• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Controlled demolition vs. the towers collapsing

T.A.M., I'll leave you to it, since I'm pretty sure we're not supposed to post LOLcats in the public parts of the forum.
 
carlitos said:
T.A.M., I'll leave you to it, since I'm pretty sure we're not supposed to post LOLcats in the public parts of the forum.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't attack the person, but the argument and yet it goes on every day. Why don't you stick with providing good arguments. You were in such a good path just now. Why quit and resort to forum rules?
 
Java Man said:
Well I don't know the credentials of the people who said shotgun or M80, but:

A great deal of the members here keep asking me if I've ever fired a weapon before when we talk about explosives.

A great deal of the members here claim that "trained personnel" didn't hear anything and they would have known the difference. Inferring that untrained personnel wouldn't (also those who have never fired a gun). So maybe the people who said shotgun or M80 were just confused and untrained.

The one person on that list that uses the word "bomb" and also uses the word "huge" so happens to have the initials FDNY. What does FDNY mean? Given the context and location of the event I'd guess Fire Department, City of New York. I'd also guess he's well trained. He is after all the Deputy Chief. I'll quote him again:

"Sounded like bombs. Like a bomb going off. I mean, it was huge." –FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden

Now what's in a bomb? HE. What's in a CD charge? HE. Are we connecting the dots here? And I'm not putting anything new on the table. Just connecting the dots between thing the debunkers here have said and defended with their teeth.
Click to expand...

I have hilited the parts that are important.....not that you understand anyway.....
 
Java Man said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's funny.......:D Reduce collateral damage? LOL!! Holy ****.
 
Java Man said:
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.
Click to expand...

How much thermite would it take to generate the same amount of heat that the 5 acres of instant fire created?

Hint, it's more than you could fit in a backpack.
 
carlitos said:
The really sad thing is that the quotes beachnut posted referred to bodies hitting the ground. I can't imagine what that must have been like when they realized what it was.
Click to expand...

I can still hear it very vividly. VERY disturbing, especially when you don't know what it is at first, but then find out......:(
 
triforcharity said:
How much thermite would it take to generate the same amount of heat that the 5 acres of instant fire created?

Hint, it's more than you could fit in a backpack.
Click to expand...

None actually. Remember that no thermite remains were found. Or what are you getting to? The only thing in the rubble that could burn according to you is thermite?
 
DGM said:
Do you have a good one for explosives? Just asking.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

He would be the first one. IMO there is NO legitimate reason for any rational person, unless some compelling evidence comes to light suddenly after 9 years, to be of the opinion that explosives were responsible for the collapses of the WTC buildings.
 
carlitos said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wait, so what you're saying that that the Yankees brought down the WTC? I ******* KNEW IT!!! That Steinbrenner Family!! Always mucking up everything. GMS is rolling over in his grave as we speak!!
 
Java Man said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hay-seuss Kristoes!!

One of the 911 conspiracy theories states that the towers had explosive removal of the column support at each floor as the upper section and debris came down and that this is why it came down at 'near free fall' acelleration.

THAT WOULD dictate a series of detonations that come at quicker and quicker intervals. However this is not in evidence in any recording of the collapses.

Now I suppose you would have that a weakening of the structure was effected by a few well placed explosives leading up to the initial collapse. However there is no evidence in the recordings of such explosions taking place either. Thus your side of the debate then says 'well it was a thermite burn' to which we on this side explain this cannot be timed, and cannot be shown to work on vertical structural members.

In fact the only people who have attempted to show that even a small column can be significantly affected by a thermite burn is Pop-sci who demonstrated that in their test the column was essentially unaffected.
To date no one on the 9/11 conspiracy belief side of the discussion has even attempted to show that a thermitic compound can be used to sever or weaken any vertical column much less one of the dimensions of those at the WTC buildings. Yet for some very odd reason this keeps being bandied about as a viable method!

Furthermore the arguement that a weaking of the lower structure would be required for complete global collapse has never been made in any fashion other than one of 'of course it had to be, the columns were really, really big and the building held up that upper portion for 30 years so it should have arrested the fall' This arguement has been addressed by , among others Bazant and shown to be a false and misleading line of reasoning.

So we are left with explosives or a thermite induced weakening at the fire floors. But of course there already was a weakening at the fire floors caused by the impact of the high speed, hundred+ ton aircraft, and the immediate large area multi-floor office fires that resulted from the release of thousands of gallons of liquid acellerant over those floors. So why are explosives or thermitic acellerants required for the initial collapse? Truth is they are not!
 
Last edited:
Java Man said:
Are you claiming that taking out those columns in the NIST report would not have taken down the building?
Click to expand...

Sure, someone COULD demolish a 110 story building, sure. In theory.

But, could they do it with thermite? Not that I have seen. Nor has anyone showed that thermite could even cut a core column.

Could they have used explosives? Sure. Except for the fact that nobody heard a series (More than one, in some kind of order) of explosions immediately before the collapse, and no evidence of the sort was found, and nobody saw the telltale markings of a HE on ANY of the steel.

But yes, in theory, someone could do it.
 
twinstead said:
He would be the first one. IMO there is NO legitimate reason for any rational person, unless some compelling evidence comes to light suddenly after 9 years, to be of the opinion that explosives were responsible for the collapses of the WTC buildings.
Click to expand...
I am a builder. I have worked on tall buildings for 30 years. Over this time I have noticed that a large amount of bird "crap" accumulates on top of these buildings. Over the years this amounts to a large amount of weight. I believe this was a factor in the collapse of all three buildings on 9/11. Why did NIST not account for the accumulation of bird "crap" in their calculations.


This in essence is what the "truth" movement is all about. (in my humble opinion)
 
Java Man said:
None actually. Remember that no thermite remains were found. Or what are you getting to? The only thing in the rubble that could burn according to you is thermite?
Click to expand...

Good point, but no, that is not what I am saying at all.

Why would you NEED thermite, (Even though thermite was not found) to bring down the towers? It's stupid.

BTW, the dogs at the WTC would have detected it. They were smart like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom