• 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.

OK, so how do thermite demolitions work again?

i didnt post the video to defend his theory, nor do i believe his theory, i think the building collapsed and was NOT demolished in a controlled way.

BUT it shows an argument that was bought up against me when i believed in a CD a while ago. That Thermite cannot cut vertically, this argument is now shown to be wrong, it does however not show the WTC collapse was a CD.

i dont believe the WTC Collapse was a CD, i hope thats clear now.
 
Isn't it true that this would be the first time in history that thermite was used to demolish three steel framed high-rises on the same day, all of which are larger than any building that's ever been demolished, all of which were being used for office space at the time, and all of which were successfully rigged in complete secrecy? What's that old rhetorical question often posed by "truthers" ? Doesn't the same apply to them? Or are they exempt from their own "logic"?

haggard-overseer.jpg


Even if thermite can theoretically be used to demolish a building, the cult's hypothesis is still preposterous. Richard Gage believes that his controlled demolition fantasy is necessary to explain several features of the collapse which include the pulverization of concrete and steel, as well as the lateral ejection of debris. So there appears to be a fundamental contradiction; this can be easily understood by looking at some of Gage's own ridiculous statements

"If you wanted the building to come down, and blame it on fire, which is not explosive in nature, you would use a different type of charge, an incendiary to cut the beams. You would NOT use explosives which would give away your project."
-Richard Gage

"The explosives had to be so intense, because this is not a typical controlled demolition, so intense such as to hurl these beams at 65 mph laterally, landing five hundred feet away."
-Richard Gage
Click to expand...

So the conspirators didn't use explosives, since this would be too loud. So instead they used an incendiary to simply cut the steel. But they did in fact use explosives to laterally eject debris? LOL, what a joke...:rolleyes:
 
adkinsjr said:
Isn't it true that this would be the first time in history that thermite was used to demolish three steel framed high-rises on the same day, all of which are larger than any building that's ever been demolished, all of which were being used for office space at the time, and all of which were successfully rigged in complete secrecy? What's that old rhetorical question often posed by "truthers" ? Doesn't the same apply to them? Or are they exempt from their own "logic"?
Click to expand...

It seems more evident that you're exempt from employing logic altogether. The point of highlighting the collapses on 9/11 as unprecedented has a specific function: to underscore the unlikelihood of such an occurrence. When you're talking about the conscious decision-making of individuals, in this case using thermite in demolition, probability has little relevance, because that occurrence did not take place as the result of seemingly random events; someone simply chose to use a highly volatile incendiary in a controlled demolition.

In fact, the two occurrences are inextricably linked: because no demolition of this magnitude had ever been executed, it is only logical that unprecedented methods may be used.
 
tempesta29 said:
It seems more evident that you're exempt from employing logic altogether. The point of highlighting the collapses on 9/11 as unprecedented has a specific function: to underscore the unlikelihood of such an occurrence.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, thermite being used to demolish three steel framed high-rises on the same day, all of which are larger than any building that's ever been demolished, all of which were being used for office space at the time, and all of which were successfully rigged in complete secrecy, uh yeah, no unlikelihoods in that occurence. :D

someone simply chose to use a highly volatile incendiary in a controlled demolition which had to be rigged up in complete secrecy in three occupied buildings taller than any that have been demolished in history.
Click to expand...

Fixed that for ya, let's not minimize the incomprehensible dimensions of this UNPRECEDENTED task. I think I'll simply choose to go to mars and start my own colony before the New Year. Probablilities aren't important, it's just a matter of sheer will.

haggard-overseer.jpg
 
Last edited:
adkinsjr said:
Oh yeah, thermite being used to demolish three steel framed high-rises on the same day, all of which are larger than any building that's ever been demolished, all of which were being used for office space at the time, and all of which were successfully rigged in complete secrecy, uh yeah, no unlikelihoods in that occurence. :D


Fixed that for ya, let's not minimize the incomprehensible dimensions of this UNPRECEDENTED task. I think I'll simply choose to go to mars and start my own colony before the New Year. Probablilities aren't important, it's just a matter of sheer will.
Click to expand...

Again, these are conscious human decisions. It's clearly over your head.
 
tempesta29 said:
Again, these are conscious human decisions. It's clearly over your head.
Click to expand...

No, nothing you've said has went over my head. Just because human decision making is involved doesn't mean unlikelyhoods are not. What do you think the probability of me landing on mars before the New Year is? I'll simply choose to go. These are concious human decisions here! Therefore, there aren't any unlikelyhoods right?

:p

Clearly that didn't register when you read my last post.
 
Last edited:
DC said:
i didnt post the video to defend his theory, nor do i believe his theory, i think the building collapsed and was NOT demolished in a controlled way.

BUT it shows an argument that was bought up against me when i believed in a CD a while ago. That Thermite cannot cut vertically, this argument is now shown to be wrong, it does however not show the WTC collapse was a CD.

i dont believe the WTC Collapse was a CD, i hope thats clear now.
Click to expand...

, and as I said above (I did , didn't I?) I have not said it was not possible. I said it had not been demostrated and that the only group that tried, oddly enough, was Nat Geo.
 
adkinsjr said:
No, nothing you've said has went over my head. Just because human decision making is involved doesn't mean unlikelyhoods are not. What do you think the probability of me landing on mars before the New Year is? I'll simply choose to go. These are concious human decisions here! Therefore, there aren't any unlikelyhoods right?

