• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Controlled demolition vs. the towers collapsing

Spot on. Can you then tell me in what order those explosives are detonated? And why?

It makes sense that the detonation would start at the bottom and rapidly work its way up. But I leave that to the demo experts. My point was merely to point out that this statement:

T.A.M. said:
CD is done via explosives at the based of the building.

is incorrect. Like much of what you folks say.

As for 'falling in its own footprint'. lol. Are you saying that the entire mass of all CD's fall within their own footprint? lol. Yet another truther 'buzz phrase' taken out of context.

No, not all CDs, but for tall structures, that's the goal. That minimizes as much as possible collateral damage.
 
If explosives were planted in the towers with the intent to destroy them, they would be in the bottom and would let gravity do its work. There would also be no reason to hijack planes and crash them. The evil conspirators could just say that someone drove a truck with explosives in, or something similar.

Occam's Razor for the win.

Exactly. I expanded on this argument here, a long time ago.

The Truthers never, ever stop to think about what they're proposing. It's totally mad. This is why it's so hard (viz. impossible) to get an alternate hypothesis out of them, even one that is totally speculative.

Welcome to the Forums!
 
Not quite correct. Let me fix it for you.

2006
Truthers: Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition.
----------------------------------
2007
Debunkers: It wasn't controlled demolition because. . .[ILLOGICAL ARGUMENT].
Truthers: That argument is illogical..
Debunkers: Fair enough. It was worth a try, though.
----------------------------------
2010
New Debunker: It wasn't controlled demolition because. . .[SAME ILLOGICAL ARGUMENT].
Old Debunkers: Forget it - we've already tried that one.

Refix:

2006
Truthers: Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition.
----------------------------------
2007
Debunkers: It wasn't controlled demolition because. . .[LOGICAL ARGUMENT].
Truthers: That argument is illogical..
Debunkers: A CD starts at the bottom, not the top!
----------------------------------
2010
New Debunker: It wasn't controlled demolition because. . .[LOGICAL ARGUMENT].
Old Debunkers: Forget it - we've already tried that one because we have no evidence to prove a CD occured. Leave me alone!

That fits!
 
Ah, thank you. But your first assertion is incorrect. Explosives are often, if not usually laid throughout the building in CD, not just in the lower part of it. This is how you get a tall structure to fall into its own footprint rather than topple over dangerously.

The colapse starts at the base...you have watched a real cd, correct?

TAM:)
 
If explosives were place as in a traditional cd, all through out the building, then why, why did we not see the bottom give way under the *********** huge load atop of it?

Answer that ergo?

TAM:)
 
It makes sense that the detonation would start at the bottom and rapidly work its way up. But I leave that to the demo experts. My point was merely to point out that this statement:



is incorrect. Like much of what you folks say.



No, not all CDs, but for tall structures, that's the goal. That minimizes as much as possible collateral damage.

I was a 'demo expert' for many years.

TAM stated that 'CD is done via explosives at the based of the building'. That would be a correct statement. CD is indeed done VIA explosives at the base of a building. Would you care to proof read what it is you are trying to argue against before posting. You are therefore incorrect......like much of what it is you post.

Ahhhh.......not all CD's!!! Is that the start of the dance in realising that you are wrong again? NO CD falls within it's own footprint!!!! Never!!!! Falling within it's own footprint is impossible for any CD of any building of any size. Fact! Hands on experience, education, teaching and knowledge is far better than hearsay and false plagurism. But hey, please enlighten me on your knowledge of explosives and CD's.
 
2002-2006
------------
Truther: WTC1/2 were brought down via Controlled Demolition

2007-2010
-------------
Debunkers: CD is done via explosives at the based of the building.
Truther: WTC1/2 were brought down via UNCONVENTIONAL NONSTANDARD Controlled Demolition.

Stanadard Truther Protocol...modify your accusations to fit the ever shrinking wiggle room.

TAM:D


It's important to mention the step that comes in-between to demonstrate the kind of cognitive dissonance necessary to become a Truther.

Truther: WTC1/2 were brought down via Controlled Demolition

Debunker: What's your evidence?
Truther: It LOOKED JUST LIKE A CONVENTIONAL STANDARD Controlled Demolition


Debunkers: CD is done via explosives at the based of the building.
Truther: WTC1/2 were brought down via UNCONVENTIONAL NONSTANDARD Controlled Demolition.
 
T.A.M. said:
The colapse starts at the base...you have watched a real cd, correct?

I was a 'demo expert' for many years.

TAM stated that 'CD is done via explosives at the based of the building'. That would be a correct statement. CD is indeed done VIA explosives at the base of a building. Would you care to proof read what it is you are trying to argue against before posting. You are therefore incorrect......like much of what it is you post.

You could just admit you're wrong, then we don't have to go through these face-saving antics that you guys always have to get into to extract yourself from embarrassing statements.

The statement in the OP was:

doogiet said:
If explosives were planted in the towers with the intent to destroy them, they would be in the bottom and would let gravity do its work.

The obvious response to this is no, because this is not how you bring down tall structures. You don't just remove resistance in the lower portion of the building and "let gravity do its work" in tall structures. That would be too dangerous. You have to remove resistance throughout the building, as you confirmed: from bottom to top. So the issue that Doogiet is having trouble with is his own misunderstanding of how CD is conducted for tall structures.

End of story. End of thread.
 
You could just admit you're wrong, then we don't have to go through these face-saving antics that you guys always have to get into to extract yourself from embarrassing statements.

The statement in the OP was:



The obvious response to this is no, because this is not how you bring down tall structures. You don't just remove resistance in the lower portion of the building and "let gravity do its work" in tall structures. That would be too dangerous. You have to remove resistance throughout the building, as you confirmed: from bottom to top. So the issue that Doogiet is having trouble with is his own misunderstanding of how CD is conducted for tall structures.

End of story. End of thread.

You don't know anything Ergo:

Conspiracy Theory #1: The World Trade Centers were destroyed by explosives, as a result of Controlled Demolition, in the basement and plane impact areas. Firefighters heard explosives going off. The WTCs' fell symmetrically. A remote detenator was used.

1a: This would be impossible since there were people in the basement at the time, William Rodrigez, FDNY firefighters and NYPD police officers were very much alive at the time and so were French cameramen filming. Explosives in the plane impact areas would not have survived the nearly 1 hour of burning time. They would have detonated after an immediate fire and the primacords would've been severed or rendered useless by the planes impact. William Rodrigez, a janitor in WTC1, was in Basement Level 1 with his supervisor, at the time Flight 175 impacted the building and heard nothing. He did not say anything about ever seeing an explosive device in the basement or one going off there. No "controlled demolition" occured, and that theory has no evidence to support it. A controlled demolition starts at the bottom to the top, not the top to the bottom. Plus the fires that raged inside both towers would've set the demolition prematurely, causing the towers to fall sooner than later. But the towers fell later, about 1 hour later, by the extreme fires that raged to soften the steel and causing the bolts and rivets to pop, the fires inside the towers reached between 1,300*F to about 2,000*F, well below the 2,600*F+ heat to melt steel. Maybe that's why Truthers rely on the "explosive" theory because of the steel snapping at certain places when the building collasped.

Explosive shape charges leave behind copper when exploded. Not a single piece of WTC steel that was looked at had any type of copper residue on the columns. The "controlled demolition" theory can't exist because elements don't exist to confirm that 9/11 was an "Inside Job". The FDNY firefighters heard what represented explosives. They heard things exploding inside offices that would be combustible in an office, such as: TV's, computer monitors, electrical wiring, coping machines, furniture, ect. Another possible explosive sound they heard would've been the fuel tanks for the generators, the bolts and rivets holding the outter and inner columns popping from the collaspe. The Twin Towers didn't fall "symmetrically", the outter columns fell out and away from the buildings while the floors and inner columns fell almost inside the building. The buildings surrounding the 16 acre site were damaged by the Towers collapse, indicating that they didn't fall symmetrically.

A remote detenator wouldn't have worked either, because they rely on radio frequencies and there's too many radio frequencies that could set off an explosive prematurely. Controlled Demolitions Expert, Brent Blanchard, who was at Ground Zero, didn't see detenation cords or copper residue on the inner and outter columns of the Twin Towers within the debris. Proving that the claim for Controlled Demolition is a fairy story.

You got served!
 
You could just admit you're wrong, then we don't have to go through these face-saving antics that you guys always have to get into to extract yourself from embarrassing statements.

The statement in the OP was:



The obvious response to this is no, because this is not how you bring down tall structures. You don't just remove resistance in the lower portion of the building and "let gravity do its work" in tall structures. That would be too dangerous. You have to remove resistance throughout the building, as you confirmed: from bottom to top. So the issue that Doogiet is having trouble with is his own misunderstanding of how CD is conducted for tall structures.

End of story. End of thread.

You wish. You are correct that conventional cd involves explosives throughout the building. However, it is not incorrect to say that they are at the base. If i had said ONLY at the based, that would be incorrect. For the love of ****, i have been at this for four years, i am fully well aware of all the places that explosives are placed for conventional cd. The point was that in conventional cd explosives are placed at the base AND throughout, but importantly at the base, so the collapse is Gravity Driven.

