• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Invitation to Derek Johnson to discuss his ideas

bill smith said:
How long would a pool of steel 10,000 tons in weight take to cool Sarge ? Six months ?

What else could have burned for six months at those temperatures ?
Click to expand...

Have you got any idea what can burn for 6 months? Here's one clue: it's not thermite.
 
pgimeno said:
I mean, NIST considers the possibility of attaining a controlled demolition by preparing just one column with explosive charges, just as you understood in a previous message that I've quoted. I think your understanding was right and that's why my reply was "Yes they do". But in your last reply you seem to understand that I'm saying the contrary and you suggest a wording that matches the opposite of what I was saying.
Click to expand...

Well, it wasn't clear what you meant by "yes they do". From what you've highlighted, it looks like you were saying that controlled demolition could prepare just one column.

By saying controlled demolition doesn't usually just prepare one column, NIST are implying that controlled demolition does sometimes prepare just one column, although it's not usual.


pgimeno said:
I think they didn't mean "never". They meant "usually... not just one", just as they say and contrary to what you're saying in your first quoted sentence.
Click to expand...

Are you and NIST saying that controlled demolition sometimes prepares just one column?
 
bill smith said:
I think it would be too much to ask such a massive building to squeeze down between other buildings only yards away on three sides without causing any damage at all to those buildings. As it was the master-controlled demolition guys on 9/11 almost managed it.(See hyperlink)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6350606&postcount=1600 hyperlink

But then again you think it just fell so neatly by a fluke don't you Oystein ?


And just think that WTC7 was far far bigger than the building in this video. Steel frames are pretty good when they are not sabotaged aren't they ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMtb5Vndo2g
Click to expand...
I usually skip Bills posts because he's such a troll, and has got a bit boring for me.

But as we all know Bill so well, this is yet another example of his complete idiocy.

He is trying to suggest that the CD experts tried to drop the building so it missed other buildings around the CD site?! :eek::boggled:

So its ok to take down all the other buildings and all the lives/chaos/distruction that went with it, but made sure it didnt fall on some of the others... what an idiot.
 
SOon Anders will be in suggesting "that its in the realm of possibility" that they did so, because in one of the WTC buildings was the secret NWO headquarters, which they needed to avoid hitting...

THis is truly a remarkable crop of truthers we have here now...the gits and shiggles have never been so plentiful.

TAM:)
 
bardamu said:
Are you and NIST saying that controlled demolition sometimes prepares just one column?
Click to expand...
No. I'm saying they consider the possibility that WTC 7 was demolished by blowing just one column, the column that failed. Therefore, they implicitly admit the possibility that a demolition could prepare just one column. And their sentence under discussion doesn't negate this possibility, nor affirm it to be the case. Just to be clear, I mean this sentence:

"Controlled demolition usually prepares most, if not all, interior columns in a building with explosive charges, not just one column."

The word "usually" opens the possibility for other options, without necessarily implying that that's the case. Just as you interpreted when you said:

bardamu said:
Without actually saying it, NIST are suggesting that controlled demolition does sometimes, or at least could, prepare just one column.
Click to expand...
Which was correct in my opinion. Hope it's clear now.
 
pgimeno said:
No. I'm saying they consider the possibility that WTC 7 was demolished by blowing just one column, the column that failed. Therefore, they implicitly admit the possibility that a demolition could prepare just one column. And their sentence under discussion doesn't negate this possibility, nor affirm it to be the case.
Click to expand...

They don't "admit" it could happen. To give their theory some semblance of plausibility, they imply it does occasionally happen.


pgimeno said:
The word "usually" opens the possibility for other options, without necessarily implying that that's the case. Just as you interpreted when you said:

​
Which was correct in my opinion. Hope it's clear now.
Click to expand...

I was interpreting NIST, so my sentence is just as ambiguous as theirs.

They should have said explicitly that controlled demolition of buildings never prepares just one column. Readers of the report would then have been aware that NIST's "Probable Collapse Sequence" was not just "unusual" but totally unprecedented, whether triggered by fires or explosives.
 
bardamu said:
They don't "admit" it could happen. To give their theory some semblance of plausibility, they imply it does occasionally happen.




I was interpreting NIST, so my sentence is just as ambiguous as theirs.

They should have said explicitly that controlled demolition of buildings never prepares just one column. Readers of the report would then have been aware that NIST's "Probable Collapse Sequence" was not just "unusual" but totally unprecedented, whether triggered by fires or explosives.
Click to expand...

I sense a little sarcasm and eye-rolling in NIST's wording. It's like saying, "Challenging the findings of a whole panel of highly qualified professionals USUALLY requires more than a high school GED." In this context, "usually" can be safely be interpreted as "always".

I don't blame them for being sarcastic, if this is the case. It must be irritating to be forced to address ridiculous claims in a report like this. But, I suppose, truthers pay taxes too.

Just not nearly as much as most people, I suspect.
 
aggle-rithm said:
I sense a little sarcasm and eye-rolling in NIST's wording. It's like saying, "Challenging the findings of a whole panel of highly qualified professionals USUALLY requires more than a high school GED." In this context, "usually" can be safely be interpreted as "always".

I don't blame them for being sarcastic, if this is the case. It must be irritating to be forced to address ridiculous claims in a report like this. But, I suppose, truthers pay taxes too.

Just not nearly as much as most people, I suspect.
Click to expand...

Actually, my interpretation is a strictly neutral, covering-all-bases approach: They have not studied literally every explosive demolition ever done anywhere. So they can't say with absolute certainty that never in the history of this earth has anybody demolished a building with charges to one column only.

Hence they don't say always, they say usually. It is, strictly speaking, the most correct word here.
 
Oystein said:
Actually, my interpretation is a strictly neutral, covering-all-bases approach: They have not studied literally every explosive demolition ever done anywhere. So they can't say with absolute certainty that never in the history of this earth has anybody demolished a building with charges to one column only.

Hence they don't say always, they say usually. It is, strictly speaking, the most correct word here.
Click to expand...

That was my second guess. It would be extremely difficult to prove that no one ever demolished a building that way, so why go to the time and expense when you can simply say "usually"?
 
So they can't say with absolute certainty that never in the history of this earth has anybody demolished a building with charges to one column only.
Click to expand...
So you're tellin' me that there's a chance?

 
"Controlled demolition usually prepares most, if not all, interior columns in a building with explosive charges, not just one column."
Click to expand...

I think this could be read as meaning, they usually prepare "most columns", but somtimes they prepare ALL columns.

In other words, if its not most of the colmns, then its all of them.

Rather than "they usually prepare most if not all, but sometimes prepare only a few or even one". Applying that to the WTC is like trying to pick nat shinola out of pepper.
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
So you're tellin' me that there's a chance?

Click to expand...

Well, yes, for example on a building that has only one column :D

Besides, if there is a 1 in a million chance, and you demolish one million buildings, chances are, on one of them they rigged only one ;)
 
Oystein said:
Actually, my interpretation is a strictly neutral, covering-all-bases approach: They have not studied literally every explosive demolition ever done anywhere. So they can't say with absolute certainty that never in the history of this earth has anybody demolished a building with charges to one column only.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, how can they say with absolute certainty that nobody has ever demolished a building without bursting eardrums and smashing windows in nearby buildings?

What they could have said was: "it's completely unknown for somebody to demolish a large building with charges to one column only".


BadBoy said:
I think this could be read as meaning, they usually prepare "most columns", but somtimes they prepare ALL columns.

In other words, if its not most of the colmns, then its all of them.

Rather than "they usually prepare most if not all, but sometimes prepare only a few or even one".
Click to expand...

I agree that's the correct reading but if the other interpretation is possible it shows the sentence is ambiguous.


aggle-rithm said:
That was my second guess. It would be extremely difficult to prove that no one ever demolished a building that way, so why go to the time and expense when you can simply say "usually"?
Click to expand...

Why give accurate information when you can use ambiguous wording to hide facts that are inconvenient to your theory?


aggle-rithm said:
I sense a little sarcasm and eye-rolling in NIST's wording. It's like saying, "Challenging the findings of a whole panel of highly qualified professionals USUALLY requires more than a high school GED." In this context, "usually" can be safely be interpreted as "always".

I don't blame them for being sarcastic, if this is the case. It must be irritating to be forced to address ridiculous claims in a report like this. But, I suppose, truthers pay taxes too.

Just not nearly as much as most people, I suspect.
Click to expand...

Pathetic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom