Controlled demolition vs. the towers collapsing

[Java Man]

Well he could have said, "It was a bomb." If we are to take as word, that some FF have the ability to tell what an explosion due to an explosive sounds like versus other causes, and if we are to believe that the chief had this ability, then when he HEARD the explosion, with his alleged training, if it was a bomb, he would have said "We heard a bomb go off."

But he didn't say "it was like a gas tank going off", "it was like a gas pipe exploding", "it was like a car blowing up", "it was like a boiler exploding", "it was like a nitrogen (or any other compressed gas) tank exploding", "it was like an AC unit compressor exploding", etc. He said, of all the possible causes, "it was like a bomb", "huge". And he's a trained person. Why would a trained person choose that wording of all?

 

[Java Man]

Do you think that would be a responsible statement for a fire chief to make if he hasn't witnessed that explosion? Especially as he recalls the chaos of the moment?

If you think of a legal argument, you would not be able to say that a noise you heard was something, you could only possibly say what you heard and what it sounded like to you.

Exactly, more so I'll add the following on the matter of aviation. If an airplane has a landing gear issue it will do a flyby the tower. The most people can say is "the landing is down and seems in the locked position". They can't guarantee it IS locked and will not take the risk of such an assertion as a touchdown with a unlocked gear can lead to a serious incident. Same thing applies to many other jobs and scenarios in which covering ones rear is important.

 

[Disbelief]

But he didn't say "it was like a gas tank going off", "it was like a gas pipe exploding", "it was like a car blowing up", "it was like a boiler exploding", "it was like a nitrogen (or any other compressed gas) tank exploding", "it was like an AC unit compressor exploding", etc. He said, of all the possible causes, "it was like a bomb", "huge". And he's a trained person. Why would a trained person choose that wording of all?

What about this then?

Nicholas Borrillo -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
on 23rd floor of North Tower:

Then we heard a rumble. We heard it and we felt the whole building shake. It was like being on a train, being in an earthquake. A train is more like it, because with the train you hear the rumbling, and it kind of like moved you around in the hall. Then it just stopped after eight or ten seconds, about the time it took for the building to come down.

Was it a train?

 

[tsig]

I'm not trying to say any of those rehearsed lines. Please don't anticipate yourself. Just stick to answering the questions I've put forward to you and others. Why did everyone suddenly go quiet?

Here goes again? What is this pile people are talking about? I understand the fire burned under the pile. It was mentioned to be underground. Was it in a basement or something? How far underground was it?

Those are simple questions I believe you folks should have answers to since you're bringing forth such statements.

the pile was about this high and the fire was in something. It was so far underground you couldn't see it.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Actually both scenarios could exist concurrently. Knowing that airplanes would hit and cause massive destruction and a fire. Which has already been established by debunkers here to "not have been considered in the original design". Since buildings would begin a collapse due to that all that would be needed were key weakening spots to ensure a vertical collapse and reduce collateral damage the area. Explosives and thermite didn't need to cut through all the beams. Huge amounts of them would not be needed. Only key points.

Construct as many fantasy scenarios as you like; as long as there's a viable mechanism leading to collapse that involves no thermite or explosives whatsoever, no evidence of thermite or explosives whatsoever, no known method by which thermite could have facilitated the collapse, and a complete absence from all sound recordings of the unmistakable sounds of any explosives large enough to have a significant effect on the structure, then the only sane conclusion is that there were neither thermite nor explosives involved.

Dave

 

[twinstead]

Do you think that would be a responsible statement for a fire chief to make if he hasn't witnessed that explosion? Especially as he recalls the chaos of the moment?

If you think of a legal argument, you would not be able to say that a noise you heard was something, you could only possibly say what you heard and what it sounded like to you.

In a courtroom, the judge would have asked him if he thought it really WAS a bomb. He'd say in his expert opinion it WAS, or in his expert opinion it WASN'T.

So why don't you ask him?

 

[ergo]

In a courtroom, the judge would have asked him if he thought it really WAS a bomb. He'd say in his expert opinion it WAS, or in his expert opinion it WASN'T.

I don't think the judge would ask him this. And I don't think an honest fire chief would be able to say yes or no either way. He is not an expert in this case. He is a witness.

 

[Java Man]

Construct as many fantasy scenarios as you like; as long as there's a viable mechanism leading to collapse that involves no thermite or explosives whatsoever, no evidence of thermite or explosives whatsoever, no known method by which thermite could have facilitated the collapse, and a complete absence from all sound recordings of the unmistakable sounds of any explosives large enough to have a significant effect on the structure, then the only sane conclusion is that there were neither thermite nor explosives involved.

Dave

Nice hand waving. Specially the claims that thermite wouldn't have facilitated the collapse.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Thus, Didn't sound like a Bomb does not equal "Was not a Bomb".

That's quite a rare logical fallacy to see in the wild, I must admit. Bombs are one of the set of things that sound like bombs, but not the complete set; therefore, something that sounds like a bomb is not necessarily a bomb. However, bombs are not members of the set of things that do not sound like bombs, therefore something that does not sound like a bomb cannot be a bomb. You're suggesting that A does not necessarily imply B, therefore not-A does not necessarily imply not-B, which I think is the converse of the fallacy of affirming the consequent. In any case, such uniquely flawed logic deserves some sort of recognition.

I think I know the place to recognise it.

Dave

 

[Sabretooth]

Thus, Didn't sound like a Bomb does not equal "Was not a Bomb"

So you've pretty much single handedly debunked the debunker's "no bomb" argument.

A Conversation in Trutherville:

We have here Pete and Skip...sitting on a porch...plucking on da banjos. Suddenly, a noise is heard in the distance!

Pete: Hey, Skip, did dat soun' like-a bomb to you?
Skip: Naw...not at all...
Pete: It musta ben a bomb then...

 

[Dave Rogers]

Nice hand waving. Specially the claims that thermite wouldn't have facilitated the collapse.

Nice misrepresentation of what I said. There is no known method by which thermite could have facilitated the collapse. The use of thermite as a buildings demolition agent exists only in the imagination of truthers.

Dave

 

[Java Man]

What about this then?

....

Was it a train?

911: "911,What is the nature of your emergency?"

Caller: "I I heard something in my neighbor's house. Sounded like gunshots"

911: "Sounded like gunshots"

Caller: "Yes I heard some yelling and then these bang bang that sounded like gunshots"

911: "Sir you need to calm down. You say it sounded like gunshots"

Caller: "Yes it sounded like gunshots, can you send a unit here to check please."

911: "Sir well need more than that. 'Like' doesn't quite cut it. If you want me to dispatch a unit I'll need more than that."

Caller: "Huh? But it sounded like gunshots."

911: "Sir do you have any weapons at home?"

Caller: "No"

911: "Then how would you know?"

Caller: "Know what?"

911: "That it sounded like a gunshot. Have you fired a weapon before?"

Caller: "No"

911: "Thought so, surely some leftist liberal. How can you say it sounded like a gun shot if it you've never fired one.

Caller: "But it sounded just like a gun shot"

911: "I said 'like' doesn't cut it. I need you to go over to your neighbor's house and get some samples. I'll wait on the line."

Caller: "Arrgghhhh!!!!"

 

[ergo]

 

[Disbelief]

snip irrelevant argument

You are using a direct quote from an eyewitness to try and support your claim of a bomb, and you jump all over it. I showed you another quote from an eyewitness showing a comparison to a train, yet you disregard. Why?

How can the TM not understand similes after 9 years?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Interesting you should bring up phone calls, given the surprising absence of explosions from phone calls from the towers that were still in progress at the moment of collapse initiation. Something else that didn't sound like a bomb, so even more evidence of bombs, I suppose.

Dave

 

[Java Man]

Nice misrepresentation of what I said. There is no known method by which thermite could have facilitated the collapse. The use of thermite as a buildings demolition agent exists only in the imagination of truthers.

Dave

One of the main attributes of thermite reaction is? Heat. Lot's of heat. If heat of common fire weakened the structure imagine how much a thermite reaction would help!

Oh and by the way nanothermite does exist Development of Nanothermite Composites with Variable Electrostatic Discharge Ignition Thresholds

Maybe the term is misused by truthers, but shouldn't be made fun of and further misused by debunkers.

 

[Sabretooth]

911: "911,What is the nature of your emergency?"

Caller: "I I heard something in my neighbor's house. Sounded like gunshots"

911: "Sounded like gunshots"

Caller: "Yes I heard some yelling and then these bang bang that sounded like gunshots"

911: "Sir you need to calm down. You say it sounded like gunshots"

Caller: "Yes it sounded like gunshots, can you send a unit here to check please."

911: "Sir well need more than that. 'Like' doesn't quite cut it. If you want me to dispatch a unit I'll need more than that."

Caller: "Huh? But it sounded like gunshots."

911: "Sir do you have any weapons at home?"

Caller: "No"

911: "Then how would you know?"

Caller: "Know what?"

911: "That it sounded like a gunshot. Have you fired a weapon before?"

Caller: "No"

911: "Thought so, surely some leftist liberal. How can you say it sounded like a gun shot if it you've never fired one.

Caller: "But it sounded just like a gun shot"

911: "I said 'like' doesn't cut it. I need you to go over to your neighbor's house and get some samples. I'll wait on the line."

Caller: "Arrgghhhh!!!!"

Clever...a little bit amusing...but, no.

 

[twinstead]

911: "911,What is the nature of your emergency?"

Caller: "I I heard something in my neighbor's house. Sounded like gunshots"

911: "Sounded like gunshots"

Caller: "Yes I heard some yelling and then these bang bang that sounded like gunshots"

911: "Sir you need to calm down. You say it sounded like gunshots"

Caller: "Yes it sounded like gunshots, can you send a unit here to check please."

911: "Sir well need more than that. 'Like' doesn't quite cut it. If you want me to dispatch a unit I'll need more than that."

Caller: "Huh? But it sounded like gunshots."

911: "Sir do you have any weapons at home?"

Caller: "No"

911: "Then how would you know?"

Caller: "Know what?"

911: "That it sounded like a gunshot. Have you fired a weapon before?"

Caller: "No"

911: "Thought so, surely some leftist liberal. How can you say it sounded like a gun shot if it you've never fired one.

Caller: "But it sounded just like a gun shot"

911: "I said 'like' doesn't cut it. I need you to go over to your neighbor's house and get some samples. I'll wait on the line."

Caller: "Arrgghhhh!!!!"

You neglected to add that there were 15 previous callers who reported a train, a tidal wave, some fire crackers, a 'whoosh', and a sound similar to pink unicorn hooves. In addition, the cops were already there and have cleared the house and have realized that it was simply a car's backfire.

So, after the caller insists it just HAS to be a gun shot no matter WHAT the preponderance of evidence states, it is the 911 operator who says "Arrgghhh!!!"

That's more like it.

 

[Java Man]

You are using a direct quote from an eyewitness to try and support your claim of a bomb, and you jump all over it.

Let me clarify this. I'm using a quote from a trained eyewitness brought for by none other than beachnut to bring forth the contradictions in the debunker's position against bomb. Now I have nothing against the non existence of bombs, but to arrive to it through this set of contradictory comments on your part just makes no sense.

If in the end we realize no bombs were planted that is OK with me. But to huff and puff in one direction then come up with this and the marvelous statement on sabertooth's part Using similes does not further an arguement. is just marvelous and a true representation of debunker logic. It's valid as long as it supports it and invalid when it counters it. I'll have to put the word "like" right along "youtube" on the shelf of things that were, but then were not once they went against debunker theory.

 

[Java Man]

In addition, the cops were already there and have cleared the house and have realized that it was simply a car's backfire.

Were they? Prior to the 911 call. Mhh conspiracy after all!