ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags controlled demolition , explosive residues , wtc

Reply
Old 3rd July 2009, 07:06 PM   #1
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Testing for explosives

I keep seeing the twoofers complain about the lack of forensic tests for explosivies at the WTC sites. I am trying to figure out what test could possibly have been performed, beyond examining the steel for explosive marks and sampling the residues on steel so damaged and sampling the ambient air.

Anyone here have some useful experience in conducting such testing and an idea of what they could have tested?
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2009, 07:16 PM   #2
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 6,087
Do you need to test for explosives to figure out what happened to this building?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Last edited by Baylor; 3rd July 2009 at 07:17 PM.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2009, 07:31 PM   #3
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Good point.

But, to answer the question, they would use some pads to swipe certain areas, look at the steel, maybe some ground samples, but, like Unloved said, is it really nessary??
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2009, 07:47 PM   #4
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
geni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 28,185
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
I keep seeing the twoofers complain about the lack of forensic tests for explosivies at the WTC sites. I am trying to figure out what test could possibly have been performed, beyond examining the steel for explosive marks and sampling the residues on steel so damaged and sampling the ambient air.

Anyone here have some useful experience in conducting such testing and an idea of what they could have tested?
Various ways you can do it. Generaly takeing samples from around the site where you think there was an explosion and running one of any number of tests depending on what you think the explosive used was.
geni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2009, 09:46 PM   #5
njslim
Graduate Poster
 
njslim's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,056
I have talked to commander of Passaic County Bomb Squad - lectures our FD on bomb
procedures. He and his team spent several weeks at site doing search/rescue. They
did not discern any signs of explosive demolition- no blasting caps, pieces of det cord
or shock tubes to wire charges togather, no pieces of fencing/metal sheeting used to
secure charges around columns.

Explain to the idiots that members of the bomb squad spent weeks crawling over scene
doing search/recovery - none of them spotted anything as belonging to an explosive
demolition.
njslim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2009, 10:11 PM   #6
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 55,003
Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel View Post
Do you need to test for explosives to figure out what happened to this building?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Only for idiots, conspiracists and the ignorant, but I repeat myself.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2009, 10:34 PM   #7
dropzone
Graduate Poster
 
dropzone's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,998
Originally Posted by njslim View Post
Explain to the idiots that members of the bomb squad spent weeks crawling over scene doing search/recovery - none of them spotted anything as belonging to an explosive demolition.
Yeah, but they were REALLY concentrating on search/recovery? It leaves liitle time for searching for explosive residue, DOES IT?

Capitalization caused by my channeling a Truther. You may ignore it.
dropzone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2009, 02:40 AM   #8
Tweeter
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 790
Yaah, everyone knows when you need search and rescue you call the bomb squad. Maybe that was standard procedure back then.



http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/...leb_img_18.jpg

Mod WarningHotlink in breach of Rule 4...the (C) notice in the pic might have been been a hint?
Posted By:Locknar

Last edited by Locknar; 4th July 2009 at 02:00 PM.
Tweeter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2009, 02:45 AM   #9
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by Tweeter View Post
Yaah, everyone knows when you need search and rescue you call the bomb squad. Maybe that was standard procedure back then.
The NYC bomb squad including their dogs was deployed to WTC on 9/11 and for days afterwords.
__________________
------
Eric Pode of Croydon
Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief,
Dept of Redundancy Dept.
BigAl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2009, 02:51 AM   #10
Tweeter
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 790
Originally Posted by BigAl View Post
The NYC bomb squad including their dogs were deployed to WTC on 9/11 and for days afterwords.
Fixed that for you.


Yeah thats what njism said. I dont doubt it.
Tweeter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2009, 06:10 AM   #11
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
wait, are we now accusing the NYPD Bomb Squad of suppressing the truth? that makes them co-conspirators!!

they are in on it!!
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2009, 06:40 AM   #12
fourtoe
Graduate Poster
 
fourtoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,029
Originally Posted by Tweeter View Post
Yaah, everyone knows when you need search and rescue you call the bomb squad. Maybe that was standard procedure back then.



http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/...leb_img_18.jpg
Be serious. Are you saying that they were brought in to help get rid of the evidence of explosives?

