Building demolished from the top down.

jaydeehess said:
That seems to be the case in that particular topic. On others he seems to be saying that all senarios are equally vaild despite no evidence at all for the ones he is argueing.

In short, evidence is not Java Man's long suit.
Click to expand...
Somehow I get the impression this is not unintentional. It defiantly keeps the argument going.

:rolleyes:
 
DGM said:
So can I assume you just want us to take this belief as true because you have no intention of showing any evidence that it is true?
Click to expand...

You're free to assume as you see fit. I've laid things out and readers can make their own decisions.
 
Java Man said:
Unfortunately I do. The unfortunate people who were trapped in the levels above the impact points.
Click to expand...

That was your claim, which you did not quantify in a meaningful way. When I simply stated the fact that the fires progressed and heat rises, making the zones above the impact area not survivable, you responded with this non-sequitur:

Remember that the floors above the impact zone retained their fireproofing and that explosives don't need to breath so smoke doesn't trouble them. Thread carefully with this counter argument you're trying to push forward.
Click to expand...

You brought up the subject of people, then switched to explosives not needing to breath. Hmmm.
Do you always respond in such an illogical fashion?

But, having failed to address the first subject you brought up, (let's just say you failed to make your case) turning to the explosives - what evidence do you have that explosive devices can survive fires and high temperatures?

I'd like to see that evidence, please. Or is this yet another of your bare assertions?
 
Java Man said:
Why would that be a problem?
Click to expand...

Because it doesn't match the known events of the day maybe?

Java Man said:
Got the name convention from here.

[qimg]http://willyloman.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/wtc_floor_truss_system1.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Don't hotlink images #1.

Number 2- Wonderful. Now, how do you do that, and make the collapse begin at those floors, and make them survive the impact and resulting fires.
 
Java Man said:
It's like inside trading. It's not wrong to make a profit from selling stock. It is wrong to do so having prior knowledge.
Click to expand...

Oh, nice piece of retreating there. So you've given up on your argument that Silverstein can be shown to have defrauded the insurance companies purely from financial information available from public sources, have you? And now you're arguing that he used his advance knowledge of the attacks to maximise his profit from the insurance settlements? In that case, please explain the devilishly cunning strategy he was employing when he negotiated the maximum payout down from $5.1B to $3.6B for a single event, thus rendering himself liable to massively complicated and expensive legal battles in order to recover less money than he would have made if the attacks had never happened.

Dave
 
Java Man said:
Let me be clear one does not exclude the other. The NIST model is fine, but it doesn't exclude controlled demolition because if fails to explain those events which are rising questions. You can have all the bowing you mention occurring and still bring it down in a controlled manner so as not to leave things to nature.
Click to expand...

The NIST model doesn't actually need to exclude controlled demolition. Controlled demolition is pretty much excluded by the way the Trinity Church video of the WTC2 collapse clearly shows that the perimeter columns collapsed inwards at the moment of collapse initiation. It's immediately obvious that the inward bowing of the perimeter columns was directly related to the collapses, and that's one thing that small charges on the truss seats couldn't possibly cause.

Dave
 
Last edited:
Java Man said:
They don't have to survive the impact of the jets. They can be safely in other floors away from high temperatures and ready to initiate the collapse from those floors.
Click to expand...

So now we have explosive on floors above the impact zone that somehow are capable of detonating on the floors that were impacted?

This just gets better and better....
 
^ and they better make sure the planes hit in exactly the right place and explode in exactly the right way? How many people would they need to employ to get the computer modelling just right?
 
Java Man said:
Hahahahaha, sorry I still can't stop laughing at that.

Hahahahaha trying to make your point by using my exact point and spinning it around. Hahahahha, sorry I just can't stop cracking up hahahahahaha. (holds breath) hahahahhahahahaha, sorrry.
Click to expand...

Brilliant riposte.
 
TruthersLie said:
So now we have explosive on floors above the impact zone that somehow are capable of detonating on the floors that were impacted?

This just gets better and better....
Click to expand...

Uh nope. They detonate on the floors they were set in. Thus releasing those floors from above the impact zone. It could be possible to release them below too, thus initiating pancake collapses bellow the impact zone.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Because it's not what was observed.
Click to expand...

Was it not observed or not looked for? What if the floors collapsing inside the tower, but higher up from the crash zone couldn't be observed. Would that make it a non event as you claim or just an unobservable event?
 
deeper said:
^ and they better make sure the planes hit in exactly the right place and explode in exactly the right way? How many people would they need to employ to get the computer modelling just right?
Click to expand...

See now you're over engineering the solution. KISS
 
TruthersLie said:
So now we have explosive on floors above the impact zone that somehow are capable of detonating on the floors that were impacted?

This just gets better and better....
Click to expand...

Sounds like he's going the way of femr, and Major Tom where an ulterior culprit initiates the collapse but further progression of the collapse requires nothing. But he also contends that they could explain the "puffs" AKA "squibs." But that maybe they aren't there, but that maybe they are but on different floors. If one makes a case purely by casting doubt by JAQ'ing off constantly, one's case if a mass of confusion and contradictions. That's his problem... above all else. Atleast the aforementioned people I compared to have a defined line of argument; the same cannot be said of JM.
 
Last edited:
Java Man said:
See now you're over engineering the solution. KISS
Click to expand...
Sorry I'm lost here, are you saying they employed the 'That'll do, what's the worst that could happen?' approach to planting the explosives?
 
Last edited:
deeper said:
Sorry I'm lost here, are you saying they employed the 'That'll do, what's the worst that could happen?' approach to planting the explosives?
Click to expand...

I think what he's proposing is that explosive charges were placed on multiple floors to accomodate the different places the plane might have crashed. Then only one set would have to be detonated.

The only problem is that there was no perturbation of the flames and smoke that would have resulted from the shock wave produced by high explosives. I believe anything so weak as to not produce a shock wave could not have severed the floor connections.

Do I know this for sure? No, but fortunately the burden of proof is on Java Man to show that it's possible, not on me to show that it's impossible.

Also...if there were explosives on multiple floors, only some of which were detonated, then some evidence would have been found when the rubble was painstakingly searched at Fresh Kills.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom