Common Sense

[Gravy]

A tall building falling from the sky in seconds (WTC 7) is the part that resembles a CD.... because, we've never seen buildings do this outside of a CD. Not from hurricane damage, or earthquake damage... or plane damage... or fire damage... only from damage caused by planted explosives.

Every event in history had to happen for a first time. Now you have three good examples of what a skyscraper collapse can look like. Consider yourself educated about that, and for Ed's sake stop your constant arguments from personal incredulity.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

A tall building falling from the sky in seconds (WTC 7) is the part that resembles a CD.... because, we've never seen buildings do this outside of a CD. Not from hurricane damage, or earthquake damage... or plane damage... or fire damage... only from damage caused by planted explosives.

in 1903 no large winged objects had ever flown except for birds

therefore, the wright brothers flyer was a bird

 

[28th Kingdom]

Exactly . . . you have no other point of reference, nothing to base it on, which is why it looks like a CD to you. People who know more than you do about these things disagree with your grossly non-expert opinion; that should tell you something.

When has this happened and/or been caught on tape? When has a high-rise building completely collapsed to the ground (in seconds) outside of a CD?

On 9/11 - we have video footage of three buildings collapsing to the ground in seconds... from plane/fire/debris damage. Now... this would be the first time in recorded history that high-rise buildings have collapsed in this manner and from this type of damage... so, - what is the probability that all of these (first time) events occurred within hours of each other on the same day and at the same location?

Now... compare that - with the probability of explosives being used... and then tell me which scenario is more likely.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

When has this happened and/or been caught on tape? When has a high-rise building completely collapsed to the ground (in seconds) outside of a CD?

On 9/11 - we have video footage of three buildings collapsing to the ground in seconds... from plane/fire/debris damage. Now... this would be the first time in recorded history that high-rise buildings have collapsed in this manner and from this type of damage... so, - what is the probability that all of these (first time) events occurred within hours of each other on the same day and at the same location?

Now... compare that - with the probability of explosives being used... and then tell me which scenario is more likely.

in 1957 no object had ever orbited the earth except for the moon

therefore, sputnik was the moon

 

[28th Kingdom]

Here's a dumb example. Let's say your house is on a small hill, with nothing around it. An 18-wheeler is heading straight for it at high speed. Will the 18-wheeler magically flow around your house, damaging nothing? That's the path of least resistance, right?

No... here's a better example... Say this 18-wheeler plowed full speed into a 4 foot (thick) steel wall... what would happen to the 18 wheeler? It would either stop dead in its tracks...or it would ricochet off to the side (path of least resistance)

 

[R.Mackey]

When has this happened and/or been caught on tape? When has a high-rise building completely collapsed to the ground (in seconds) outside of a CD?

Let's turn that around, shall we? When's the last time you heard of a high-rise building slowly collapsing -- CD or otherwise?

Can't think of even one, can you?

Now answer my previous question, liar. I explained "what the hell" I was talking about, even though it was even simpler than you.

 

[babazaroni]

When has this happened and/or been caught on tape? When has a high-rise building completely collapsed to the ground (in seconds) outside of a CD?

When has a real cd happened that did not include the long sequence of explosives going off before the building starts to collapse?

 

[R.Mackey]

No... here's a better example... Say this 18-wheeler plowed full speed into a 4 foot (thick) steel wall... what would happen to the 18 wheeler? It would either stop dead in its tracks...or it would ricochet off to the side (path of least resistance)

It's a stupid example, except to demonstrate you're so far out of your depth that your ears will pop. There is no way the 18-wheeler will ricochet to the side. It'll deform and come to rest against the wall.

Now stop being coy. You know so much, so tell me how much explosives were necessary, best case. Compute it.

 

[Minadin]

When has this happened and/or been caught on tape? When has a high-rise building completely collapsed to the ground (in seconds) outside of a CD?

Earlier in this thread you stated that WTC 1 & 2 collapses were not CD. But, even if you don't actually believe that, it doesn't mean it can't happen

On 9/11 - we have video footage of three buildings collapsing to the ground in seconds... from plane/fire/debris damage. Now... this would be the first time in recorded history that high-rise buildings have collapsed in this manner and from this type of damage... so, - what is the probability that all of these (first time) events occurred within hours of each other on the same day and at the same location?

Prior to 9/11, we also had not had large, fuel-loaded jetliners slam into skyscrapers at near-maximum speed, either. On September 11th, we had 2, at the same location, minutes apart. Weird. Doesn't make it impossible.

