just face it Big Dog, you don't "Know" for 100% sure what happened that day, and for you to make all these claims of so-called PROOF, while not even discounting what I say only makes you look like a tool."

Example of double speek how can i be discounting what you have said when you admitted that i have already read it. Unless of course you are refering to having nothing tangable as evidence to support the demo theory. Oh thats right it "sounded like explosions"...LMAO!!!

BTW i went to my mechanic and talked to him about my engine problems. He said "i have to pull it". I came back the next day to get the vehicle and it was gone. He said he "pulled it". Yeh man this mechanic set charges and blew my car to hell and back.....LMAO!!! To bad for me, i should have asked Miles for an explaination of what he meant...LMAO!!!

BIGDOG

Anonymous said...

Another post of things taken out of context. I didn't say you didn't back ANYTHING up, on the contary, I said you had decent points, but they didn't prove without shadow of doubt what happened that day.

You claim seismic activity showed no bomb activity, Yet the loose change vids, last I knew, had copies of seismic activity that showed explosions PRIOR to the towers being struck, that would suggest below ground level concussions. This doesn't really support my theory, but it does show evidence that the seismic activity isn't exactly in-line with the official story either.

As for Insurance, Who knows, just as you and I can't prove anything beyond shadow of doubt, they knew Mr. Silverstein was loaded and had the right teams ready. In fact didn't he try to sue over the amount of the claim? Which is why I "Shouldn't" go to work for the Insurance Company. I'm not presenting my evidence as "100% Proof of a conspiracy" but merely "Reasonable Doubt" Insurance companies wouldn't deny a claim to a multi-millionaire based on loose reasonable doubt, which shown in this conversation, can be taken as different contexts.

It's simple Big Dog, there is a big difference between what common sense tells you about probability, and what 100% undeniable evidence proof is. The "Proof" is not there to support the Truth Movement theories, only contextual clues to lead a person to use their common sense judgment.

The same goes for the official story, Very little, questionable evidence, that does not 100% prove the official story, just contextual evidence that would lead the average person to a conclusion. Everything else is just what "They" tell us "Happened."


---MILES: "Just face it Big Dog, you don't "Know" for 100% sure what happened that day, and for you to make all these claims of so-called PROOF, while not even discounting what I say only makes you look like a tool."

Example of double speek how can i be discounting what you have said when you admitted that i have already read it. Unless of course you are refering to having nothing tangable as evidence to support the demo theory. Oh thats right it "sounded like explosions"...LMAO!!!----

I don't even understand what you are saying here. My guess is, you didn't understand what I was saying, so let me repeat it in different terms.

I have a theory, You tell me I'm wrong, presenting your "Proof Evidence" which is not 100% True Loophole-Proof Evidence, Only as credible as any other theory...Then try to somehow damage my credibility talking about sources.

Yes, you presented sources, for a small portion of the debate, and not all of them credible, and even the ones that were, did not claim that they were the end-all on the events of that day.

And to top off the credibility argument, I've asked you repeatedly how you KNOW WITHOUT DOUBT that NO EXPLOSIVE-POSSIBLE-RELATED items were found whatsoever, and how you KNOW WITHOUT DOUBT that advanced wireless technology (bluetooth? Cellular?) is not possible when detonating C4? YOU made these claims.

You have continued to avoid those questions, because there is no possible way anyone (at least in this casual conversation forum) could know those things, yet you presented them as supporting arguments, while bashing my credibility.

-Miles

Anonymous said...

Miles: "Another post of things taken out of context."

Whatever dood. Im chastised for copying what you say to show context. Now that i dont, i get accused of bullshit. Thats why you called it picking me apart;

Miles:"You can pick apart point by point"

Miles: "I didn't say you didn't back ANYTHING up, on the contary, I said you had decent points, but they didn't prove without shadow of doubt what happened that day."

I dont see anything you said claiming i "made decent points". What they are proving is how wrong and contextually fuckked up your accusations are. You ruin your own credibility believing our government mass murdered its own citizens without enough tangible evidence to back anything up. Furthermore the context/premise i made is accurate, do you deny this?

1.So Miles, do you think all these claims you make, or agree with, would hold up in a court of law? (insurance update below shows nothing related to your reasonable doubt laugh off)

I know this, the fact you dont have any evidence showing a controlled demolition and demolition experts testimonies would easily debunk anything you could possiblly present in a court. So in fact it can be considered DEBUNKED!! In addition you wont show me your sources either. You would think after 7 years if there was truelly enough evidence to support your perceived accusations that something other than loose change 17th edition would be more accurate. Oh and what i like most about loose change is how many times it changed/edited to remove those false claims that were debunked. You believe the dishwasher (lol) and ill believe the demo experts and science.

Miles: "You claim seismic activity showed no bomb activity, Yet the loose change vids, last I knew, had copies of seismic activity that showed explosions PRIOR to the towers being struck, that would suggest below ground level concussions. This doesn't really support my theory, but it does show evidence that the seismic activity isn't exactly in-line with the official story either."

This is another fine example of unfounded claim made by you with nothing to back it up.The seismic claim was made first by Alex jones and his minions (whatreallyhappened.com). The seismitoligists then made a statement clarifying how Alex Jones and WRH.com had taken the seismic readings and their conclusions out of context and Alex Jones used disinfomation to convinced others of his perpetrated lies. You bought into it and at the same time dismissed the science.

Claim: "Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. "The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth," reports the Web site WhatReallyHappened.com.

A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a Web site run by radio talk show host Alex Jones, claims the seismic spikes (boxed area on Graph 1) are "indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down" the towers. The Web site says its findings are supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Each "sharp spike of short duration," says Prisonplanet.com, was consistent with a "demolition-style implosion."

Popular Mechanics using the context of the science and their scientists as evidence showing the disinformation. You refuse to except science because you have it in your head our governemnt murdered its citizens. For you to admit this mistake would truelly ruin your credibility. However my "defering to the experts" has helped speed up your loss, of this i am sure.

PM:

FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear — misleadingly — as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves — blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower — start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.

Miles: "As for Insurance, Who knows, just as you and I can't prove anything beyond shadow of doubt, they knew Mr. Silverstein was loaded and had the right teams ready. In fact didn't he try to sue over the amount of the claim? Which is why I "Shouldn't" go to work for the Insurance Company. I'm not presenting my evidence as "100% Proof of a conspiracy" but merely "Reasonable Doubt" Insurance companies wouldn't deny a claim to a multi-millionaire based on loose reasonable doubt, which shown in this conversation, can be taken as different contexts."

What it shows is there was no reasonable doubt, nor the evidence the insurance company could use to deny the claim. You said Silverstein "Pull it" comment meant controlled demolition or was used in signalling a controlled demoilition. Anyway you spin this you are saying he willfully destroyed his own property using demo. The insurance company disagrees with your dishwashers and revisionists. Silverstein conversation with a NYFD chief was about firefight operations, not about willfull destruction of building #7.
The NYT March 15, 2008:
"...they argued over issues that will determine how much money is available for rebuilding the vast commercial complex."

Notice how the legal battle is about "how much" not denying the claims because of reasonable doubt or willfull destruction.

Miles: "It's simple Big Dog, there is a big difference between what common sense tells you about probability, and what 100% undeniable evidence proof is. The "Proof" is not there to support the Truth Movement theories, only contextual clues to lead a person to use their common sense judgment."

No what you are saying, in a nutshell, is use your emotions to make a decision instead of factual accounts and my own personal experience in the structural welding field. Its not the evidence, its the seriousness of the charge (is your cry). Save your Liberalism for someone who isnt a rational thinking.

You are basing your decision on a percieved probabilty taughted by others who have been proven misleading, ill-informed, refuted by their peers and downright lies? (and that is why your BS wont hold up in a court of law) but hey whos keeping score...lol.

I like what you said on air about me Miles. (not verbatum) "BIGDOG wont believe anything unless you have proof". WELL DUH!!!My knowledge, my experiences, my understanding of structual engineering and welding, defering to the experts, peer revues, independent studies, all point to your probabilities as being wrong.

Miles: "The same goes for the official story, Very little, questionable evidence, that does not 100% prove the official story, just contextual evidence that would lead the average person to a conclusion. Everything else is just what "They" tell us "Happened.""

I get it Miles you dont agree with the official story. Thats fine, but i have asked countless amount of times for your sources. All to the tune of "i dont have time to review and post". As many posts you have made here, in this thread...to say you dont have time is ludicrous. What sources you have sighted, are not very credible, wich i also demonstrated. So im still waiting for these sources of yours that shows "what" really "happened". Oh wait thats the name for one of your boofing websites that i showed to be misleading...DOH!!!

To sum up the rest. It is you and your sources who must demonstrate that it is a scientific fact that the WTC building were brought down by controlled demo as did this video MTJ posted. The fact NO ITEMS were found relating to any type of demolition. NO volunteers, firemen, policemen, port authority, wrecking crews, experts in demo, insurance adjusters, or the like, found anything. Over 9 months of cleanup, you make it sound like Guiliani had it wisked away in a day, nothing was found or reported to be found. Not even your 911 boofers are sayin they found any remenents(items)of a controlled demo. Only what appeared to be or sounded like. I posted a video for you to listen to a man pleading for help just before the tower collapsed on him. You hear NO EXPLOSIONS before you hear him scream out his last breath. you call this a PROBABILITY???? WOW!!! are you sure you are not being brainwashed?

Have you watched it yet Miles?

DID YOU WATCH THIS 5 Minute clip!?!(scroll up)
"watch?v=kg2mF7eUQCc

Type this in the search engine at youtube. Link didnt work properly."

Miles: "And to top off the credibility argument, I've asked you repeatedly how you KNOW WITHOUT DOUBT that NO EXPLOSIVE-POSSIBLE-RELATED items were found whatsoever, and how you KNOW WITHOUT DOUBT that advanced wireless technology (bluetooth? Cellular?) is not possible when detonating C4? YOU made these claims."




