Controlled demolition vs. the towers collapsing

[ergo]

yes, I guess that is why, when your dense truther friends realized it, they had to modify their "controlled demolition" canard, to "Atypical, unconventional controlled demolitions".

As for me digging a hole, I see you suffer from the same reading comprehension problem as ergo...Why am I not surprised.

I don't know if there was ever the idea that the Twin Towers collapses were exactly like a standard controlled demolition. The argument as I recall was always that CD is the best explanation for what we witnessed, far better than the scientific contortions required for a gravitational explanation.

WTC7 however, does resemble classic controlled demolition, and it has always been pointed out to be so.

In any case, sorry to inform you, TAM, but whether it's an industry standard form of demolition or some kind of atypical, unconventional, military-inspired controlled demolition, they're still controlled demolition. Perhaps this was a new revelation for you, but nothing has changed from the so-called "truthers" perspective.

And you clearly made a boo-boo in this thread, that all can see, in trying to suggest that CD is only done by removing resistance from the base of a building, letting "gravity do its work" on the rest of it, perhaps in some misguided attempt to support your limp verinage comparisons. And it was shown you were incorrect. So why don't you just let it go?

 

[T.A.M.]

I don't know if there was ever the idea that the Twin Towers collapses were exactly like a standard controlled demolition. The argument as I recall was always that CD is the best explanation for what we witnessed, far better than the scientific contortions required for a gravitational explanation.

WTC7 however, does resemble classic controlled demolition, and it has always been pointed out to be so.

In any case, sorry to inform you, TAM, but whether it's an industry standard form of demolition or some kind of atypical, unconventional, military-inspired controlled demolition, they're still controlled demolition. Perhaps this was a new revelation for you, but nothing has changed from the so-called "truthers" perspective.

And you clearly made a boo-boo in this thread, that all can see, in trying to suggest that CD is only done by removing resistance from the base of a building, letting "gravity do its work" on the rest of it, perhaps in some misguided attempt to support your limp verinage comparisons. And it was shown you were incorrect. So why don't you just let it go?

lol...you don't have much of a memory then...I remember post after post, claiming "It had to be a controlled demolition, it looks just like a conventional controlled demolition" or something similar. That was back in 2006. Then as debunkers started to point out the obvious, that a traditional CD starts at the bottom, in terms of collapse, the truthers modified what it was to be called...I remember posts calling it "unconventional" and "atypical"...which I never had heard from them until we pointed out to them.

I'll admit I made a booboo if, AND only if, you can find the word "only" in the post in question. Everyone has also been witness to the fact that I did not say such, yet like the truther you are, you see only what fits your purpose, rather then the REAL truth.

TAM
TAM

 

[beachnut]

You can explain the NIST report(s) to me then? I'd very much appreciate it.

WTC towers fell due to impacts and fires, no firefighting ability due to lost water! WTC 7 burned all day and was not fought, no water, it collapsed. This is reality. I don't need NIST to understand impacts 7 to 11 times greater than design, 66,000 pounds of jet fuel starting the largest office fires in history, and gravity pulling down weakened fatally wounded buildings from office fires NOT fought!

You have delusions of some paranoid conspiracy theory by people other than the 19 terrorists who were solely responsible; you have the problem, and you have zero evidence. 9 years of failure. Put that on your resume.

You can't prove CD, that make planning a timetable for your proof delusional, or I would ask when you will be finished with your reserach.... lol, for about 9 more years.

 

[ergo]

.I remember post after post, claiming "It had to be a controlled demolition, it looks just like a conventional controlled demolition" or something similar. That was back in 2006. Then as debunkers started to point out the obvious, that a traditional CD starts at the bottom, in terms of collapse, the truthers modified what it was to be called...I remember posts calling it "unconventional" and "atypical"...which I never had heard from them until we pointed out to them.

I probably shouldn't be adding any more fuel to this misguided debate, but just to point out that it wouldn't matter to the CD hypothesis whether detonations start at the bottom of a building and work their way up or the reverse. What is important to the CD hypothesis is that the building's normal resistance, its ability to resist its own collapse, was removed, allowing for a descent that occurred within seconds of free fall. This was unprecedented. This was highly unusual. Bazant immediately wrote a paper trying to explain how this could have happened. It was widely recognized that this is not how buildings naturally collapse.

So anyway, your insistence that it was some kind of CT "debunking" moment, that CD starts at the bottom of a building, is most likely incorrect, as this fact would have no bearing on the CD hypothesis.

 

[Chorduroy]

I probably shouldn't be adding any more fuel to this misguided debate, but just to point out that it wouldn't matter to the CD hypothesis whether detonations start at the bottom of a building and work their way up or the reverse. What is important to the CD hypothesis is that the building's normal resistance, its ability to resist its own collapse, was removed, allowing for a descent that occurred within seconds of free fall. This was unprecedented. This was highly unusual. Bazant immediately wrote a paper trying to explain how this could have happened. It was widely recognized that this is not how buildings naturally collapse.

So anyway, your insistence that it was some kind of CT "debunking" moment, that CD starts at the bottom of a building, is most likely incorrect, as this fact would have no bearing on the CD hypothesis.

You are kidding, right? It certainly mattered to the CD hypothesis originally. The only reason you're backing off that statement now is that you know it weakens your argument (and we all know it wasn't that strong to begin with).

Do you have ANYTHING remotely compelling in support of your fantasy?

 

[Oliver]

I guess it's a psychological problem Truthers have: It's their way to try to explain what happened since their minds are not capable to accept that the events happened the way the rest of the world accepted.

In many Truther cases it may be a kind of mourning process due to a unsolved psychic trauma caused by the events, thus preventing them from going through the events and facts using their logic in lieu of going through it on an emotional level that leads to confusion and misinterpretation.

Do some of you in here know about Truthers who did have quite an awful awakening to the facts after they were trapped in their Truther-Worldview for some years? My guess is that such an awakening may be as horrible or maybe even worse than their emotional state on 9/11 itself.

 

[Architect]

If you're having trouble with them might I suggest getting a degree in engin-- oh wait...my bad...

TAM

I have to disagree. Understanding of the full NIST report requires an understanding of a range of different disciplines - principally fire and structural engineering, but also focussed on the performance and failure of buildings generally.

It also requires a knowledge of the design of tall buildings and complex structures specifically. It's difficult and specialist. That's why there are only a fewconsultants who work in that field.

However, if Mr. Johnstone or others can demonstrate said experience then I'm more than happy to engage in a proper technical discussion. They'll be the first, though, the others having scarpered at the first sign of expertise.

 

[ozeco41]

If you're having trouble with them might I suggest getting a degree in engin-- oh wait...my bad...

TAM

Though your point was made partly in humour there is a real aspect to it.
Many engineers (and the same comment goes for other professions) only operate in the mundane routine grind where "ritual application of the rules" is all they are asked to do. Call it "staying within the nine dots" if that helps. They rarely, if ever, are called upon to ask "are these rule appropriate for this special situation?"

Without boring with specific details I recall three occasions in my early career where I was put into a structural design environment. The setting was large hydraulic structures associated with a major water supply pipeline. On each of the three occasions I identified that a particular authoritative stance was being used outside the scope of the assumptions for which it was valid. Not only was my advice resisted but I found myself transferred into another area which was not a popular posting. I used it as a career launch pad but that is another story.

The significance here is that there would be many engineers who simply cannot analyse the collapse of, say, the Twin Towers in order to decide "demolition or not?" ...and, truther bullcrap aside, the decision "no demolition needed" is not hard to reach on purely technical observation let aside the logistic and security virtual impossibility that demolition presents.

Then there would be other engineers who could not see through the illogic of typical truther claims.

..and, sadly, there must be those who understand the truth but seek to misuse their professional knowledge to mislead others by untruths in total disregard of any questions of professional integrity or ethics.

But, even with those realities, the majority would be honest, responsible but simply disinterested in wasting time attempting to debate "truthers"

 

[T.A.M.]

I probably shouldn't be adding any more fuel to this misguided debate, but just to point out that it wouldn't matter to the CD hypothesis whether detonations start at the bottom of a building and work their way up or the reverse. What is important to the CD hypothesis is that the building's normal resistance, its ability to resist its own collapse, was removed, allowing for a descent that occurred within seconds of free fall. This was unprecedented. This was highly unusual. Bazant immediately wrote a paper trying to explain how this could have happened. It was widely recognized that this is not how buildings naturally collapse.

So anyway, your insistence that it was some kind of CT "debunking" moment, that CD starts at the bottom of a building, is most likely incorrect, as this fact would have no bearing on the CD hypothesis.

I never said it did. My point (I'll speak/type slowly) in posting #2, was to illustrate that truthers MODIFY THEIR THEORIES, OR HOW THEY EXPRESS THEM, to fit the evidence that they feel supports them, and avoids evidence that does not.

TAM

 

[Oliver]

I never said it did. My point (I'll speak/type slowly) in posting #2, was to illustrate that truthers MODIFY THEIR THEORIES, OR HOW THEY EXPRESS THEM, to fit the evidence that they feel supports them, and avoids evidence that does not.

TAM

T.A.M., may I ask you to take a medical stance concerning your profession about my recent post about Truthers?

 

[triforcharity]

You can explain the NIST report(s) to me then? I'd very much appreciate it.

Building collapsed.

Caught 7WTC on fire.

Fire burned uncontrolled for ~7 hours.

Fire is hot, and caused thermal expansion.

Building 7 collapsed.

Simple enough?

 

[T.A.M.]

I guess it's a psychological problem Truthers have: It's their way to try to explain what happened since their minds are not capable to accept that the events happened the way the rest of the world accepted.

In many Truther cases it may be a kind of mourning process due to a unsolved psychic trauma caused by the events, thus preventing them from going through the events and facts using their logic in lieu of going through it on an emotional level that leads to confusion and misinterpretation.

Do some of you in here know about Truthers who did have quite an awful awakening to the facts after they were trapped in their Truther-Worldview for some years? My guess is that such an awakening may be as horrible or maybe even worse than their emotional state on 9/11 itself.

Oliver,

From a medical point of view, little can be said about a group of such wide and diverse members as the truth movement. Could some of them being exhibiting elements of mourning, similar to the loss of a loved one....i suppose, that might be the case with certain family members who have turned to the snake oil. Without interviewing the individual, i try to avoid making proclamations of mental illness.

As for those who were once truthers and then awoken, i believe we have several on this forum.

Hope tis is sufficient. As a REAL medical professional, i try to avoid making medical assessments on a group of people.

TAM

 

[dafydd]

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.

How was it done? Will you be the first truther here give me your detailed theory about 911?The others have avoided this question like the plague.

 

[ergo]

I never said it did.

Oh my god, this thread has already gone on far too long.

when we pointed this out to truthers, they simply modified what type of scenario had to have occured from a traditonal CD to as i havr described....

My point (I'll speak/type slowly) in posting #2, was to illustrate that truthers MODIFY THEIR THEORIES, OR HOW THEY EXPRESS THEM, to fit the evidence that they feel supports them, and avoids evidence that does not.

No, that's what "debunkers" do. That's why so many of you feel like you've got this ironclad set of answers for every "truther" statement. Then when you get debunked you go into all kinds of face-saving antics and gyrations.

Like I said, I didn't see any significant shift in the CD theory. I think you're making it up. See your quote above.

 

[excaza]

Still waiting on the evidence for CD.

 

[Sabretooth]

Still waiting on the evidence for CD.

You're going to be waiting a looooooooong time...

 

[excaza]

Plus an explanation on how they rigged and detonated them without anyone noticing or leaving any evidence behind. Or how they managed to procure enough explosive material to take down the WTC without anybody questioning it.

Chalk it up to The Man, I guess.

 

[T.A.M.]

Oh my god, this thread has already gone on far too long.







No, that's what "debunkers" do. That's why so many of you feel like you've got this ironclad set of answers for every "truther" statement. Then when you get debunked you go into all kinds of face-saving antics and gyrations.

Like I said, I didn't see any significant shift in the CD theory. I think you're making it up. See your quote above.

I didn't say their was a shift in the theory that CONTROLLED DEMOLITION was used. I said that back around 2007, when they were all using the words "conventional", "traditional" CD, and we pointed out that the collapses, neither visually or otherwise, resembled a conventional CD, they modified their claim.

Similarly, actually, is the way they modified (around the same time) their "No building has ever collapsed due to fire alone." We provided them with examples of steel buildings and structures that had at least partially, and in some cases fully collapsed due to fire alone...what resulted....

They changed it, so that now, when cornered, they will say....

"prior to 9/11 no Steel SKYSCRAPER has ever COMPLETELY collapsed due to fires alone."

The above is actually a better example of the type of behavior I was talking about with my example in #2.

TAM

 

[fitzgibbon]

I probably shouldn't be adding any more fuel to this misguided debate, but just to point out that it wouldn't matter to the CD hypothesis whether detonations start at the bottom of a building and work their way up or the reverse.

Aside from "Independence Day", would you be so kind as to provide an example (with links to a reputable source) of a real-world top-down controlled demolition akin to what was observed in the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 (excluding of course WTC 1 & 2)?

I'm sure your response will prove to be highly enlightening.

 

[Macgyver1968]

You could also show the transition from conventional explosives to thermite to nanothermite. Originally, truthers claimed conventional explosives were used. When it was pointed out that conventional explosive make really loud sounds that aren't present in any of the videos of the collapse...they moved on to thermite. When it was shown that thermite is too slow and uncontrollable to be effective in a CD...they moved on to nanothermite....and since almost no one has seen nanothermite in action, they can ascribe any attributes they want to it.