OK, so how do thermite demolitions work again?

[jaydeehess]

CHENEY: Though it doesn't matter what crashes into the Pentagon because there are no videos of it, so who cares right? Yeah! Anyone want to shoot my good friend and not apologize for it? I did. It was awesome!

And really, you're implying that anyone believes that the original intention was to crash a plane in a field in Pennsylvania? Three planes hit high profile targets and you're insinuating that I and others believe the last plane was meant to hit the dirt in Nowheresville, PA?

You do not recognize hyperbole?

Fact is that the way you and TT are portraying the events, this fictitious conversation comes close to what your arguement amounts to.

 

[jaydeehess]

What is there to clarify? I'm claiming explosives were used in the destruction of these buildings. What isn't clear to you that needs clarifying?

But this thread is NOT about explosives, is it?

So let's get this straight. Despite the fact that Tempesta claimed that on "this topic" (which would certainly imply that he meant the subject of the thread) , that placing "explosives" (which he now says he does not include thermite as an explosive which reverses the previous implication) can we pretend that this thread is on topic at all?

I suggest a split of this thread, perhaps entitled "constant acelleration indicates explosives" since that has been tempesta's contention for a few pages now. (though he mysteriously cites it as 'no decelleration' which technically would refer to a decrease in velocity I believe)

 

[jaydeehess]

Arguement for split of the thread
(bolds mine)

The upper sections of the Twin Towers do not decelerate when they encounter undamaged structure. This is proof that the upper sections are not destroying the lower sections, therefore something other than the force of the upper sections is destroying the lower sections. I propose that explosives were used.

There is nothing to suggest that simply initiating collapse would evolve into the upper sections just plowing through the lower all the way to the ground. I don't think this would have occurred at all. After the initial collapse due to the first set of charges, the upper sections would have hit the lower structure like a car on a brick wall. These upper sections would have lost energy at every floor and would have either halted or simply fallen over onto the ground. These aren't hot knives through butter. The fact that acceleration is constant proves that these upper sections didn't destroy the lower.

 

[jaydeehess]

,,, and so perhaps we can be back on topic........

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

Correct.

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?

Yes

I cannot envision using a slow acting destructive material in such a way as to allow 110 storeys to collapse as seen without telltale signs that the lower floors were under this type of attack (especially at perimeter columns as implied in the video), well before the collapse zone reaches them.

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.

True but thats not the same as saying would be impossible to bring down a building using thermite. The WTC was not, as there is zero evidence that it was, utterly impractical to set and ignite charges or to leave no evidence of those charges.
We should be careful about saying things are impossible just because no one has tried to do it

.

How about, it would be highly improbable that one could use thermite to bring down a building in a fashion very closely resembling that of the WTC tower collapses?

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.

Agree 100%, why waste time with thermite etc when you have an airliner.......

, and we should be very careful about too much simplification of the event. The airliner itself caused significant damage but did not in itself bring the tower down. The liquid fuel on board ignited the contents of several floors, over a large area on each level, within seconds of impact, but the jet fuel by itself did not cause destructive heating of the remaining columns and trusses.

 

[adkinsjr]

I suggest a split of this thread, perhaps entitled "constant acelleration indicates explosives" since that has been tempesta's contention for a few pages now. (though he mysteriously cites it as 'no decelleration' which technically would refer to a decrease in velocity I believe)

Deceleration is somewhat of a colliqual term not often used in physics, it's just a negative acceleration, so velocity is decreasing as you say.

 

[jaydeehess]

Deceleration is somewhat of a colliqual term not often used in physics, it's just a negative acceleration, so velocity is decreasing as you say.

Indeed I do not recall the term being used at all in physics 101. All changes in velocity were referred to as 'acelleration' and as a vector with a specific direction.
"decelleration' would be akin to referring to 'deforce' as the opposition to "force".
(no Star Wars jokes please)

note: I have requested that Lisa split this thread.

 

[triforcharity]

"May De-Force be with you"

ETA: WAIT!! I figured it out!!

L.S. is Luke Skywalker's initials.

L.S. is also Larry Silverstein's initials.

So, Larry is actually Luke!! Proof positive that Star Wars is responsable for the collapse of the WTC!!

 

[jaydeehess]

As soon as I posted I knew it would happen.....................


ETA: how long is the edit window open?

 

[adkinsjr]

What's ridiculous is your constant editing of my posts and your subsequent responses.
The specific risks in creating a conspicuous collapse are independent of the risks in overcoming security and planting explosives.

Are you kidding me? I mean you're just...hahaha

I'm not playing with words. You just don't have a high intellectual capacity for comprehension.

uh....no, you are playing with words tempesta. You're the one making absurd comments, and you're the one defending those comments with wordplay, desperately trying to disconnect the original comments from the responses you've received. You've done it 3-4 times already, that's enough.

In order to demolish the building they have to plant explosives (except in "truth" cult fantasies where they use thermite). If I'm a conspirator, and someone asks me what are the risks involved in demolishing the buildings, the first thing that would come to mind is PLANTING THE DEMOLITION DEVICES IN COMPLETE SECRECY. The two are tied together, stop being ridiculous.

 

[jaydeehess]

In order to demolish the building they have to plant explosives (except in "truth" cult fantasies where they use thermite). If I'm a conspirator, and someone asks me what are the risks involved in demolishing the buildings, the first thing that would come to mind is PLANTING THE DEMOLITION DEVICES IN COMPLETE SECRECY. The two are tied together, stop being ridiculous.

Glad you brought this back up adkinsjr. To try to separate the risk involved in bringing about a global collapse with the risks involved in the logistics required to get to that point is utterly ridiculous.

It illustrates the grasping at straws that persons such as tempesta are performing to try and make their contentions look better.

For instance: The risks involved in flying are greatest at take off, less so once you are at altitude and increase again as the aircraft comes in for a landing. However the risk of flying as an operation MUST include all three since a) it is impossible to get to altitude without taking off, and b) it is impossible to remain at altitude indefinately in a normal aircraft. One MUST at some point, land. One can speak to the risks involved at various points of the aircraft's flight but one cannot simply ignore those of one part of the operation for convenience sake.

 

[tempesta29]

You do not recognize hyperbole?

Hyperbole is generally used to highlight a point. The obvious insinuation was that the plane that crashed in Shanksville fulfilled its original intention, that some dandelions and grasshoppers were a high profile terrorist target.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

"May De-Force be with you"

ETA: WAIT!! I figured it out!!

L.S. is Luke Skywalker's initials.

L.S. is also Larry Silverstein's initials.

So, Larry is actually Luke!! Proof positive that Star Wars is responsable for the collapse of the WTC!!

Have you ever noticed that you never see Lisa Simpson and Larry Silverstein in the same room?

And is Lynard Skynard really dead?

 

[tempesta29]

Why not completely destroy them?

The perps were willing to murder thousands of people and destroy half of lower Manhattan, but were willing to risk getting caught in order to save taxpayers a few dollars of cleanup costs?

What risk? Seems like they've pulled it off with ease.

What risk? So wiring 110 floors of 2 buildings, plus 47 floors of building 7 presented no risk whatsoever? Anyone could do that without any expense or chance of getting caught, either before or after the fact, or of any part of the process going wrong?

This is pretty easy to follow. I was discussing the specific risk of destroying the both buildings entirely versus a less complete destruction. I don't think designing a CD that completely destroyed the towers posed any risk significantly greater than one that doesn't completely destroy them.

JamesB then acted as if I implied that there was "no risk whatsoever" in rigging these buildings without being caught. It's a straw man and a pretty easy one to spot.

It'd be like if someone said there was no major risk in taking a cab to the airport to catch a plane to Afghanistan. "Cabs aren't that dangerous. There's no major risk there." Then one of you people says "NO MAJOR RISK??? You're going to Afghanistan!" The parameters have been established initially and you're simply changing them on the fly. It's either stupid or dishonest. What's even more counterintuitive is the complete failure to recognize the fallacy.

 

[jaydeehess]

Hyperbole is generally used to highlight a point. The obvious insinuation was that the plane that crashed in Shanksville fulfilled its original intention, that some dandelions and grasshoppers were a high profile terrorist target.

You did not answer the question. You did realize it was hyperbole, or not?
You now realize that the fictitious(you knew it was fictitious right?) conversation is a sarcastic summary of some 9/11 conspiracy contentions, right?

 

[tempesta29]

In order to demolish the building they have to plant explosives (except in "truth" cult fantasies where they use thermite). If I'm a conspirator, and someone asks me what are the risks involved in demolishing the buildings, the first thing that would come to mind is PLANTING THE DEMOLITION DEVICES IN COMPLETE SECRECY. The two are tied together, stop being ridiculous.

Quote where I've ever said planting the explosives posed no risk. I'll be waiting.

 

[tempesta29]

You did not answer the question. You did realize it was hyperbole, or not?
You now realize that the fictitious(you knew it was fictitious right?) conversation is a sarcastic summary of some 9/11 conspiracy contentions, right?

Are you slow? I responded with my own fictitious quote (you knew it was fictitious right?). If you did know my response was fictitious, then did you not also know that this implied that I knew the prior quotes were fictitious?

 

[Thunder]

Tempesta29- are you an engineer, architect, etc?

I majored in Geography and Surveying, and work with many Civil Engineers, RAs, and PEs.

 

[jaydeehess]

This is pretty easy to follow. I was discussing the specific risk of destroying the both buildings entirely versus a less complete destruction. I don't think designing a CD that completely destroyed the towers posed any risk significantly greater than one that doesn't completely destroy them.

.

I believe you are very much wrong on this.
In order for anything to occur on 9/11 the plot must not be discovered. K.I.S.S. applies.
If we establish that there were to be 4 aircraft hijacked and used against 4 targets that in and of itself is the most important thrust of the operation. Support operations MUST be such that their individual discovery can in no way cause damage to the main battle plan, the hijacking and ramming of aircraft.
If that support operation is the installation of thousands of explosives and detonators in the specific main targets of the main battle plan the discovery of this support operation would indeed put in jeopardy of discovery, or counter operations against, the main battle plan. This support operation is also to take place over weeks, perhaps months, in and among the civilian population that will be most impacted by it and involve , by your own estimate, 100 technicians.
What is most disturbing is the complete inability to see the fallacy of purposing such an operation as posing an insignificant increase in risk of discovery.

 

[jaydeehess]

Are you slow? I responded with my own fictitious quote (you knew it was fictitious right?). If you did know my response was fictitious, then did you not also know that this implied that I knew the prior quotes were fictitious?

Gievn that you responded in anger that the original fictitious quote portrayed you as saying the original goal was to disturb the tranquility of grass in Penns. I would say you were responding as if that were the thrust of the post.

I then pointed out that the actual fictitious quote IS a sarcastic summary of the contentions of the 9/11 conspiracy believers, a point BTW, you have neither owned or disavowed other than the aforementioned grass redistribution in Pennsylvania.

BTW, Cheney should have at least lost his hunting lisence for a year.

(tongue firmly in cheek)

ETA: now you might note that I also have posts 170 and 178 concerning more meaty subjects you have raised.

 

[tempesta29]

Gievn that you responded in anger that the original fictitious quote portrayed you as saying the original goal was to disturb the tranquility of grass in Penns. I would say you were responding as if that were the thrust of the post.

I responded to the silliness of thinking that crashing a plane in Shanksville was part of any plan. He mocked that idea as if there was a substantial group of people that believed that crashing that plane in a field was intentional.

I then pointed out that the actual fictitious quote IS a sarcastic summary of the contentions of the 9/11 conspiracy believers, a point BTW, you have neither owned or disavowed other than the aforementioned grass redistribution in Pennsylvania.

BTW, Cheney should have at least lost his hunting lisence for a year.

(tongue firmly in cheek)

ETA: now you might note that I also have posts 170 and 178 concerning more meaty subjects you have raised.

Sarcasm is fun but unfortunately doesn't make for very poignant argument. It usually masks the weakness of its argument with the presumption of the opposition's stupidity.