Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[FineWine]

It seems you haven't understood the difference between controlled demolition, CD, and a one-way crush down of A by a piece C of A being dropped by gravity.

In CD you destroy plenty of supports in the building by various means in a controlled fashion - normally at the lower parts, e.g. WTC 7; in the WTC 1, 2 cases is was done from top down.

Reason for this is that you cannot crush down the building A by dropping a part C of A on it. NIST of course suggets otherwise. PE > SE = global collapse ensues (no CD required). NIST is like the AIG insurance sales people! Selling insurance with no capital to back up the risks and running away with the premium.

Tell us why every demolition expert in the world rejects the idiocy you peddle.

 

[aggle-rithm]

It seems you haven't understood the difference between controlled demolition, CD, and a one-way crush down of A by a piece C of A being dropped by gravity.

You are correct, I don't know the difference between controlled demolition and CD. What does CD stand for, besides "compact disc" or "certificate of deposit"?

And what does "one-way-crush-down" mean, exactly? I'm still waiting for an answer to that question.

In CD you destroy plenty of supports in the building by various means in a controlled fashion - normally at the lower parts, e.g. WTC 7; in the WTC 1, 2 cases is was done from top down.

So if supports are destroyed in an uncontrolled fashion, the building is safe?

This is sounding more and more insane.

 

[deep]

Tell us why every demolition expert in the world rejects the idiocy you peddle.

How do you know what every demolition expert in the world believes? Can you please provide your source?

 

[FineWine]

How do you know what every demolition expert in the world believes? Can you please provide your source?

Sorry, this ain't the schoolyard, "truther." Many demolition experts have pointed out that your insane movement's myths about explosives in the towers are completely absurd; those myths reflect total ignorance of the subject. The absence of any voiced disagreement by demolition professionals indicates a consensus. Your side makes the extravagant, wildly implausible claims. The onus is on YOU to produce a demolition expert who swallows your snake oil.

I can write that everybody understands that the North won the Civil War, while acknowledging that are undoubtedly a few delusional nuts running around who would disagree. And they, like "truthers," could never be persuaded to change their minds.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Heiwa, may I suggest a revision to your "axiom"?

You cannot crush an isotropic or composite 3-D structure A by a part C of itself (C = 1/10 A) by dropping part C on A using gravity, unless C is dropped on A by means of controlled demolition removing part of A. Part C either bounces on A or gets damaged in contact with A and is stopped by A that is also damaged a little, unless, of course, the initiating event is controlled demolition. It is quite basic and all due to forces, which, for some reason, behave differently when controlled demolition is involved. Materials, size and particulars of the elements of the structure A doesn't matter the least. Part C of A cannot destroy A unless controlled demolition is involved.


Thus no structures, 1, 2 or 5 meters tall, or 100, 200 or 500 meters tall exist that will one-way crush down, when a small part C is dropped on the remainder part A, unless controlled demolition is involved.

Now all you have to do is explain how part A "knows" that C is falling because of controlled demolition rather than from some other event.

 

[Oscar]

Heiwa:

Why can't you stay on topic? What's the need of obnoxious, personal insults? Lack of education? What does your mother say? Are you a religious, unhappy, depressed fundamentalist?

The moon is made of cheese. I've called this Oscar's axiom. Prove me wrong and win a million pounds. This is supposed to be a friendly debate about the subject. Every time you give genuine evidence that the moon isn't made of cheese I will ignore it and repeat Oscar's axiom and ask you to read my incredibly moronic paper explaining why the moon actually is made of cheese. (This paper might have slightly more entertainment value than anything Heiwa has written.)

After several thousand posts where I sidestep and move the goalposts over whether the moon is made of Brie or Edam, and after being shown in humiliating ways why my opinions are those of a retarded newt, even though I claim to be an expert on cheese, a claim that is false, and has been shown again and again to be an outright lie, I will repost a link to Oscar's axiom and sit back with a stupid, gormless grin on my silly face.

 

[SteveAustin]

Sorry, this ain't the schoolyard, "truther."

Classic disinfo tactic right there off the start of his post! Nicely done

Many demolition experts have pointed out

So you have already backpedaled from "every demolition expert" to now just "many".

Tell us why every demolition expert in the world rejects the idiocy you peddle.

So then you can post right here every demolition expert that endorses the OCT? Please post them all or link to a list of every demolition expert that endorses the OCT and let's see how many is "every demolition expert in the world" actually is.

that your insane movement's myths about explosives in the towers are completely absurd; those myths reflect total ignorance of the subject.

Again, classic disinfo tactic and zero relevant argument.

The absence of any voiced disagreement by demolition professionals indicates a consensus.

Should I aks all the "debunkers" here what type of fallacy that is just to see if anyone will call a fellow "debunker" on his lies? I'm not holding my breath

Your side makes the extravagant, wildly implausible claims.

LOL that's funny, the OCT is all extravagant and wildly implausible claims.

The onus is on YOU to produce a demolition expert who swallows your snake oil.

LOL, again (and as always) disinfo tactic thrown in. The OCT has not proven it's conspiracy theory. What they have put out has been debunked quite thoroughly by many people around the world and no amount of trying to claim in a round-a-bout way that no one disbelieves the OCT is going to cut it when so many have come forward and are easy to find.

I can write that everybody understands that the North won the Civil War, while acknowledging that are undoubtedly a few delusional nuts running around who would disagree. And they, like "truthers," could never be persuaded to change their minds.

And again the same classic disinfo tactic used throughout this post and most of JREF.

Deep44's question still stands unanswered as you deftly dodged it...

How do you know what every demolition expert in the world believes? Can you please provide your source?

So can you please provide your source? Or you can instead dodge it again and jump on any other statement I've made here in this post, be sure to pick what you think is the weak link to attack. Don't forget to make it personal and insult me and all 9/11 truth activists any way possible.

 

[Oscar]

Steve, answering your question about demolition experts opinions I'd advise you to do some homework first.

 

[SteveAustin]

Steve, in order to answer your question about demolition experts opinions I'd advise you to do some homework first.

Is that a dodge I smell?

Come on post all the demolition experts that endorse the Official Conspiracy Theory!

Or was that the other disinfo tactic of trying to label me as uneducated when it comes to this topic so no one pay attention.

Are you also trying to claim that anyone who has not come out against the Official Conspiracy Theory is by default for it?

 

[Oscar]

Come on post all the demolition experts that endorse the Official Conspiracy Theory!

Post the ones who don't (edit later for typo) endorse it. All of them. Every single one. Both of them. (And even they don't agree now.)

Or was that the other disinfo tactic of trying to label me as uneducated when it comes to this topic so no one pay attention.

Are you also trying to claim that anyone who has not come out against the Official Conspiracy Theory is by default for it?

Uneducated? I've no idea.

Not coming out against what we all know happened on 9/11 isn't proof of them claiming anything. Standing up and saying we have proof that contradicts what we all know happened would be something.

Unfortunately, the few who have made these claims have proved to be either frauds, liars, or idiots.

Pick that side if you want to.

 

[deep]

The absence of any voiced disagreement by demolition professionals indicates a consensus.

No, it doesn't. The absence of voiced disagreement (or voiced agreement) means that we don't know what they think.

As for the burden of proof - you're the one making the claim, so the burden of proof is on you. When I start telling you what every (expert on something) in the world believes, I'll be delighted to provide you with my source.

 

[Oscar]

Deep44

you're the one making the claim, so the burden of proof is on you.

Actually, you're the one making the claim. We all saw and know what happened. You're claiming something else did, without a shred of evidence. But, hey, don't let that worry you.

When I start telling you what every (expert on something) in the world believes, I'll be delighted to provide you with my source.

*cough* How do you people write this stuff?

 

[Justin39640]

No, it doesn't. The absence of voiced disagreement (or voiced agreement) means that we don't know what they think.

As for the burden of proof - you're the one making the claim, so the burden of proof is on you. When I start telling you what every (expert on something) in the world believes, I'll be delighted to provide you with my source.

if you want to refute a claim
cite evidence to the contrary

the burden of proof is on you to prove hes wrong
seeing theres no outpouring of experts from the CD field means 1 thing:
they dont have an issue with the official version

link some CD experts who refute my claim
please

im sure youve read implosionworld's PDF
theres 1 for us

your turn

 

[SteveAustin]

Post the ones who do endorse it. All of them. Every single one. Both of them. (And even they don't agree now.)

So there were only 2 demolition experts who endorsed the Official Conspiracy theory and even they don't agree now? That's a far cry from finewine's "every demolition expert in the world". Seems you "debunkers" can't even agree on simple things like this.

Uneducated? I've no idea.

Well you said...

Steve, answering your question about demolition experts opinions I'd advise you to do some homework first.

By which you mean I have not bothered to educate myself on the topic.

So why are you now claiming you have no idea if I'm educated on the topic when you first claimed I was not?

Not coming out against what we all know happened on 9/11 isn't proof of them claiming anything. Standing up and saying we have proof that contradicts what we all know happened would be something.

You are in disagreement with finewine who claims that anyone who has not come out against the Official Conspiracy Theory by default agrees with it. Here...

The absence of any voiced disagreement by demolition professionals indicates a consensus.

Unfortunately, the few who have made these claims have proved to be either frauds, liars, or idiots.

Only to shills and braindead zombies who do not want to admit the truth that is staring them in the face.

Maybe instead of claiming they are frauds, liars and idiots you could get an article published in a peer reviewed journal somewhere that proves they are frauds, liars and idiots? Yes? Maybe? Good luck with that.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I think this bears repeating:

Under no circumstances can a competent architect/engineer ever disagree with you - right?

Incorrect, just eight years later they haven't made a competent argument that had me reconsider. I don't know what gratification they get out supporting their tripe, but unlike you I don't really care what the membership numbers are. If their claims don't stand up to scrutiny then the numbers are really a moot point in the end.

The minority population of conspiracy theorists is only a bonus...

LOL that's funny, the OCT is all extravagant and wildly implausible claims.

LOL, again (and as always) disinfo tactic thrown in. The OCT has not proven it's conspiracy theory. What they have put out has been debunked quite thoroughly by many people around the world and no amount of trying to claim in a round-a-bout way that no one disbelieves the OCT is going to cut it when so many have come forward and are easy to find.

Since you have entered in the discussion perhaps you can supply the relevant links. Who knows? Perhaps there's a claim I haven't seen or heard yet. Would you mind satisfying my curiosity by linking to the information you feel is most credible as it relates to the specific subject this thread focuses on?

Also you said:
"The OCT has not proven it's conspiracy theory."

Would you mind filling me in on the details here? What is conspiratorial about a progressive collapse?

 

[SteveAustin]

if you want to refute a claim
cite evidence to the contrary

It's an unsubstantiated claim, an outrageous one at that, he has not proved his claim, so why is it up to us to prove he's wrong when he hasn't proven he's right?

the burden of proof is on you to prove hes wrong
seeing theres no outpouring of experts from the CD field means 1 thing:
they dont have an issue with the official version

link some CD experts who refute my claim
please

im sure youve read implosionworld's PDF
theres 1 for us

your turn

1 is a far cry from "every demolition expert in the world", so how does that back up the claim?

Deep44

Actually, you're the one making the claim. We all saw and know what happened. You're claiming something else did, without a shred of evidence. But, hey, don't let that worry you.



*cough* How do you people write this stuff?

Wrong guys, finewine made the claim that every demolition expert in the world agrees with the Official Conspiracy Theory, and he made this claim without backing it up with anything.

Tell us why every demolition expert in the world rejects the idiocy you peddle.

Deep44 simply asked finewine to prove his claim, but you all have done a wonderful job at dodging it and even turning it around on him (and me). Both classic disinfo tactics.

 

[Oscar]

Steve:

So there were only 2 demolition experts who endorsed the Official Conspiracy theory and even they don't agree now? That's a far cry from finewine's "every demolition expert in the world". Seems you "debunkers" can't even agree on simple things like this.

So I did a typo, so shoot me. What I meant were that only a couple of demolition guys, who when shown the collapse of the twin towers, thought it looked like a controlled demolition. And they changed their minds later. Every other demolition expert thought the idea was insane.

I'm kind of glad I did that typo, it reinforces the point. (I was rushing out for supplies of ice cream and beer, so you can see what happened.)

 

[twinstead]

Oh. I get it. Steve's hung up on semantics, the last refuge of one who doesn't have a valid argument. It of course is FineWine's fault, because he said EVERY, which of course is a mistake because now no matter how much evidence Steve is given, no matter how many experts in CD think his delightful little movement is a bunch of morons, it won't be EVERY CD expert, so he can ignore it.

Nice debate mojo, Steve.

 

[SteveAustin]

Since you have entered in the discussion perhaps you can supply the relevant links. Who knows? Perhaps there's a claim I haven't seen or heard yet. Would you mind satisfying my curiosity by linking to the information you feel is most credible as it relates to the specific subject this thread focuses on?

Also you said:
"The OCT has not proven it's conspiracy theory."

Would you mind filling me in on the details here? What is conspiratorial about a progressive collapse?

I would love to, so how about you come over to a neutral discussion forum (or blog in this case) over at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html?page=1#comments and join the debate there, you should of course read all 3200+ posts before posting there so that no one needs to repeat themselves. I have asked all of you to step outside of JREF before but have yet to have anyone brave enough to do so.

Or if you don't like the BBC blog page then how about coming over to http://truthaction.org/forum/index.php and discussing this there. Granted it's not a neutral place but the mods will allow any civil discussion in the proper forums.

Discussing anything on JREF leads nowhere because all you get is hate, vitriol and insults thrown at you 9 posts out of 10. So come on over to a pleasant forum where a real discussion can take place without all the interference from irrelevant nonsense.

 

[bill smith]

Tell us why every demolition expert in the world rejects the idiocy you peddle.

Here's one who doesn't reject the controlled demolition certainty and coincidentally hhe also explains why demolitions experts especially in America do not speak out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4