:p

Clearly that didn't register when you read my last post.
Click to expand...

What are the obstacles in your landing on the moon? There are serious logistical issues there, so it isn't simply a matter of choosing to go to the moon. The logistical obstacles are far less in the situation under review.
 
tempesta29 said:
What are the obstacles in your landing on the moon? There are serious logistical issues there, so it isn't simply a matter of choosing to go to the moon. The logistical obstacles are far less in the situation under review.
Click to expand...

I know my example is extreme, but the principle is the same. Just because human decision making is involved in a task doesn't mean unlikelyhoods are not. It's very unlikely that some of the tallest office buildings in the U.S. were rigged with thermite demolition devices in complete secrecy as claimed by the "truth" cult. It's preposterous.
 
DC said:
:rolleyes: Many have said NO it is not possible to use it vertically.
Click to expand...

Actually I'm pretty sure I could work out a way of doing it.........and in any case you only have to heat the beam up not cut it...........

I absolutely do not think it was used but I'm pretty sure I could use it to demolish a building.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
Actually I'm pretty sure I could work out a way of doing it.........and in any case you only have to heat the beam up not cut it...........

I absolutely do not think it was used but I'm pretty sure I could use it to demolish a building.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind I know you are not advocating for this theory.

(BTW my apologies to DC as I had forgotten he is no longer a 'truther'.)

Do you think you could work out a way of using it in a controlled fashion to make the building fall they way you want it to?

Using thermite to heat up, ie. simply weaken, key parts of the fire floor levels seems to me to be just making up stuff for the sole reason that one cannot envision the events not being a vast gov't conspiracy.

NIST and common sense ( who? what? where did that phrase come from?) explain the heating up of the steel as a result of the office fires which were lit and spread to be very large area, multi floor fires within seconds by the introduction of thousands of gallons of liquid acellerant.
 
Last edited:
adkinsjr said:
I know my example is extreme, but the principle is the same. Just because human decision making is involved in a task doesn't mean unlikelyhoods are not. It's very unlikely that some of the tallest office buildings in the U.S. were rigged with thermite demolition devices in complete secrecy as claimed by the "truth" cult. It's preposterous.
Click to expand...

You compared choosing to add thermite to the mix to going to the moon. Are they comparable? No. There is no analogy here. You are blindly grasping for one, but it isn't there.
 
tempesta29 said:
You compared choosing to add thermite to the mix to going to the moon. Are they comparable? No. There is no analogy here. You are blindly grasping for one, but it isn't there.
Click to expand...


You're right. Going to the moon is at least possible.
 
tempesta29 said:
You compared choosing to add thermite to the mix to going to the moon.
Click to expand...

No, I compared thermite being used to demolish three steel framed high-rises on the same day, all of which are larger than any building that's ever been demolished, all of which were being used for office space at the time, and doing it all in complete in complete secrecy with going to mars

There are logistical obstacles to overcome, some of which may be impossible to overcome. Rigging the towers with demolition devices in complete secrecy is a serious obstacle that you conveniently ignore when you say that they "simply chose to use thermite."

The controlled demoltion hypothesis delusion is preposterous.
 
adkinsjr said:
No, I compared thermite being used to demolish three steel framed high-rises on the same day, all of which are larger than any building that's ever been demolished, all of which were being used for office space at the time, and doing it all in complete in complete secrecy with going to mars

There are logistical obstacles to overcome, some of which may be impossible to overcome. Rigging the towers with demolition devices in complete secrecy is a serious obstacle that you conveniently ignore when you say that they "simply chose to use thermite."

The controlled demoltion hypothesis delusion is preposterous.
Click to expand...

I haven't conveniently ignored it at all. And really, there isn't much to respond to on this topic. There is certainly nothing 'impossible' about putting these explosives in those buildings. Yes, it is a serious obstacle, the most serious as far as I'm concerned. That doesn't make it impossible. For a website about critical thinking, it's astonishing how frequently people use the word impossible.
 
tempesta29 said:
I haven't conveniently ignored it at all. And really, there isn't much to respond to on this topic. There is certainly nothing 'impossible' about putting these explosives in THE THREE TALLEST BUILDINGS TO HAVE EVER BEEN DEMOLITIONED, WHILE THEY ARE BEING USED FOR OFFICE SPACE, AND DOING IT ALL IN COMPLETE SECRECY.
Click to expand...

Fixed that for ya AGAIN, because you convenienty ignored the most important obstacle AGAIN. :rolleyes:

If you wanted the building to come down, and blame it on fire, which is not explosive in nature, you would use a different type of charge, an incendiary to cut the beams. You would NOT use explosives which would give away your project."
-Richard Gage
 
tempesta29 said:
I haven't conveniently ignored it at all. And really, there isn't much to respond to on this topic. There is certainly nothing 'impossible' about putting these explosives in those buildings. Yes, it is a serious obstacle, the most serious as far as I'm concerned. That doesn't make it impossible. For a website about critical thinking, it's astonishing how frequently people use the word impossible.
Click to expand...

Yes there is. Why you ask? Thermite is NOT an explosive. Ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom