Controlled demolition vs. the towers collapsing

[Java Man]

he was making a very clear point, completely relevant to your comment. He was letting you know that you were intentionally, or unintentionally making the mistake of equating MORE THEN ONE explosion, with a SERIES of explosions. A series is a repetitive set of something, similar in nature, occurring at a relatively fixed interval.

TAM

So a SERIES according to you is singular?

BTW a series need not be at anything near a fixed interval.

 

[Sabretooth]

So a SERIES according to you is singular?

BTW a series need not be at anything near a fixed interval.

Semantics.

Show some evidence (ie: not quotes from ear-witnesses) that validates the existance of demolition explosives.

Surely, you have more than quote-mines to form this theory of yours?

 

[Bell]

Semantics.

Show some evidence (ie: not quotes from ear-witnesses) that validates the existance of demolition explosives.

Surely, you have more than quote-mines to form this theory of yours?

My bolding.

He truthers! Here's a new theory:

Quote-mines brought down the World Trade Center

 

[T.A.M.]

So a SERIES according to you is singular?

BTW a series need not be at anything near a fixed interval.

A series does include more then one explosion, but more then one explosion (plural) is not neccesarily a series. Does that make it clearer. I said series, and you tried to equate PLURAL to SERIES which is not correct.

If I said I didn't have an expresso, and you countered with an eye witness who said,

"I saw him drinking coffee", and tried to use this to say I was wrong, you would be wrong, because you were equating the use of the word COFFEE to describe what was a PARTICULAR TYPE of coffee.

TAM

 

[Adolph]

Incidentally, energy density and temperature are completely different properties, and describing an energy density as higher than a temperature makes as much sense as describing a colour as louder than a parallelogram.

Dave

Clearly that is a foolish comparison, everyone knows that a color is louder than a rhombus!

 

[Java Man]

I said series, and you tried to equate PLURAL to SERIES which is not correct.

I beg you pardon again. Should we equate SINGULAR to SERIES?

 

[Myriad]

I said series, and you tried to equate PLURAL to SERIES which is not correct.

I beg you pardon again. Should we equate SINGULAR to SERIES?

No, that would be stupid too.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[T.A.M.]

ok, I see no need to argue over this any more. In case there was some misunderstanding.

Controlled Demolition involves a SERIES of Explosions (a repetitive number of explosions roughly equally apart in time). What you provided as counter, was that beach had provided a link to testimony of Multiple or PLURAL explosions.

While yes, there are more then one explosion involved in a SERIES, you did not provide proof of a series. You provided proof ONLY of more then one explosion (and not very good proof either).

Now, that is as clear as it can be made. If you still don't get it, then I would point to you as exhibit A of why your movement has done so very poor these last 9 years in trying to get people to believe the truther nonsense.

TAM

 

[carlitos]

A series is indeed singular. The World Series comes to mind.

Based on the real world of building demolition, a series of explosions designed to bring down a building made up of evenly-spaced floors and support columns would tend to be at fixed intervals. I can't think of a reason for them to use a jazzy minor seventh for anything.

 

[T.A.M.]

A series is indeed singular. The World Series comes to mind.

Based on the real world of building demolition, a series of explosions designed to bring down a building made up of evenly-spaced floors and support columns would tend to be at fixed intervals. I can't think of a reason for them to use a jazzy minor seventh for anything.

I stand, humbly and humorously corrected sir.

TAM

 

[carlitos]

If you still don't get it, then I would point to you as exhibit A of why your movement has done so very poor these last 9 years in trying to get people to believe the truther nonsense.

I think that he gets it, but pretends not to so that he can argue about it, going point by point towards some conclusion that never arrives.

 

[Java Man]

ok, I see no need to argue over this any more. In case there was some misunderstanding.

Controlled Demolition involves a SERIES of Explosions (a repetitive number of explosions roughly equally apart in time).

Wrong. The explosions involved in a CD need not be "roughly equally apart in time". Your mind might be making it seem like that, but to the precision electronics controlling the detonators and the speed the explosives burn... they can be quite far apart.

More so the lack of a periodicity or need for periodicity is a design constraint. Nothing prevents you from having a series of explosions with no set time difference between them. Like you clearly said CD explosions are timed to provide the C (Controlled) aspect of CD. But I seriously doubt terrorists would care much about Control. I'd wager they'd be happier if the building fell sideways on others. So periodicity in the explosions is something YOU are imposing, but is not necessary for the presence of bombs. In other words the periodicity in the explosions does not rule out bombs or explosives. It just rules out "controlled". That's all you can prove and in no way can your "series" argument rule out bombs.

 

[Java Man]

A series is indeed singular. The World Series comes to mind.

It's not our fault you can only afford tickets to one game.

 

[T.A.M.]

Wrong. The explosions involved in a CD need not be "roughly equally apart in time". Your mind might be making it seem like that, but to the precision electronics controlling the detonators and the speed the explosives burn... they can be quite far apart.

More so the lack of a periodicity or need for periodicity is a design constraint. Nothing prevents you from having a series of explosions with no set time difference between them. Like you clearly said CD explosions are timed to provide the C (Controlled) aspect of CD. But I seriously doubt terrorists would care much about Control. I'd wager they'd be happier if the building fell sideways on others. So periodicity in the explosions is something YOU are imposing, but is not necessary for the presence of bombs. In other words the periodicity in the explosions does not rule out bombs or explosives. It just rules out "controlled". That's all you can prove and in no way can your "series" argument rule out bombs.

Occam is rolling over in his grave. Why not throw a few more dozen complexities or strays from the norm in there for good measure.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

SO Java, what you are saying is that the terrorists set off several preplanted explosives at prolonged, random interval, well before the buildings collapsed, and this is what brought the towers down?

IF not, please correct what is incorrect with the above assessment of what you are trying to argue here.

TAM

Ahh but we have you nearly admitting that the "Controlled" element of the canard should be tossed out...right?

 

[carlitos]

Wow, that's a lot of non-sequiturs

Detonators? Precision electronics? Explosives? Where did these topics come from, and will there be evidence for their use be presented?

Irrelevant off-topic response to trollery here:

I attended games one and two of the last World Series in my town, despite multi-thousand-dollar offers for my tix. Took my dad to the first one; it was magic. You have no idea at all.

 

[Java Man]

Occam is rolling over in his grave. Why not throw a few more dozen complexities or strays from the norm in there for good measure.

TAM

Complexities? What's so complex about it? It's actually easier to produced a set of uncoordinated explosions that a set of coordinated ones. It takes less effort and less skill.

 

[T.A.M.]

Complexities? What's so complex about it? It's actually easier to produced a set of uncoordinated explosions that a set of coordinated ones. It takes less effort and less skill.

and stands a MUCH MUCH MUCH smaller chance of success.

TAM

 

[Jackanory]

I beg you pardon again. Should we equate SINGULAR to SERIES?

Being argumentative and pedantic whilst using semantics is all that remains of your movement of failed ideas. Regurge all you wish. Are you making progress? lol.

You are out of your depth and clearly just throwing stuff into the mix with the rest of your failed movement. Ask yourself why it is no progress has been made. Is it because 911 was a terrorist attack using aircraft or is it because you have been spoon fed lies by liars.

To educate yourself is the only way to escape your delusions. Try this as an exercise. Ask the experts direct. Go do a course yourself. Do something explosive related and learn from doing. You may enjoy it. You will certainly realise that your delusions about explosives and there characteristics are wrong.

What is the sequence of a controlled demolition? Is it random? How much explosive is required per floor? How far are they spaced? How are they fixed? In what sequence are they detonated first, second, third, fourth or is it first, third, seventh, second etc? Are the explosives detonated from the centre outwards or perimeter inwards? At what point is the next floor sequence of detonation initiated? Where does that start, centre? perimeter? together? How many floors require explosives? How is a concrete structure prep & rigged? How is a steel structure prep & rigged?

Off you go. Do some real research, gain some hands on experience and dont come back until you have the basics.

 

[BigAl]

Complexities? What's so complex about it? It's actually easier to produced a set of uncoordinated explosions that a set of coordinated ones. It takes less effort and less skill.

It's easier to hijack a plane and crash it into a tower.

There were no demolition explosions at WTC.