BIGDOG said:
"As far as your wireless claims. I know you dont have the sources....nice excuse.Each package of explosives require a battery powered radio link that connects it to the main computer. So where are all these battery controlled radio links? You could argue that these devices were destroyed, however many demolition controlled buildings always have remenents of their work in the rubble. How many of these devices were needed to bring down the twin towers? based on the structure and core colums how many devises would be needed? Best guess 10 or so a floor? about 900 devices."

Notice the questions i asked notice i didnt make the claim you said i made. Its all in the context reposted by myself to show you are not being intellectually honest. Hence your so called credibility arguement....Pfffft!!

I am currently researching more about wireless detonation technologies. So far a few key points to consider. Wireless devices use batteries how long would a battery last rigged up with any explosives best case scenerio was 100 hours. The best device wich has the longest range of 1000 meters but needs a clear line of sight for detonation, do to the encoded frequencies used.

Side note a bomb sniffing dog Sirius was killed on that day. I know you said the bomb sniffing dogs were removed. There HAD been increased security around the WTC in August, which had been returned to normal by early September (6th). However, there were still bomb-sniffing dogs on duty; one of them (Sirius) was killed in the basement kennel because its human partner went to help with rescue. So much for bomb sniffing dogs being removed and so much for these huge below ground level explosions before impact.


BIGDOG

Anonymous said...

I was listening to your show and checked this BIGDOG vs Miles mentioning. Wasnt sure what it is about. Read it all. What a waist of time.

BIGDOG's dick is much bigger...:)

Flip

Anonymous said...

Let it hereby be known, that BIG DOG does not believe in anything that can not be proven in a court of law.

God is hereby DEBUNKED!!

Evolution AND Intelligent Design, DEBUNKIFIED!!

Osama Bin Laden being alive? or responsible for 9/11? Is that proveable in a court of law???
DEBUNXORED!!!

Thank you Big Dog for proving to yourself that Osama Bin Laden is not responsible for 9/11, you just made this 1000x easier.

Anonymous said...

Bigdog said---
"Wireless devices use batteries"

This is wrong. My cellular phone can be plugged into the wall, so can my laptop computer, so can my PSP, So can my Nintendo DS, my Ipod Touch, and about 15 other deviced I can think of that can access data wirelessly and get power from a plug-in wall socket.

-Miles

Anonymous said...

Big Dog said: "However, there were still bomb-sniffing dogs on duty; one of them (Sirius) was killed in the basement kennel"

The "Basement Kennel" is an "On Duty" post in bomb detection?
-Miles

Anonymous said...

..And Big Dog, I concede that I should not have used strong language like Facts and Science to back up "MY CLAIMS"...but others' do have scientific data, which I will not personally go into. However, just because you use words like Fact, and Science, does not make your data any more PROVABLE without ANY shadow of DOUBT than the THEORIES that you dismiss as DISINFO.
------------

"You are basing your decision on a percieved probabilty taughted by others who have been proven misleading, ill-informed, refuted by their peers and downright lies? (and that is why your BS wont hold up in a court of law) but hey whos keeping score...lol."

"My knowledge, my experiences, my understanding of structual engineering and welding, defering to the experts, peer revues, independent studies, all point to your probabilities as being wrong."

Ok, so now you are an expert.

I'm a security guard and you deliver newspapers. (or at least did last I knew)

1. This is a casual discussion, not a Scientific Panel.

2. If it were a Scientific Panel, I would seriously hope the moderators wouldn't present the findings of a paperboy, but those with degrees in their fields. And even then, there are doubts, as there is no way to 100% KNOW anything, or anyone's motives.

"I get it Miles you dont agree with the official story. Thats fine, but i have asked countless amount of times for your sources. All to the tune of "i dont have time to review and post"

Sources of WHAT? My thoughts? My Common Sense Conclusions? These are things that I have either said from my own brain or referenced as something easily found by watching any of the mainstream documentaries or doing a simple google search. Those are my sources. Google + Documentaries + Common Sense. Any more specific would require hours of research that to be honest, I don't really want to do again on a subject that is 7 years old and holds no importance in 2008 when we should be worrying about the news reports of food shortages, a crashing dollar, and increased news stories about "Martial Law"

"The fact NO ITEMS were found relating to any type of demolition. NO volunteers, firemen, policemen, port authority, wrecking crews, experts in demo, insurance adjusters, or the like, found anything. Over 9 months of cleanup, you make it sound like Guiliani had it wisked away in a day, nothing was found or reported to be found."

I have asked you repeatedly to PROVE that nothing was found. You cannot. Therefore when you claim this as FACT, you are lying.

Furthermore I would like you to prove that items that may appear non-demolition related really weren't, otherwise, this still isn't FACT, and you are still lying.

"To sum up the rest. It is you and your sources who must demonstrate that it is a scientific fact that the WTC building were brought down by controlled demo"

And it is You and YOUR sources to PROVE WITHOUT DOUBT that airplanes brought them down.

You see Big Dog, everything you say about me and my theories and the evidence brought forth by the Truth movement, Can be said about you and your "Sources"

Everything you "DEMAND" from me, you must provide equal and opposite information.

Anonymous said...

OH THE ANGST!!! Hahahaha!!

"Let it hereby be known, that BIG DOG does not believe in anything that can not be proven in a court of law."

God is hereby DEBUNKED!!"

Thats why i always say i like my science and faith seperate.
---------------------------------
Evolution AND Intelligent Design, DEBUNKIFIED!!

Biology vs Faith...apples and oranges anyone.
-----------------------------
Osama Bin Laden being alive? or responsible for 9/11? Is that proveable in a court of law???
DEBUNXORED!!!

In fact your precious 911 commmisions report says its proveable. Oh BTW there is difference in the 911CR vs NIST.
-------------------------------
Thank you Big Dog for proving to yourself that 'Osama Bin Laden is not responsible for 9/11', you just made this 1000x easier.

Your accusation, now 'prove it'. Show me these glorious sources you have based all your credibility and common sense on. SHOW ME MILES!!!! I have been very patient with your rhetoric and still you show me nothing...lol
-----------------------------

Bigdog said---
"Wireless devices use batteries"

This is wrong. My cellular phone can be plugged into the wall, so can my laptop computer, so can my PSP, So can my Nintendo DS, my Ipod Touch, and about 15 other deviced I can think of that can access data wirelessly and get power from a plug-in wall socket.

-Miles

In context of wireless devices i was refering to demolition wireless devices, you know, portable ones. Unless we wana go back over "wheres all the det cord" arguement again. Taking things out of context again.

If we examine your satement closer and what i said qualifying my statement "im researching this stuff further". I can see why you jumped on this one. However one question Miles. How long would it take to wire all them devices into a power outlet? Well??? OH YEH!!! my experience, in this structural welding field, taught me that these core collumns are not pre-wired with outlet boxes...common sense would tell you this also. Earlier I guessed around 900 devices, 10 per floor, give or take a few dozen....but ill half it. I mean "common sense" would say batteries would be more appropo and easier to rig up....geee u-thunk!!

I wonder how many walls had to be removed to plant these plug-in, wall clapper, demolition devices on the inner core columns? *CLAP ON--CLAP OFF--THE CLAPPER*

450 mobile phones plugged into the walls of a high rise building within its inner core structure...PRICELESS!!!

Lets half it again, 225 phones. Say all these bad boy text-messaging bombs all had to be dialed and exploded in a controlled fashion; to exhibit a fine display of a controlled demolition or even pancaking. The catch!! Percise timeing!!....is your boofers cry, controlled demolitions REMEMBER!!!!...LMAO!!!

Oh man what if someone dialed a wrong number. Premature booom anyone? No miles not your sex life, focus dood...hehe

-------------------------------

Big Dog said: "However, there were still bomb-sniffing dogs on duty; one of them (Sirius) was killed in the basement kennel"

The "Basement Kennel" is an "On Duty" post in bomb detection?
-Miles

No thats not what i said. You are doing it again. Fuck dood this out of context issue is old. stop acting like AJ and the Scholars. Oh wait you are one...lol

in context:

"Side note a bomb sniffing dog Sirius was killed on that day. I know you said the bomb sniffing dogs were removed. There HAD been increased security around the WTC in August, which had been returned to normal by early September (6th). However, there were still bomb-sniffing dogs on duty; one of them (Sirius) was killed in the basement kennel because its human partner went to help with rescue."

So his human partner put Sirius, bomb sniffing k9, in the basement kennel, to help with rescue. Meaning he had to go below ground (keeping in mind -huge below ground explosions before impact- is what you said) and he put the dog up to go help with rescue. OK now we are back in context lets move on to the next one.

"So much for bomb sniffing dogs being removed and so much for these huge below ground level explosions before impact."

So a bomb sniffing dog was on duty and was killed on duty. In the kennel or licking his nuts in the lobby. Doesnt matter how you spin it, he was on premise atleast, exposing more falsehoods from the boofers. Huge below ground explosions must have missed the underground and the pathway going down to the kennel...yeh thats what happened, huge explosion and no damage, good thing it wasnt a 1993 size explosions. Remembering common sense of course.:rolleyes:

------------------------------
Miles:
"Ok, so now you are an expert."

In the structural welding field. You damn skippy i am. As i posted earlier i left that field because of burnt retna's and i was forced me to make a decision. In fact i was a weld inspector, my job accomidated my injuries with this possition. My decision to fall back on something, that allowed me all this time, to watch out for nutjobs like you...lol (im teasing)
Oh and the sun isnt as bright at night...lol But hey whos listening or reading anything i say anyways. But you do have time tio twist things....eh!!!
--------------------------------
Miles
"1. This is a casual discussion, not a Scientific Panel."

Once again this thread was about a video that MTJ posted, it claimed it is a scientific fact controlled demolition was used. To bad you cant stay on point, although i welcomed your rhetoric and unfounded claims. Still havent seen any sources. I know your sources. I will be slay them and you know it. thats the real reason behind this. Accusing our government of mass murder needs more than "common sense probabilities" (oxymoronic indeed).

As for the rest extraneous rhetoric. Science has proven what i said. You dont like the answers. Science does support the pancake theory, more that the demo theory. I cant help it if you dont understand the premise of what i said. I mean all that common sense of yours, must be getting in the way of sound practical judgment...lol

Confucius say:
Something to be found, wich is not found, may not have found existance...hahaha

Anonymous said...

Confucius didnt say that....lol
Common sense did...lol

BIGDOG

You are right tho Flip...ROFL!!

Anonymous said...

"Thats why i always say i like my science and faith seperate."

"Biology vs Faith...apples and oranges anyone."

Once again, I'm not talking exact science, due to the complete lack of evidence in 9/11. I'm talking common sense. Which is used in one's faith.

-----------------------------
"In fact your precious 911 commmisions report says its proveable. Oh BTW there is difference in the 911CR vs NIST."

And neither is a court of Law. You keep demanding proof of "murder" that can be presented as if it were in a court of law.

As far as Wireless Devices. I'm talking IED style devices, created for the sole purpose of use that day. On Youtube there are countless videos of people re-wiring kids toys and modding them to be a video game controller, or modding a nintendo wii to give it a built-in fliptop screen, All it would need to be is some kind of reciever, be it phone, radio, sattelite, wifi, or other frequency.
And to your wrong number boom comment about using phone technology, who is to say that the phones numbers were able to be accessed prior to an "Activation" that day. I remembered when I moved, I had a phone line installed, but it didn't "Activate" with the number (meaning external sources could not call it) until I moved and the number was transferred via the phone companies remote computers.

Common sense would say that could be a preventative measure not to "Activate" an "exploding" phone line until the day you wish it to explode.

Structural Welding is one thing, big booms are another, and electrical wiring is yet another. You say there are no plug-in sockets at the core, PROOF ANYONE? I find it hard to believe that in a building with that much traffic that they would not have dry-walled every inch of the building off and wired sockets in.

How many would be required? That, you probably do know more than I, but I would guess that if a hot fire on one floor could melt enough steel to bring the building down, that your "omg it would take so many" is kind of skewed.

On Bomb Sniffing Dogs, I heard reports that they WERENT on duty, you say there are reports that they WERE on duty, and then use one dog locked in a cage in the kennel as proof. A cage is not on duty. Show me WHEN and where it was "patrolling" and "sniffing" for bombs, where is the proof?

The only thing I can find from a light google search are the reports that they WERE NOT there, and ONE FORUM POST, and ONE no-name editorial debunk column, that claims they were. (debunk states a google search can bring up various differing reports =/ guess they googled "deeper")No news agencies, scientific fact sheets etc. The debunk column, nor the forum post link back to anything credible on this.

While I can find all kinds of info on rescue dogs involved in 9/11, I still see nothing about bomb sniffers in the weeks leading up. Your report of One Dog dying in the collapse even makes my belief firmer that any additional dogs were removed from the premise, and only "Sirius" was left, probably not even performing duties, or on light duties.
---------
"As for the rest extraneous rhetoric. Science has proven what i said. You dont like the answers. Science does support the pancake theory, more that the demo theory."

Not to me, and in my opinion, "a court of law" with partial jurors would really have to be persuaded that fire on a couple floors as opposed to bombs could bring down a structure as large as wtc buildings 1,2,7.
But then again that's court not science. I'm sure there are scientists who believe the pancake theory, while possible, is not credible due to the locality of the fires and temperature at which the "Fire" floors would have had to start the global chain collapse.

Once again, I'm not completely discounting "Pancake", while unlikely, the pancake still could happen under the C-4 theory, and quite possibly it was a mixture of both. Imagine the official pancake story, only instead of the localized fire, replace localized bombs.

As far as Confucious, I'm sure he is proveable in a court of law, right Big Dog?

-Miles

Anonymous said...

Oh and finally, because this isn't on front page anymore, I probably will only search for the next comment from you...and call the conversation over, I don't want to mull through the history links on the blog.

So in closure, I would like to put out this disclaimer, I am not part of any organization. I am not a scientist. I have no clue what happened that day. I don't 100% believe everything I hear from one source, be it a scientist, a politician, a 9/11 truther, I question and then use common sense to discern what I believe.

You can discount things I say, I know this to be one of the only true "Facts" in the whole thread.

I just ask you to not narrow your issues at 9/11.

You can bash Me, Michael T, Ben, Alex Jones, whoever on the 9/11 topic, but don't let it shut you off to the greater message, that those in power DO NOT care about you and could very likely kill or harm you. I don't hate the idea of government, I hate the things that they do and then pass it off as either Bureaucracy or "For Your Safety." It's supposed to be government by the people, when our executives and congresses, national and local, continue to make laws and executive orders that the masses disagree with, or are told it is for different purposes.

PLEASE keep your ears and eyes open to what is going on. Alex Jones lately rarely brings up the 9/11 topic on his show, and it's been a while since I've heard Ben bring it up, it's not my biggest issue. There are other things coming down the pipe that everyone, even you Big Dog, should prepare for.

You don't want to believe our government could kill its own citizenry, when I only see citizenry as the next step when you can justify senseless death otherwise. This war has taken a grand toll on our country on nothing more than the prospect of boogeymen.

Democracy Now yesterday (3/17) had reports from Iraq Veterans of some of the worst displays of de-valued human life.

"We were all congratulated after we had our first kills, and that happened to have been mine. My company commander personally congratulated me, as he did everyone else in our company. This is the same individual who had stated that whoever gets their first kill by stabbing them to death will get a four-day pass when we return from Iraq." -Jon Michael Turner at Winter Soldier

When life means that to a person or organization, it's not too far of a stretch to believe these people somehow have a magical conscious barrier that prevents them from committing their atrocities here.

Do I discount the real threat of terrorism? Never.

But Whichever aspect of 9/11 you come at, you should be ANGRY that we weren't defended. The headquarters of our military should have never been hit. Hell, the wtc shouldn't have. Able Danger should have you demanding accountability in our white house.

This same White House that told America after 9/11 that 9/11 was not going to shake American resolve. That we should go on about our daily lives. And then every time they want more power they shake the 9/11 Boogeyman terrorism stick at us.

And now the media starts the calling small-government people "Terrorist" and "Extreme" just as the Senate starts the discussion on the Homegrown Terrorism and Violent Radicalization Act.

Big Dog, please don't stick on 9/11 so bad, see the bigger picture and the signs. As different as we are, different as we view certain issues, You are a human and an average American, and for that, I have no choice but to wish you the best.

We are living in uncertain times, and I just hope you and I can come through it still discussing the events.

-Miles

Anonymous said...

This guy miles really likes to twist things. I dont know how bigdog kept his cool. Miles does NOT present any body of evidence. I understand bigdogs contention of, "court of law". Somehow you twisted it and made it sound like your UNPRACTICAL judgements, would defy practical judgements by those with more knowledge than miles. You call this common sense? BS dude. You talk about common sense alot, do you even have some?. You mean...i have no common sense but i want you to think i do. Thats what i gathered from your diatribe and avoiding the practical judments by those experts. Then you basically ask him to leave you 911 truethers alone. Are all you 911 people pussies?

Thank you bigdog for posting what links you did and you are absolutely right. These 911 truethers wont debate facts, they denounce science, scoff at independent studies from academia (sp?). 911 Scholars and the like have met their match with bigdog. Thanks again BD.

Flip

Anonymous said...

WOW!! common sense all rolled up into a nice lil conspiracy. Sounds like a double negative. BullShit is more applicable. But then again, if it "sounds like" something....then Miles, the common sense guru, would have to agree.

Miles i will not stop chastising people like you. Sorry not in my blood. You have made alot of accusations, backed up by your so-called common sense. I made some rebutals to your accusations by using science and their applications. In addition, the many facts you obviously dismiss because it doesnt fit into your conspiracy world. In fact it removes conspiracy and applies facts. Oh well who needs facts to get in the way of a good conspiracy.

You say steel melted. This is how ill-informed you are. Not one person claims the steel melted. You troofers say steel melted, to confuse the issue. You only have to heat steel up some 200-400 degrees, depending on its thickness, and then it begins to loose structural integrity. A one percent loss in tensil strength PSI would be devestating to a structure trying to support 1500 tons per floor. Any damage done by impact to its core, would mean it would have uneven distribution of weight. In this case over 6000 tons above an already damaged core, and its surrounding integrity depleted do to fire. The fires only increased the floors failures and obvious collapse. Again watch the video with that guy talking with dispatch and you hear his last breathed scream, but NO explosions were heard before collapse.

The 16 story New Frontier Hotel was "brought down" not "pulled" by controlled demolition Nov 13, 2007 and required half a ton of explosives to bring it down.

If 1000 pounds of explosives was needed to "bring down" a 16-story building, then logic/common sense... something missing in the 9-11 conspiracy crowd. In order to bring down the WTC's, which was considerably larger, one would need a lot more than half a ton of explosives. Do the math, apllied science, oh thats right Miles will dismiss it. 1000 lbs x 6 (16x'6'= 96 floors)= 6000 lbs of explosions distributed in one building and you see 2 puffs of smoke in MTJ video?....LMAO!!!

Now wire all these lil EID's up Miles, oh guru of common sense and dont forget to activate them on that day. How many EID's would it take? Any demolition experts on record to quote? Anyone with any background who supports your common sense? Care to share this info? So again were are all these explosions? Were is all this "body of evidence" that can be presented in a court of law? (Flip gets it)

You know Miles, something you say is being removed from our liberties...Habeas corpus anyone. "Sounds like" you have removed it from your "common sense". Nope dont need it when accussing the government of mass murder...Pfffft!!:rolleyes:

Common sense would say if a man walked an on duty bomb sniffer into the basement kennel, just after the first impact, he would be on duty. Yet somehow he made it down and back without noticing these below ground explosions...you claim people heard before impact. Common sense would say "Guess the guy and his dog on duty, didnt hear these explosions and decided it was best to put the dog in its kennel. Instead of investigating these huge explosions he went down there to put his dog up after imapct. You say dogs were removed, i presented evidence that there was, atleast one on duty, but was put up after impact and now you dismiss it.

I'll repeat: There HAD been increased security around the WTC in August, which had been returned to normal by early September (6th). However, there were still bomb-sniffing dogs on duty; one of them (Sirius) was killed in the basement kennel because its human partner went to help with rescue.

To return to normal security, wouldnt it require a decrease in personel? including Bomb-sniffing dogs? Common sense anyone?

Flip thank you for your common sense and you are welcome. For what its worth...lol

BIGDOG

Anonymous said...

Another Boofers bites the dust. Another one gone, another one gone, another one bites the dust!!!

BIGDOG

The 911boofer slayer!!!....lol

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EA5AmFpQlJA

Explain to me how an educated member of the 9/11 commission, who has discussed these topics in and out, makes this mistake.

Anonymous said...

6000 lbs of explosions distributed in one building and you see 2 puffs of smoke in MTJ video?....LMAO!!!
-----------

Okay, Was the official story 6000lbs worth of explosion/fire damage?

I'm saying that whatever amount of damage power you attribute to the Airplane crash, explosion, and fire...the same amount of damage/power could not also be applied to "Rigged Explosives"?

Also, you said it yourself. The explosives would have had to take out the INNER COLUMNS. So naturally, it would be hard pressed to see "ALL 6000 LBS" exploding from the external wall.

----------
So again were are all these explosions? Were is all this "body of evidence" that can be presented in a court of law?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcIIfim3txE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BaOyrVhu0c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VRqSpBtceg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y_HKuc5a6Y
Eyewitnesses aren't credible in a court of law right?

...and that's from the lightest search I could possibly conduct.

Anonymous said...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481&hl=en

Anonymous said...

#1 video.She said 43 second mark " An enormous fireball...300 feet across...was visible immediatly......A secondary explosion i think..."
Common sense would say: she didnt refer to seeing or it being, just she thinks.... (timeline=after impact) Nothing was mentioned before impact...like you said "huge below ground explosions before impact." Oh i see you think you heard secondary explosions.

#2. One witness said elevators impacted the floor. (loud noise anyone?/sounded like anyone?) Everything mentioned is AFTER IMPACT not before. Every video talks about what "it sounded like"...what people think they heard. A Witness/rescuer said he thought it was ANOTHER transformer blowing.

So far you are batting ZERO!!

BIGDOG

Anonymous said...

4 videos, you "debunk" 2, (which you didn't)

and 4-2=0?

wow, go back to kindergarten.

And maybe if you were more specific about the exact piece of data you were looking for....the last thing you asked for was secondary devices, not prior to impact explosions...I may have accidentally mixed 2 separate points when I said "Underground" and "Prior" in the same point, but from the audio tapes from that day clearly you hear percussion prior to the impact of the planes. And Here is your basement explosions I apologize for mixing up the 2 points, but separate they still say the same thing, underground explosions AND explosions BEFORE the planes hit means the planes didn't do damage.

-Miles

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

Anonymous said...

I'll remove the gloves later.

BTW i said "SO FAR" you are batting zero. Wich common sense would dictate...im not done yet. You know "so far" you havent completed this job. Meaning the job isnt done, but started. Meaning im not done.

Kindergarten? Is this where you learned common sense? It does seem like you have a common sense of a 5year old.

In the context of this thread any secondary explosions best have brought down the buildings. You know like we have been discussing this demo vs pancake. Geeeeez man, i swear, how can you be this ignorant.

BIGDOG

Anonymous said...

BTW i said "SO FAR" you are batting zero. Wich common sense would dictate...im not done yet. You know "so far" you havent completed this job. Meaning the job isnt done, but started. Meaning im not done.

Kindergarten? Is this where you learned common sense? It does seem like you have a common sense of a 5year old.
--------
Well, to use the baseball analogy, if I've batted four balls, and you've only fielded two, regardless if you are chasing the balls around the outfield, I am not out.

--
In the context of this thread any secondary explosions best have brought down the buildings. You know like we have been discussing this demo vs pancake.
----
I don't understand what you are implying here, I am not saying pancake COULD ABSOLUTELY 100% NOT HAVE HAPPENED, I am saying that while possible, was unlikely, and even under the "Pancake" Tactical explosions could have created the necessary destruction that the official story claims that "Jet fuel fires" caused. In fact they would have been MORE likely under physics to bring a more localized destructive force. Under this theory, either chain of events could have started the chain of pancake.

As a structural welder, even you should know that Fire alone vs. Fire + a concussive force, which is more powerful to cause a change in the integrity of metals?

I'm not claiming to know what brought down the buildings, I'm saying there WERE SOME explosions, There ARE government officials who make odd errors when talking about 9/11, (Rumsfeld talking about flight 93 getting shot down, Tim Roemer of the 9/11 commission talking about standing in front of the pentagon staring at "The hole left by a missile err airplane")

There are inconsistancies in the official story, things not investigated by NIST, things not investigated by the 9/11 commission, A full investigation should have been done by local and federal authorities in new york and washington, every piece of the buildings should have been taken to a warehouse for evidence examination and not melted into collectors coins, things that should be explored in an official capacity aren't, and when you have even the slightest possibility of cover up and inconsistencies in the events that happened that day, I think it should be the right of the American People to demand a new and full official investigation, since we are being asked in the name of the terrorism instigated on 9/11 to support the stripping of our rights and a global war on boogeymen hiding in shadows and caves.

With PNAC we have motive, With inconsistencies we have possibility, and with their actions since we have suspicion.

You talk about proof in a court of law, I'm saying that in comparison to a "Murder Case" we can't even get this into a court of law even when the case is to be made, evidence to be found and presented, and clear prior motive.

For me it isn't the buildings or the inconsistencies that started my questions into the validity of the official story, it is the changes in the rules of engagement in 2001, PNAC's documents of "a new pearl harbor" being the catalyst for our empire, The admission of prior false flag possibilities, all these things that they were saying in the years leading up to 9/11.

We see by the Kennedy Assassination, and the fact that there are 2 government official stories, that they have no intent on answering conspiracy claims.

As soon as info on Able Danger came out, every senator, even Arlen "Magic Bullet" Spector should have raised question of cover-up and smelled something afoot, instead our bodies of congress have gone along with everything the administration drags them into, and the public never get educated as to the possibilities that could happen under the kind of legislation being passed.

I keep asking you to look at the bigger picture, you want to sit here, debating if there is a 9/11 conspiracy, and I'm saying there should at least be enough evidence and unanswered questions to leave that up to a new official all-encompassing investigation, and that OUR focus should be on what our congress is doing now, like Senate bill S1959, that could have us all under investigation for even discussing topics like this.
-Miles

Anonymous said...

OOPS

OOPS

Anonymous said...

When Carl Cameron of Fox News is speechless, Big Dog is the expert! Big Dog, contact Fox and let them know you will defend Carl's integrity!!!

Anonymous said...

Holy shit man. Talk about not staying on point.

Miles you need help.

Flip

Anonymous said...

Holy shit man. Talk about not staying on point.

----

What exactly here isnt on the topic?

Anonymous said...

#3 Pat dawson went out of his way to say chief safety NYFD had a "theory" about secondary explosions (one was on the plane and one was planted in the tower). Dawson also stated that many firemen said gas lines were exploding after the collapse. Common sense may imply that some of these secondary explosion may have been gas lines before the building collapsed? Not controlled demolitions. See seismologist report.

Sorry no controlled demolitions here. (STRIKE 2)

#4 Car bombs and sewer bombs??
A 38 second clip of a reporter asking questions? Is this all you have. Yeh...theories are easily disproven when science is applied.

Once again it is not a scientific fact the towers were brought down, using controlled demolition, as mentioned in MTJ video. Science has proven otherwise.

Oh and your BLOG info on car 50 (elevators) and such. See the #2 eyewitness if an elevator didnt hit the lobby floor.


What does Carl have to do with your fellow nutjobs hounding him for his support and influence. In fact one of your fellow nutjobs came right out and said that our government is guilty of mass murder. A claim you would like to deny, but cant now. I have viewed your fellow nutjobs saying such things for awhile now.


I remember the time i was working at RO manufactoring, welding up huge cranes and their bases. One base in particular was a PJ rear-mount 180. We used two 20 ton overhead cranes with dogs to flip it over. I had one end and my partner had the other. ONe of the dogs slipped and 4 tons of steel came crashing down. Approx distance of travel, 2 feet. When this thing hit it sounded like a bomb went off. The supervisor came running out and saw it wasnt an accetaline tank exploding. Miles you dont have the experience and knowledge, im sorry your ignorant. But if i know what it "sounded like" and "felt like" from a 2 foot freefall of 4 tons of steel. I mean it shook the entire 400 foot long plant. It showered soot and dust from the rafters for atleast 5 minutes. Now if i amplified this up to 1500 tons per floor and increased the freefall distance to 3 floors/36 feet adding in another 10 feet per floor of freefall. I can only imagine what it sounded or felt like at ground zero.

So as it seems 911 boofers start at, "we have Scientific evidence/scientific fact" there was controlled demo used. Then it digresses to we do not know what happened....(except over at whatreallyhappened.com), sure we want another investigation. Who cares if insurance companies are paying out fraudelent claims as a habit (no investigation neeeded). Next we focus on speculation so the un-informed can be misguided.= (Alex Jones). When pinned down boofers squirm bigtime. Kinda like you not having any BODY OF EVIDENCE. Just conjecture, speculations and unproven (failed peer review, true science refuting any bomb claims) all easily discounted by those boofers who think its hip to be a rebel and make mass murder accusations based on nothing more than speculation. (STRIKE THREE) YOUR!! OUT!!!

BIGDOG

Anonymous said...

So as the lineup goes. The side has been retired and Miles like an old washed up nutjob has since retired; in hopes of the Major League Conspiratorial Hall of Shame....known as the MLCHS.

BIGDOG

911 boofer slayer...lol

generic cialis 20mg said...

Hello, I do not agree with the previous commentator - not so simple