Now... compare that - with the probability of explosives being used... and then tell me which scenario is more likely.

The problem you are experiencing is that you do not understand why controlled demolitions work. You seem to believe that it is the explosive force of the charges that causes the buildings to collapse. In reality, you're skipping a step (or two), and misplacing your cause. The reason that the buildings collapse in a controlled demolition is that gravity is allowed to do its work, and the buildings fall down. The reason that gravity is allowed to do its work is because the structure is weakened: key supports are removed or unable to function. The demolition charges cause this condition.

Now, it doesn't matter that it's demolition charges that cause that weakening. Anything that produces the same effect will give the same result. With the major force collapsing the building being gravity, the building will fall more or less straight down, because that's the direction that gravity pulls it. Anything else would be unexpected.

 

[The Doc]

Now... compare that - with the probability of explosives being used... and then tell me which scenario is more likely.

Well.

Consider the probability of hundreds of charges being placed considering:
a) No one claims to have witnessed weird construction work at Tower 7
b) No one claims to have seen said charges
c) All the charges survived the fire

All before the building collapsed.

Now consider the collapse itself:
a) No seismographs detected explosions
b) There are no visible explosions
c) There are no audible explosions

That makes the probability that explosives were used ridiculously low.

 

[28th Kingdom]

It's a stupid example, except to demonstrate you're so far out of your depth that your ears will pop. There is no way the 18-wheeler will ricochet to the side. It'll deform and come to rest against the wall.

Now stop being coy. You know so much, so tell me how much explosives were necessary, best case. Compute it.

You've never seen a crash test where the car impacts a wall and then ricochets off to the side? Come on...man, don't make me youtube it.

Also... if I can prove that an "inhabited" building can be rigged with explosives, would that be enough to prove that explosives could have been used?

Why must we both project our naivete onto the particulars i.e what type, how much and where, the explosives were used... when we both know that we would only be using pure speculation to answer these questions?

I don't understand... why you think my speculation will ever prove that explosives were used...

You all claim that I need hard facts and evidence to prove my theory... then proceed, to rest your entire case (theory) on details that can only be derived from a guess and/ or speculation. Don't you see the mind-boggling contradictions?

 

[MG1962]

No... here's a better example... Say this 18-wheeler plowed full speed into a 4 foot (thick) steel wall... what would happen to the 18 wheeler? It would either stop dead in its tracks...or it would ricochet off to the side (path of least resistance)

Okay well to know what will happen we need to know more about the truck. Is it a cab/over such as MAN build. Or a long nose such as a Kenworth

Has the truck got a bull bar

Is the trailer loaded or unloaded

What sort of material. Base freight - heavy, low centre of gravity. Or high cubic value.

What sort of trailer. Flat top, tautliner, pantec - other.

Let me know what combination you choose, and can let you know whats going to happen

 

[Skibum]

Also... if I can prove that an "inhabited" building can be rigged with explosives, would that be enough to prove that explosives could have been used?

It might prove they could have been used, it would fall very short of actually proving they were used. Honestly there is no need to prove that they could have been used anyway, pretty much everyone here would agree that explosives can be used to collapse buildings.

I don't understand... why you think my speculation will ever prove that explosives were used...

I don't think anyone here actually believes that your speculation will prove anything, what will prove something to people here is actual evidence and facts.

 

[28th Kingdom]

a) No one claims to have witnessed weird construction work at Tower 7

There are workers from the Twin Towers who claim they heard and saw lots of weird activity pre 9/11. (I know... you're talking about WTC 7 and not 1 & 2 - I've really caught on to all of your little deceptive word games) Did all of the companies in these three buildings (WTC 1, 2, 7) have people there 24 hours... or was there a good chunk of time when most of the people had left for the day? Please, no speculation... I need proof.

b) No one claims to have seen said charges

You can't rig a building to explode without leaving charges in plain view? Are you speculating here?

c) All the charges survived the fire

What fires... and who says all the charges survived... and why did all the charges need to survive?

a) No seismographs detected explosions

There was seismic data recorded from 9/11:

http://www.wanttoknow.info/010912nytimes

Why do you assume you know what a seismograph would look like after each explosion went off? Have you seen what seismographs look like during a CD? If, so - please link to it...

b) There are no visible explosions

Are you kidding? The entire buildings exploded:

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc_collapse1.jpg

c) There are no audible explosions

That is a lie.. there are hundreds if not thousands of video taped first hand accounts from witnesses who claim they heard all kinds of explosives going off:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnbpz9udYus

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApOt3jdn28A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT95sx-8jOQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TR8RgEHw6p4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-uOFXsfskM

That makes the probability that explosives were used ridiculously low.

What makes the probability of explosives being used ridiculously low? Speculation and lies?

 

[Guile]

@28th Kingdom;

www[dot]liveleak[dot]com/view?i=9cb7b14c58

 

[NDBoston]

There are workers from the Twin Towers who claim they heard and saw lots of weird activity pre 9/11. (I know... you're talking about WTC 7 and not 1 & 2 - I've really caught on to all of your little deceptive word games) Did all of the companies in these three buildings (WTC 1, 2, 7) have people there 24 hours... or was there a good chunk of time when most of the people had left for the day? Please, no speculation... I need proof.

I worked for Salomon for 3 years up to and including 9-11 at WTC7. There were three floors that had activity 24-7 (all were trading floors).

As well, my job was involving building a new distributed architecture for the trading systems and I had to deal with many departments. I was constantly talking to people on floors 28-44.

I found most floors at a minimum had people working there 6 days a week and many had people there 7 days a week. We were all under large amounts of pressure with deadlines and paid a great deal to do our jobs. People were also packed in like sardines on most floors. How were these explosive devices put in without anyone noticing it?

I never saw any significant construction in my time there. Can you point me to one employee from WTC7 who has a different account than mine? I haven't seen it.

 

[Paul]

You can't rig a building to explode without leaving charges in plain view? Are you speculating here?

Are you saying that groups of people repeatedly crept into the buildings, took them apart, planted thousands of explosive charges and detonators, installed the lines and made them accessible to the next floor, repaired any cosmetic damage and then left without once being noticed?

 

[Paul]

Are you kidding? The entire buildings exploded

No, the buildings collapsed.

 

[Mancman]

A tall building falling from the sky in seconds (WTC 7) is the part that resembles a CD.... because, we've never seen buildings do this outside of a CD. Not from hurricane damage, or earthquake damage... or plane damage... or fire damage... only from damage caused by planted explosives.

You never posted your calculations showing how long WTC7 should have taken to collapse. Please do so.

 

[28th Kingdom]

I have stated why so many people compare the collapses of WTC 1, 2, 7 to controlled demolitions... and that is because the only other time in history where we have seen images of tall buildings falling/crumbling to the ground in seconds is during a CD. I have also stated that I don't think WTC 1, 2 or 7 were CD... but rather another type of "demolition." Make no mistake... they were demolitions, just not controlled demolitions by exact definition.

Now... people try to debunk the Silverstein...quote, of pulling WTC 7:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7he_sAVs0A

By saying that he was referring to the firefighter effort in WTC 7. (Even though reports show that the firefighters had already left WTC 7 earlier in the day... maybe because - gee, let's see... the other two buildings had already crumbled to the ground. Do you really think any firefighters stayed in WTC 7 after WTC 1 & 2 fell)

And, also by claiming that... "pull" or "pulling" isn't a term used in CD. Well... fair enough... but these three demolitions weren't CD, so that's not a completely accurate application of facts.

"Pulling," although, not commonly used when referring to a CD... is a widely recognized term used by demolition crews.

"(4) "demolition" means the act of pulling down, destroying, removing, or razing a building or structure, in whole or in part (including the demolition of exterior walls or roof), or commencing such work with the intent of completing the same, all as determined by the building commissioner; provided, however, that the term "demolition" shall not include the ordinary maintenance or repair or an addition to any building or structure."

http://www.umass.edu/masscptc/bylaws/Demolition%20Delay%202%20Chat.html

And, if you want real-world evidence of this term in use... than look no further than a demolition crew at ground zero, who says "Pull" in reference to demolishing WTC 6:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBDcXm7bc24

Some claim... that, 'pull it' is a term used by firefighters to signal the evacuation of a building. I have heard some firefighters say that this term originated many many years ago... and that, most of today's firefighters no longer use it.

I have also seen people make a point about - how would Silverstein know old firefighter terminology... and someone replied, he probably didn't... he was quoting the Fire Department Commander. But... that's not true, because Silverstein's exact words are:

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]"I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'You know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it.' Uh, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."[/FONT]