Controlled demolition vs. the towers collapsing

[tsig]

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.

Too dangerous? So the planters of the explosives wanted to bring down the tallest buildings in NYC but didn't want it to be dangerous?

How many tall building have you demolished?

 

[excaza]

Too dangerous!?

I don't think The Man was concerned about danger when planning to CD skyscrapers with people inside. What, was 3000+ people murdered the perfect amount? 2000 too little? 5000 was just too dangerous? This isn't Goldilocks and the three bombs.

 

[tsig]

A building whose upper floors are to be the target of an alleged plane crash has a method and procedure that differs from other structures when being prepared for CD.

I wasn't aware there was a CD procedure for demolishing building by flying planes into them and then setting off explosives. Could you please link to or quote from this procedure?

 

[excaza]

I don't understand why a building failing due to an airplane crash + fire is less plausible than an airplane crash + fire + CD so secret only ninjas could have carried it out.

 

[Sabretooth]

Too dangerous!?

I don't think The Man was concerned about danger when planning to CD skyscrapers with people inside. What, was 3000+ people murdered the perfect amount? 2000 too little? 5000 was just too dangerous? This isn't Goldilocks and the three bombs.

Didn't I read somewhere that their could be as many as 50,000 people in WTC1/2 on any given business day?

 

[grandmastershek]

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.

Yet another truther throwing the word logic around and showing absolutely no understanding. Just like: science, physics, Newton...ad infinitum.

 

[tsig]

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.

It's CD's all the way down?

 

[grandmastershek]

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

Read it yourself?

 

[grandmastershek]

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.

So basically your argument is that buildings are designed not to fall. Boats are designed not to sink....but then reality catches up.

Not to mention then ever changing goal post of near free fall.

 

[T.A.M.]

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.

Yes, nanothermite is the Tofu of demolition materials.

TAM

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

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.

Why are you blaming us for your own misunderstandings of WTC7 collapsing without the use of explosives? Why do you blame us for your own mistakes about how a CD is performed?

Look, don't blame us because you have issues. You presented a problem to us, you came to us looking for answers, we gave you answers & what do you do? You blame us anyways!

You should blame yourself for getting involved with those retards in the 9/11 TM. We didn't tell you to go to them, you went because you were gullible & didn't understand simple principles.

 

[jaydeehess]

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.

In fact you are wrong on this point. The only similarity between a CD and the collapse of the towers is that the structure collapsed completely. In all aspects of the collapse, post initial failure and downward movement of the section above the fire floors, more resembles other gravitationally driven collapses which follow fire induced initial collapse. There was a fire in a university building, I do not recall where or when but the video is on the internet and perhaps someone else recalls where to find it. The fire is on one level and eventually a collapse ensues but by the time it stops a lot more of the building has collapsed. The only difference between that collapse and the WTC towers is one of scale and design of the structure.

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

Once again you are incorrect. In the case of the towers we have video of the area of intial failure. That is to say, the level where the structure broke. In WTC 7 we have only a portion of the upper portion of the buildig well above the level of initial failure.
If you see a video of a tree falling do you assume that a chainsaw or axe was used by a person who deliberatly caused the tree to fall or do you consider the possibility of wind, landslide, or plain rot? Especially if you cannot find any evidence that an axe or chainsaw was in the vicinity of the tree and all you have is video of the crown of the tree?

Now I see a claim that demolition from the bottom would just be too dangerous in the minds of the people who are planning on demolishing buildings that can house up to 50,000 people. The ridiculousness of such a staement is off the charts.
In WW2 the first thought for the use of the atomic bomb against Japan was to tell them to be watching an uninhabited island get wiped off the map by one bomb. That idea was shelved in favour of actually using it against a target city. The targets were chosen for their geography and the ease to get one plane over them. (Hiroshima was a flat plain, Nagasaki was hilly). Tokyo was spared because after the bombs went off the USA would need someone in power to talk to and if Tokyo was taken out then those people might all be dead or at least cut off in communications. No consideration was made for keeping causualities down once the idea was already to cause people to die and suffer horrible injury.
To expect that planners of a massive attack on their own constituents would get a damn about limiting its effects can only be born of a twisted political world view.

 

[jaydeehess]

Yes, nanothermite is the Tofu of demolition materials.

TAM

Well, that and space-a-beams

 

[TruthersLie]

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.

We went over this schooling a while back...

did wtc7 fall into its own footprint?

(we already know what your answers were when you got schooled on it.)

Or the towers?

 

[ergo]

How many JREF "debunkers" does it take to counter one empirical statement?

Jackanory
T.A.M.
9/11 Chewy Defense
Drudgewire
sabretooth47
beachnut
fitzgibbon
Chorduroy
dafydd
excaza
tsig
grandmastershek
jaydeehess
TruthersLie

14 and counting... and still nothing debunked. You call this efficient?

 

[beachnut]

How many JREF "debunkers" does it take to counter one empirical statement?

Jackanory
T.A.M.
9/11 Chewy Defense
Drudgewire
sabretooth47
beachnut
fitzgibbon
Chorduroy
dafydd
excaza
tsig
grandmastershek
jaydeehess
TruthersLie

14 and counting... and still nothing debunked. You call this efficient?

All your delusions were debunked by events on 911. 9 years of failure and all you can do is talk and call-out people who understand 911. The Passengers on Flight 93 figured out 911 in minutes, they beat you by 9 years!

No CD, no evidence of CD makes your support of CD, delusional.

What was the device or substance used in your CD fantasy?
How much was needed?
Was thermite used?
Why did the thermite disappear, no iron left over?
Who did it?

Fail to answer, you debunk yourself.

 

[Miragememories]

All your delusions were debunked by events on 911. 9 years of failure and all you can do is talk and call-out people who understand 911. The Passengers on Flight 93 figured out 911 in minutes, they beat you by 9 years!

No CD, no evidence of CD makes your support of CD, delusional.

What was the device or substance used in your CD fantasy?
How much was needed?
Was thermite used?
Why did the thermite disappear, no iron left over?
Who did it?

Fail to answer, you debunk yourself.

Spam on.

MM

 

[DC]

 

[beachnut]

Spam on.

MM

911 truth has
spam on
use it to
answers all
the new term
for have no clue
spam on
it serves as all the eviddene too
when you run out of things to do
911 truth has
spam on
for you
when you can't do math
spam on



the "spam on" post is all the evidence accumulated for 9 years by 911 truth for CD​

 

[carlitos]

a spam haiku

Did you ever wonder...
Where rats go when they die?
Spam knows where they go.