Building demolished from the top down.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=97f_1297190596

This clip has a building being demolished by collapsing a section of the building quite high up, I thought it was fascinating.

I am sure many of you have seen this before, but this looks a lot like the WTC collapse and no explosives were needed. The debris flies quite far away, there is a big cloud of "pulverized concrete" and the top of the building chooses to fall through the building instead of the path of least resistance and it seems to collapse at near free fall speed!

And this proves what?

I hate to say this, but considering that structure & the structure of the WTCs', not a match!

 

[ProBonoShill]

And that simplification ultimately leads to, "The amount of explosives needed was so small that actually no explosives at all were needed." Then Truthers can try to explain why inside job conspirators used entirely unnecessary explosives that had no detectable effect on the outcome.

Respectfully,
Myriad

I can't help but wonder at the hilarity of it all.

Not long ago the truther narrative was that the buildings should have been able to withstand the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires, no building in history had ever collapsed from fire, therefore CD must be responsible after- all people heard explosions and witnessed molten steel.

Fast forward to the present where the current meme is the impact damage and fores were mainly responsible and only a teeny-tiny amount of invisible, soundless explosives were required.

 

[Edx]

Fast forward to the present where the current meme is the impact damage and fores were mainly responsible and only a teeny-tiny amount of invisible, soundless explosives were required.

Well yea but to be fair thats still not the general opinion of truthers. Most still believe in huge silent but violent explosives... apart from the really loud ones that people heard before all the steel flinging was going on of course.

 

[ProBonoShill]

Then all you have to do to conspire and make a huge profit from the insurance is to let it happen, minimize human casualties and cash in.

Yes huge profits were made from insurance on 9/11.

Oh wait, only delusional idiots believe that.

Are you a delusional idiot Java Man?

 

[ProBonoShill]

Well yea but to be fair thats still not the general opinion of truthers. Most still believe in huge silent but violent explosives... apart from the really loud ones that people heard before all the steel flinging was going on of course.

 

[Java Man]

Yes huge profits were made from insurance on 9/11.

Oh wait, only delusional idiots believe that.

Are you a delusional idiot Java Man?

I believe that yes and I'm not delusional. That's the point of an insurance isn't it? Pay a bit of the risk value and get paid the full if the event happens. I'm sure your car insurance doesn't cost more than your car right? It costs a fraction of it. Now if you loose your car in a car crash then you get paid the full value it was insured for. Now if you bought the car from a cash stripped friend at half the value you made some money out of it.

Now imagine you buy a semi at less than half value because the owner is in real need for money. Then down the road you're involved in an accident and two cars hit you. One in the cabin and one on the trailer. Your semi is wrecked, but you claim twice the insurance because there were two cars involved. You're making some serious money, more than four times what you paid for the semi.

 

[Dave Rogers]

There are two issues with this that have been brought up before. One is the difference between a concrete and steel structure that you mention. There is no certainty that an all metal structure would behave the same way as reinforced concrete. The difference in structure once brought up has never been pursued by debunkers as it seems to demerit their position. Nevertheless whoever supports that demolitions like these apply to the WTC should then prove that reinforced concrete structures behave just like steel ones. This would actually lock them into a pro truther argument. That is that a well analyzed and applied (also patented) methodology can be easily reproduced by aircraft crashing into buildings.

What a very nicely chosen set of weasel words. The concrete vs. steel differences are generally completely ignored by truthers, who claim that the falling blocks should have taken the path of least resistance (doesn't mention the properties of concrete or steel), that the tops should have fallen sideways like tree trunks (doesn't mention the properties of concrete or steel), that the tops shouldn't have fallen into the footprints (doesn't mention etc.), that only explosives could have caused sections to fly out sideways (...), and so on ad nauseam. The people considering the properties of steel in predicting the behaviour of the towers are generally the ones who come up with the conclusion that their collapse was caused by impact damage and fire.

And your characterisation of the existence of gravity as a pro-truther argument is breathtaking in its absurdity. You will no doubt notice that this methodology doesn't involve any control over the collapse once initiated. This indicates that there isn't any need for such control; collapses, as a rule, involve things moving downwards. Saying that things tend to fall vertically is not a pro-truther argument.

For example in the video you present, three walls are taken out. Two prior to the collapse and one to start the collapse.

We can't see what internal parts of the structure have been removed as well.

In the WTC only the entry wall was very damaged, the exit side was partially damaged and the others were not damaged at all. It is quite different and quite random.

Which would, if it were the whole truth, simply support the point that I'm making: the direction of collapse is relatively insensitive to the precise details of collapse initiation. But, of course, you're a truther, so I wouldn't expect you to tell the whole truth. You've neglected the fire damage.

So it would still be necessary to prove that they can create the necessary preconditions to support a collapse that looks just like the controlled demolition you propose.

Nope. I'm not proposing what you think I'm proposing. I'm just pointing out that the general case of building collapses is that they propagate downwards, and it's only truthers who for some reason find this unexpected.

Dave

 

[ElMondoHummus]

So either way the video does not exclude a conspiracy it actually facilitates the existence of one.

If you just consider the video on its own merits, and ignore everything else that is known, sure. But that's sloppy thinking.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Well we can break it into different scenarios. One is the minimal use of explosives. If it is known that only a few floors can initiate a collapse then maybe only one or two in ten need to be rigged. That way you get a nice failsafe setup that ensures collapse even if the airplanes hit the rigged floors. You can just start the collapse on the next upper set of rigged floors. Since those are not clearly visible from the outside it is easy to initiate without bringing undesired attention.

The other is the case in which no explosives are needed and the WTC actually falls on its own. Then all you have to do to conspire and make a huge profit from the insurance is to let it happen, minimize human casualties and cash in.

So either way the video does not exclude a conspiracy it actually facilitates the existence of one.

If explosives were needed to cause the collapse, that proves a conspiracy. If explosives weren't needed to cause the collapse, that too proves a conspiracy. Perfect truther 'logic'.

The video does not exclude a conspiracy, nor does it "facilitate"[1] one. It simply constitutes a small but significant piece of evidence against the arguments truthers advance, based on their superficial impressions of the collapse dynamics of the WTC, to suggest that 9/11 cannot have been perpetrated purely by al-Qaeda hijackers, and tends to confirm the validity of the counter-arguments we've been putting forward for years.

Dave

[1] Insert Inigo Montoya quote as required.

 

[Java Man]

If you just consider the video on its own merits, and ignore everything else that is known, sure. But that's sloppy thinking.

You mean you want us to ignore that it is known that no explosives were used? It though you were on the debunker team. Or what exactly are you wanting us to ignore?

 

[Java Man]

If explosives were needed to cause the collapse, that proves a conspiracy. If explosives weren't needed to cause the collapse, that too proves a conspiracy. Perfect truther 'logic'.

The video does not exclude a conspiracy, nor does it "facilitate"[1] one. It simply constitutes a small but significant piece of evidence against the arguments truthers advance, based on their superficial impressions of the collapse dynamics of the WTC, to suggest that 9/11 cannot have been perpetrated purely by al-Qaeda hijackers, and tends to confirm the validity of the counter-arguments we've been putting forward for years.

Dave

[1] Insert Inigo Montoya quote as required.

I recall someone making fun of a truther with a murder case involving a knife and going on how the truther wanted to test for powder traces etc. Even if the truther is wrong in pursuing the use of a firearm it's still murder. Which is what I believe is being lost here. We're so tied up in proving knife vs gun we loose track of the fact that it is still murder.

 

[Java Man]

What a very nicely chosen set of weasel words. The concrete vs. steel differences are generally completely ignored by truthers, who claim that the falling blocks should have taken the path of least resistance (doesn't mention the properties of concrete or steel), that the tops should have fallen sideways like tree trunks (doesn't mention the properties of concrete or steel), that the tops shouldn't have fallen into the footprints (doesn't mention etc.), that only explosives could have caused sections to fly out sideways (...), and so on ad nauseam. The people considering the properties of steel in predicting the behaviour of the towers are generally the ones who come up with the conclusion that their collapse was caused by impact damage and fire.

I made said distinction last year in october and it was readily ignored by debunkers here. Would that turn those debunkers into truthers?

And your characterisation of the existence of gravity as a pro-truther argument is breathtaking in its absurdity. You will no doubt notice that this methodology doesn't involve any control over the collapse once initiated. This indicates that there isn't any need for such control; collapses, as a rule, involve things moving downwards. Saying that things tend to fall vertically is not a pro-truther argument.

That's because I'm not a truther. Your falsely labeling me as such and then contradicting yourself by saying "The concrete vs. steel differences are generally completely ignored by truthers". Since I'm pointing out the concrete vs steel differences you're in contradiction of your own statements by calling me a truther. Which obviously I'm not.

We can't see what internal parts of the structure have been removed as well.

Argument which would only benefit a truther. If you're a debunker I wouldn't pursue it further as any more differences between this video and the WTC comes to demerit it as proof against CD.

Which would, if it were the whole truth, simply support the point that I'm making: the direction of collapse is relatively insensitive to the precise details of collapse initiation. But, of course, you're a truther, so I wouldn't expect you to tell the whole truth. You've neglected the fire damage.

You're taking us for fools? So expert engineers working on controlled demolition cases are just wasting their time? Controlled demolitions have never gone wrong? They shouldn't go wrong because no matter if an expert or a noob starts the demolition according to you "the direction of collapse is relatively insensitive to the precise details of collapse initiation". I'm sure some of the demolition experts here would not appreciate your demeriting of their expertise in such a profound way.

Nope. I'm not proposing what you think I'm proposing. I'm just pointing out that the general case of building collapses is that they propagate downwards, and it's only truthers who for some reason find this unexpected.

Once again, according to you controlled demolitions should never go wrong and precise structural analysis and microsecond computer controlled charges are just an unnecessary waste.

 

[Quad4_72]

I believe that yes and I'm not delusional. That's the point of an insurance isn't it? Pay a bit of the risk value and get paid the full if the event happens. I'm sure your car insurance doesn't cost more than your car right? It costs a fraction of it. Now if you loose your car in a car crash then you get paid the full value it was insured for. Now if you bought the car from a cash stripped friend at half the value you made some money out of it.

Now imagine you buy a semi at less than half value because the owner is in real need for money. Then down the road you're involved in an accident and two cars hit you. One in the cabin and one on the trailer. Your semi is wrecked, but you claim twice the insurance because there were two cars involved. You're making some serious money, more than four times what you paid for the semi.

Do you happen to have a link or some form of evidence that shows exactly who profited, how much money they gained, what the insurance policy was, how much they lost by having to rebuild and loss of rent, etc? Thanks in advance.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

You mean you want us to ignore that it is known that no explosives were used? It though you were on the debunker team. Or what exactly are you wanting us to ignore?

Dave already said up above what I was getting at. And that's to take into account the entirety of the evidence that exists, even if you're concentrating on just one, isolated aspect for discussion's sake.

Take my post for what it is: A reminder to not forget the entirety of the evidence that exists. And not for what you tried to make it into: A mischaracterization of my intent, purely for the sake of instigating an argument. One more time and one more time only:

If you just consider the video on its own merits, and ignore everything else that is known, sure. But that's sloppy thinking.

It is sloppy thinking to ignore all that is known about the event when considering a specific argument or piece of evidence. So don't do it.

 

[A W Smith]

You mean you want us to ignore that it is known that no explosives were used? It though you were on the debunker team. Or what exactly are you wanting us to ignore?

Agree or disagree?

global collapse was inevitable after initiation of collapse.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I made said distinction last year in october and it was readily ignored by debunkers here. Would that turn those debunkers into truthers?

Truthers ignore the difference between concrete and steel, therefore people who ignore the difference between concrete and steel are truthers. That's called affirming the consequent.

That's because I'm not a truther. Your falsely labeling me as such and then contradicting yourself by saying "The concrete vs. steel differences are generally completely ignored by truthers". Since I'm pointing out the concrete vs steel differences you're in contradiction of your own statements by calling me a truther. Which obviously I'm not.

Not a logical fallacy as such, but obviously wrong. At no point did I suggest that all truthers always ignore the difference between concrete and steel.

Argument which would only benefit a truther. If you're a debunker I wouldn't pursue it further as any more differences between this video and the WTC comes to demerit it as proof against CD.

Non sequitur, and confusing proof with evidence. Nobody's saying that this video proves that 9/11 wasn't an inside job.

You're taking us for fools?

Unfortunate slip there from the not-a-truther; who, I wonder, is "us" in this context?

So expert engineers working on controlled demolition cases are just wasting their time? Controlled demolitions have never gone wrong? They shouldn't go wrong because no matter if an expert or a noob starts the demolition according to you "the direction of collapse is relatively insensitive to the precise details of collapse initiation". I'm sure some of the demolition experts here would not appreciate your demeriting of their expertise in such a profound way.

On the contrary, I suspect all of them would agree that the majority of the expertise in controlled demolitions consists of (a) ensuring that the minimum amount of explosives is used that actually initiates collapse, and (b) controlling the spread of debris outside the demolition footprint. In general, making sure that the building falls down instead of, for example, up, is less of an issue.

Once again, according to you controlled demolitions should never go wrong and precise structural analysis and microsecond computer controlled charges are just an unnecessary waste.

And finally, the strawman argument. If you're not a truther, you certainly know how to behave like one.

Dave

 

[Java Man]

Do you happen to have a link or some form of evidence that shows exactly who profited, how much money they gained, what the insurance policy was, how much they lost by having to rebuild and loss of rent, etc? Thanks in advance.

Sure, from May prior to the attack:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3601/is_39_47/ai_74942372/

Silverstein and his partners signed over a $100 million letter of credit, the first installment of a $616 million down payment.


Insurance payment:

http://articles.cnn.com/2004-12-06/...verstein-single-occurrence-insurers?_s=PM:LAW

The insurers are collectively responsible for a maximum of $1.1 billion insurance per occurrence. The issue before the court was whether the insurers were obligated to pay for one occurrence or two.

So just as is he doubled the down payment. After winning the case it went up to $2.2 billion

Adding the other buildings:

The total potential payout, therefore, was capped at $4.577 billion for buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein)

 

[Dave Rogers]

As usual, the truther Java Man fails to answer the question. How much did Silverstein Properties lose?

Dave

 

[Java Man]

]It is sloppy thinking to ignore all that is known about the event when considering a specific argument or piece of evidence. So don't do it.

It is sloppier yet to refuse to reconsider prior knowledge in light of newer evidence.

 

[Java Man]

global collapse was inevitable after initiation of collapse.

Not necessarily so, some collapses go wrong and fail to fully destroy the buildings.