Is this something you've always thought or did it just pop into your head as soon as you saw this thread?
fourtoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2009, 07:08 AM   #13
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
It did seem painfully obvious to me that nobody in their right mind would have tested every piece of steel in that mess. Wouldn't the EPA sampling of the air have picked up some trace of just about anything useful for demolitions?

I have already brought up the fact in any of my conflicts with twoofers that thousands of cops and fire fire fighters and investigators had been clambering all over the wreckage and never saw anything worth checking out further, but, to those little pea-brains, what difference does that make?

Let's go at this from another angle. If CD had occurred, what airborn traces would have been present in the smoke and dust?
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2009, 07:21 AM   #14
fourtoe
Graduate Poster
 
fourtoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,029
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
It did seem painfully obvious to me that nobody in their right mind would have tested every piece of steel in that mess. Wouldn't the EPA sampling of the air have picked up some trace of just about anything useful for demolitions?

I have already brought up the fact in any of my conflicts with twoofers that thousands of cops and fire fire fighters and investigators had been clambering all over the wreckage and never saw anything worth checking out further, but, to those little pea-brains, what difference does that make?

Let's go at this from another angle. If CD had occurred, what airborn traces would have been present in the smoke and dust?

I find that when this is brought up that Truthers start talking about metal meteors and pools of molten steel. As that even consistent with what happens after a CD? I ask that and they never give an answer.
fourtoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2009, 07:48 AM   #15
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Southwind17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,077
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
Anyone here have some useful experience in conducting such testing and an idea of what they could have tested?
Not really sure why you're even asking this question lefty. Two commercial aircraft fly into two high-rise buildings which subsequently collapse, so we entertain the possibility that CD was the cause! Isn't that analogous to, say, investigating whether somebody over-filled a bath in New Orleans on 25 August 2005?
__________________
The views expressed here do not necessarily represent the unanimous view of all parts of my mind.
"Always" and "never" are two words that you should always remember never to use.
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2009, 08:24 AM   #16
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Southwind,

Great comaprison!

Anyway, here is my biggest problem with 9/11 CT. Think of the amount of people who would have known about 9/11 to cover it up. Think of the hundreds of thousands of people. How much money would it take you to cover up the biggest mass murder in US history? $100 $200....HECK NO!! I am talking MILLIONS!! (And I swear on everything that is holy, when I go to ground zero this year, if I hear ONE CT say FDNY was in on it, I am going to go batpoo crazy)

So, figure that about 500,000 people have to be in on their little conspiracy. Heck ASCE has 150,000 people just by its self. If you paid each on, say 50 mil (I would say thats about the going rate for a coverup) that woule equal something like 250,000,000,000,000

Yep, thats 250 TRILLION dollars!! Sweet baby jesus........
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2009, 09:37 AM   #17
240-185
Muse
 
240-185's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 510
Here's a link to a video which shows how controlled demolitions are planned: http://info.francetelevisions.fr/vid...3H_FEUILLETONS

There are _several_ ways to destroy a building, not one.
Sorry, it's from french TV news, so it's all in french.
__________________
Like a toy, the black dinosaur walked towards a Goomba and asked him: "What do Truthy Chain Chomps say when they bark? Twoof! Twoof! Twoof!" *badum pschhh*

My 9/11 Crackpot Index
240-185 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2009, 09:45 AM   #18
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 55,003
Originally Posted by knife fight colobus View Post
Be serious. Are you saying that they were brought in to help get rid of the evidence of explosives?

Is this something you've always thought or did it just pop into your head as soon as you saw this thread?
You are making a dangerous assumption in that last sentence.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2009, 09:55 AM   #19
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Southwind17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,077
Originally Posted by 240-185 View Post
There are _several_ ways to destroy a building, not one.
Sorry, it's from french TV news, so it's all in french.
... et peau le chat!
__________________
The views expressed here do not necessarily represent the unanimous view of all parts of my mind.
"Always" and "never" are two words that you should always remember never to use.
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2009, 10:14 AM   #20
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 10,477
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
Let's go at this from another angle. If CD had occurred, what airborn traces would have been present in the smoke and dust?
Generally speaking, nothing of value:

TNT:
2 C7H5N3O6 → 3 N2 + 5 H2O + 7 CO + 7 C

Nitrogen, water, carbon oxide (which will go into carbon oxide in no time) and elemental carbon, aka soot. It will likely burn into carbon dioxide in the moments after explosion.
End result are three of the four main components of our atmoshphere

Nitroglycerin, a component in many military explosives, and other nitrogen based explosives isn't much better in this regard.

You might get lucky and pick some undetonated explosive in the vapors, though the high temperatures make that highly unlikely. Nitroglycerin decomposes at 60°C (~140F), before even boiling, TNT at nearly 300°C, but again, decomposes before boiling. Plus you'll need a mass spectrometer to detect them, and there is a lower limit of how much you can still detect.

Scraping surfaces might be more productive, but then again, if there was an explosion that tore apart the steel in question, the visible marks will be very hard to miss, even to a non-expert.

McHrozni
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2009, 10:20 AM   #21
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Southwind17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,077
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
Generally speaking, nothing of value:

TNT:
2 C7H5N3O6 → 3 N2 + 5 H2O + 7 CO + 7 C

Nitrogen, water, carbon oxide (which will go into carbon oxide in no time) and elemental carbon, aka soot. It will likely burn into carbon dioxide in the moments after explosion.
End result are three of the four main components of our atmoshphere

Nitroglycerin, a component in many military explosives, and other nitrogen based explosives isn't much better in this regard.

You might get lucky and pick some undetonated explosive in the vapors, though the high temperatures make that highly unlikely. Nitroglycerin decomposes at 60°C (~140F), before even boiling, TNT at nearly 300°C, but again, decomposes before boiling. Plus you'll need a mass spectrometer to detect them, and there is a lower limit of how much you can still detect.

Scraping surfaces might be more productive, but then again, if there was an explosion that tore apart the steel in question, the visible marks will be very hard to miss, even to a non-expert.
You take life way too seriously - lighten!
__________________
The views expressed here do not necessarily represent the unanimous view of all parts of my mind.
"Always" and "never" are two words that you should always remember never to use.
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2009, 10:47 AM   #22
njslim
Graduate Poster
 
njslim's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,056
Quote:
There are _several_ ways to destroy a building, not one.
Sorry, it's from french TV news, so it's all in french.
Ve plaze ze bomb in ze building ands lits ze fuze like zist....
njslim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2009, 11:35 AM   #23
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 10,477
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
You take life way too seriously - lighten!
It was an involuntary reflex response

McHrozni
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2009, 11:53 AM   #24
fourtoe
Graduate Poster
 
fourtoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,029
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
Anyway, here is my biggest problem with 9/11 CT. Think of the amount of people who would have known about 9/11 to cover it up. Think of the hundreds of thousands of people. How much money would it take you to cover up the biggest mass murder in US history? $100 $200....HECK NO!! I am talking MILLIONS!! (And I swear on everything that is holy, when I go to ground zero this year, if I hear ONE CT say FDNY was in on it, I am going to go batpoo crazy)

So, figure that about 500,000 people have to be in on their little conspiracy. Heck ASCE has 150,000 people just by its self. If you paid each on, say 50 mil (I would say thats about the going rate for a coverup) that woule equal something like 250,000,000,000,000

Yep, thats 250 TRILLION dollars!! Sweet baby jesus........
Its depressing that I know the Truther answers to these:

1) Act condescending and say, "well I can't go on all day speculating about this kind of stuff. Instead I look at the concrete evidence."

2) Now transition into talking about how a lot of these people didn't necessarily need to know what they were doing in order to help set up the job. Only like, the people flying the jet and the people getting rid of the passengers that were supposed to be on U93...but come on.

3) Here's the best part, why is it that Donald Rumsfeld went on tv on 9-10-01 (that is the day before 9-11-01, btw) and complained about how TRILLIONS of dollars of government spending in relation to the pentagon is unaccounted for? Furthermore, isn't it a coincidence that AA77 hit the side of the pentagon where all the accountants were located? I believe 30 were killed!

4) Must finish with, I'm just asking questions or JAQ.
fourtoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2009, 11:54 AM   #25
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Ok, who here can translate, I don't speak french.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2009, 11:55 AM   #26
fourtoe
Graduate Poster
 
fourtoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,029
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
You are making a dangerous assumption in that last sentence.
Hey, JAQ is all I'm doing.
fourtoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2009, 11:59 AM   #27
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by knife fight colobus View Post
Its depressing that I know the Truther answers to these:


4) Must finish with, I'm just asking questions or JAQ.
thats the worst one
so you (not the poster im quoting) can get all angry and spout all this nonsense about CD, flyovers, thermite, etc etc etc etc
and then when all else fails or you cant explain your position (cause its nonsensical) you say
"i dont know the answers, im just asking questions"
no youre not
you make accusations and poorly at that
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2009, 12:20 PM   #28
Homeland Insurgency
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,705
What was left to test?

Should they have followed the ships to China to test the steel?

How many victims were never found?

Where are the black boxes?

Who tested the air and claimed it was safe to breathe?

Test for explosives?

Test what and when? Test it now?
Homeland Insurgency is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2009, 01:49 PM   #29
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
Generally speaking, nothing of value:

TNT:
2 C7H5N3O6 → 3 N2 + 5 H2O + 7 CO + 7 C

Nitrogen, water, carbon oxide (which will go into carbon oxide in no time) and elemental carbon, aka soot. It will likely burn into carbon dioxide in the moments after explosion.
End result are three of the four main components of our atmoshphere.
So random testing would be useless, really. You would have no target that isn't already supposed to be there.

Even the end-products of thermite are supposed to be there.

Quote:
Scraping surfaces might be more productive, but then again, if there was an explosion that tore apart the steel in question, the visible marks will be very hard to miss, even to a non-expert.
That is always the first thing I try to point out, but it seems to bounce off the thick skulls of the average twoofer. The first step in testing for explosives, as far as I had ever been taught, is to look for steel that appears damaged in some way that you would not expect in a progressive collapse. I am sure that all the FEMA, FDNY and NYPD people would have had occassion to look at such things and would have noticed them.

Not that that matters to some people who expect you to answer things that nobody in their right minds would have asked under the circumstances.

It has been a while since I had anything to do with inspecting a fire scene. Just wanted to be sure there wasn't some new technology that I wasn't up on.

They probably still haven't come up with anything more reliable than the Mark I eyeball since those days.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2009, 03:12 PM   #30
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 10,477
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
So random testing would be useless, really. You would have no target that isn't already supposed to be there.

Even the end-products of thermite are supposed to be there.
The funny thing about this is that NIST even stated something to that effect in it's report. Testing, even if it were done, might not be conclusive, as end products could be present from other sources.

Jones responded by "So not even try?" and left it at that, I believe.

Quote:
That is always the first thing I try to point out, but it seems to bounce off the thick skulls of the average twoofer. The first step in testing for explosives, as far as I had ever been taught, is to look for steel that appears damaged in some way that you would not expect in a progressive collapse. I am sure that all the FEMA, FDNY and NYPD people would have had occassion to look at such things and would have noticed them.

Not that that matters to some people who expect you to answer things that nobody in their right minds would have asked under the circumstances.

It has been a while since I had anything to do with inspecting a fire scene. Just wanted to be sure there wasn't some new technology that I wasn't up on.

They probably still haven't come up with anything more reliable than the Mark I eyeball since those days.
Another thing twoofers should but can't get into their heads: Had the towers been brought down by explosives as stated by Jones and others, we either wouldn't get any images from Ground Zero at all, or we'd see evidence of explosions on the steel all over the place.
But then again, they aren't searching for the truth, but for evidence that would support their version of events. There is a world of difference between the two.

McHrozni
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2009, 03:25 PM   #31
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
The funny thing about this is that NIST even stated something to that effect in it's report. Testing, even if it were done, might not be conclusive, as end products could be present from other sources.

Jones responded by "So not even try?" and left it at that, I believe.



Another thing twoofers should but can't get into their heads: Had the towers been brought down by explosives as stated by Jones and others, we either wouldn't get any images from Ground Zero at all, or we'd see evidence of explosions on the steel all over the place.
But then again, they aren't searching for the truth, but for evidence that would support their version of events. There is a world of difference between the two.

McHrozni
Your last statement struck home - 9/11 'truth' is not a search for truth at all; it is a dedicated smear campaign against almost every branch of American government and law enforcement, 9/11 is simply the vehicle for the campaign.

It is an attempt to create an ideological rift where there was none ('US' vs 'THEM'), to create a mythology which justifies hatred of your own government and calls for retribution.

That's my take on it anyway.

How else would such an obvious term of demonization such as 'disinfo shill' come into play? We all know how these terms are bandied about unfairly towards those of us who express skepticism toward 9/11 'truth', so we understand fully the attempt to demonize.

Personally I've been accused of being a CIA agent and working for the gubmint. Maybe those making the accusations actually believed them, but I don't know. They were wrong of course... but it's the thought that counts
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2009, 03:57 PM   #32
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,257
I seem to remember they did test for just about everything. They found trace radiation from the emergency signs and plenty of gun-powder (traces) from the onsite stores and the NYPD. I personally don't think the argument is worth discussing (or my time looking back up) but, I do remember reading about it.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 4th July 2009 at 03:59 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2009, 05:18 PM   #33
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Given the massive stores of ammo in WTC 6, I suppose just about everything in the pile would be pretty well-contaminated at that. Don't know why I didn't think of that the last time I ran into the argument.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2009, 06:31 PM   #34
Bobert
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,126
Originally Posted by BigAl View Post
The NYC bomb squad including their dogs was deployed to WTC on 9/11 and for days afterwords.
Tweeter's ignorance knows no bounds.
Does he think that the bomb squad members are going to stop and wonder,"gee I wonder if saving lives is in my job description" before they help.
Dont feed the troll
Bobert is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2009, 07:33 PM   #35
firecoins
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 3,206
why would anyone test for explosives? None were possible.
firecoins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2009, 07:41 PM   #36
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,622
Originally Posted by knife fight colobus View Post
Be serious. Are you saying that they were brought in to help get rid of the evidence of explosives?

Is this something you've always thought or did it just pop into your head as soon as you saw this thread?
Tweeter has previously slandered the FDNY, so it's not beneath him to slander other courageous first responders. It's better just to put him on ignore.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2009, 08:08 PM   #37
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,430
"Tweeter" is a sockpuppet and troll, unworthy of discussion, frankly.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2009, 09:53 PM   #38
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 55,003
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
... et peau le chat!
the feces of the cat?
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2009, 10:13 PM   #39
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Actually, a cat's litterbox would probably register on some tests for explosives.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2009, 11:14 PM   #40
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Southwind17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,077
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
It has been a while since I had anything to do with inspecting a fire scene.
Yeah, me too, come to think of it. Really must get back into that ... sure am sick to the back teeth of this bloody geocaching!
__________________
The views expressed here do not necessarily represent the unanimous view of all parts of my mind.
"Always" and "never" are two words that you should always remember never to use.
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:49 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.