Got that....gravity driven....from the bottom.

TAM:)
 
To T.A.M.: This doesn't change the fact that doogiet's idea (and yours, according to your statement) that you could induce a clean, gravity-driven collapse in the Twin Towers by only removing resistance at the base of it is wrong, and is clearly not how CD is done.
 
You could just admit you're wrong, then we don't have to go through these face-saving antics that you guys always have to get into to extract yourself from embarrassing statements.


Do I have to ask at every single NWO shareholder meeting? PLEASE let's start buying irony meters in bulk. Having to pay to get them serviced every seven minutes will never be cost-effective as long as we keep the 9/11 section open. :mad:
 
Where was the word "only" ever used in my post or his? Where? You are inserting your own preconcieved ideas of what er meant into our statements....everyone (except you) can see that. Everyone (except you) understands what is meant by our posts.

Obviously, a traditional cd will not work without rigging the full building with explosives, or at least will not likely work, or be controlled, or they wouldn't be wasting the explosives they plant on all the floors...would they?

Oih....

Close to ignore...close
 
You could just admit you're wrong, then we don't have to go through these face-saving antics that you guys always have to get into to extract yourself from embarrassing statements.

The statement in the OP was:



The obvious response to this is no, because this is not how you bring down tall structures. You don't just remove resistance in the lower portion of the building and "let gravity do its work" in tall structures. That would be too dangerous. You have to remove resistance throughout the building, as you confirmed: from bottom to top. So the issue that Doogiet is having trouble with is his own misunderstanding of how CD is conducted for tall structures.

End of story. End of thread.

It's that proof reading and reading for comprehension thing again. You really need to sort that out. You agree, then tell us we are wrong. You tell us we are wrong, then agree with us. lol. Cool. That's a new method of arguement. lol. Then ya do one and run away. Classic stuff. lol.

You accused TAM of being incorrect. You were wrong.

Show me which 'tall' structure has been CD'd that fell within it's own footprint.

Show me a CD that starts at the top and falls like WTC1 & 2.

Show me a CD that falls like WTC 7 'silently'.

Please show me were resistance was removed, as you describe above, in the 'CD' of WTC1,2 or 7. 'Looks like' just doesnt do it for me. Too old and too experienced in a field that matters to be hoodwinked into the meme of 'looks like'.
 
One of the things that I've never understood about the whole Truther movement is the comparison (again and again) of the two towers collapsing to buildings that were intentionally demolished by explosives. Can't they see that demolished buildings have explosives on the BOTTOM, while the towers collapsed from the TOP DOWN?

If explosives were planted in the towers with the intent to destroy them, they would be in the bottom and would let gravity do its work.


Wrong. This is not how CD is conducted for tall structures.
 

Wrong. This is not how CD is conducted for tall structures.

Ergo has been taught to do the following:

1: Deceive - Misrepresent the claims of 9/11 Researchers into "Strawman" issues that are easily knocked down.

2: Dodge - Try to avoid or ignore any 9/11 evidence that you can not explain away.

3: Deny - Refuse to acknowledge any irrefutable evidence given is relevant to the 9/11 arguement.

4: Discredit - Use any possible ad hominem accusation to ruin the credibility of 9/11 Researchers.

5: Repeat - Repeat the Conspiracy Theories constantly

Actually Doogiet is right & you're wrong!
 

Wrong. This is not how CD is conducted for tall structures.

So is it your stated believe that they DO NOT use explosives at the base/bottom of buildings in cd? Since that is what we have said, and that is what you quoted as allegedly being in error, i just want you on the record.

TAM:)
 
To T.A.M.: This doesn't change the fact that doogiet's idea (and yours, according to your statement) that you could induce a clean, gravity-driven collapse in the Twin Towers by only removing resistance at the base of it is wrong, and is clearly not how CD is done.

Reading comprehension!!!!

I asked you to search for CD's that go wrong. I also asked you to tell me why they go wrong. You're dance tells me you know who is right and who is wrong.

A building constructed of concrete and reinforced concrete has a method and procedure that differs from other structures when being prepared for CD.

A building constructed of concrete and steel has a method and procedure that differs from other structures when being prepared for CD.

A building constructed of concrete, reinforced concrete and steel has a method and procedure that differs from other structures when being prepared for CD.

A building constructed of steel, glass and concrete has a method and procedure that differs from other structures when being prepared for CD.

Can you tell mne what each procedure is and why?

An easier question for you is this. A building constructed of pizza boxes can not be CD'd or destroyed by fire or gravity. Why not? lol.
 

Back
Top Bottom