Building demolished from the top down.

[aggle-rithm]

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.

Please present your evidence that this was done.

 

[aggle-rithm]

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.

Please present your evidence that explosives were used.

Thread carefully with this counter argument you're trying to push forward.

As soon as you present your evidence for explosives.

 

[deeper]

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.

Genuine question. If the explosives were also on the floors where the plane crashed, they would be destroyed by and not triggered by the fire?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Was it not observed or not looked for?

Please present your evidence that there was something to find.

What if the floors collapsing inside the tower, but higher up from the crash zone couldn't be observed.

Please present your evidence that this happened.

Would that make it a non event as you claim or just an unobservable event?

Please present your evidence, then we can speculate whether it could have been unobservable.



Are you beginning to understand how critical thinking works?

 

[aggle-rithm]

There's nothing wrong with doing that. That's exactly how it is done. That's why it is important to have a good sample. If your sample is limited and you're trying to simulate scenarios far away from your samples the outcome is questionable.

For example you could take some values that plotted resemble a logarithmic curve and you could extrapolate for a certain position the value as A. But taking more samples you realize it behaves more like an inverted parabola and the actual value for a certain position is not A, but B which is less than A.

Using this simple example as an analogy what NIST claims is that given the small sample size they can't rule out that it's a logarithmic curve so for them it is. When in truth it could very well be an inverted parabola, but they just choose so because clearly "an inverted parabola" limits the amount of heat damage they can justify.

This lead me to show the perfect way to ace a final. Out of all the questions just answer one and make sure you get it wrong then tell the teacher that given the small sample size of answered questions he can't extrapolate to the others and rule out they would be right. So they have to be right thus giving you an A.

Sometimes when we don't have all the data, assumptions must be made to fill in the gaps.

Which of these two assumptions do you consider more rational:

1. The fire that was observed by thousands of people reached a certain temperature within the limits of known similar fires, or

2. Explosives were planted at an unknown time by unknown persons for unknown reasons and were detonated by an unknown method without any sound or visible shock wave, and without leaving any evidence that they ever existed.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Genuine question. If the explosives were also on the floors where the plane crashed, they would be destroyed by and not triggered by the fire?

Yes, but I THINK he's saying that these weren't needed because of the explosives planted on higher floors.

I say I THINK that's his position, because he's clearly being deliberately evasive by doling out little pieces of his views with an eyedropper, forcing us to search through his posts with a magnifying class trying to string his thoughts together from one post to the next.

For this reason, I think he's just arguing for the sake of argument, and really doesn't give a damn about 9/11.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

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?

Why would one include an unobservable event in their hypothesis when a hypothesis based solely on what was observed is sufficient? You're doing what fundamentally religious people do; you're shoehorning an unseen force into events that are adequately explained without such a force.

Your unobservable explosives are the equivalent of God.

 

[deeper]

Yes, but I THINK he's saying that these weren't needed because of the explosives planted on higher floors.

Thanks.

Why would one include an unobservable event in their hypothesis when a hypothesis based solely on what was observed is sufficient? You're doing what fundamentally religious people do; you're shoehorning an unseen force into events that are adequately explained without such a force.

Your unobservable explosives are the equivalent of God.

I agree, it's ridiculous. We're being asked to accept that this was the riskiest, bloodiest, most complex and audacious insurance fraud of all time, on the basis of.........an event that was unobserved and is impossible to infer from what evidence we do have. You couldn't make it up.

 

[Telltale Tom]

Hydraulic Demolition of WTC 1 and 2

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!

Come on surely this movie proves the new hydraulic demolition theory of 9/11 and also help to explain the missing explosions.

The demo-team wrapped hydraulic cables between the inner core columns and the perimeter frame. You know it makes sense and it helps to explain the inward bowing prior to collapse, the nearly vertical fall and the rapid onset.

Its going to be a lot cheaper and easier than explosives and would need a much smaller demo team.

Richard, you heard it here first!

 

[alienentity]

Why would one include an unobservable event in their hypothesis when a hypothesis based solely on what was observed is sufficient? You're doing what fundamentally religious people do; you're shoehorning an unseen force into events that are adequately explained without such a force.

Your unobservable explosives are the equivalent of God.

What I like to call the 'CD of the gaps' argument.

 

[GlennB]

Come on surely this movie proves the new hydraulic demolition theory of 9/11 and also help to explain the missing explosions.

The demo-team wrapped hydraulic cables between the inner core columns and the perimeter frame. You know it makes sense and it helps to explain the inward bowing prior to collapse, the nearly vertical fall and the rapid onset.

Its going to be a lot cheaper and easier than explosives and would need a much smaller demo team.

Richard, you heard it here first!

But would need damn long cables, unless they were on a space-platform hovering nearby. You're a very naughty boy, and you know it.

 

[Telltale Tom]

But would need damn long cables, unless they were on a space-platform hovering nearby. You're a very naughty boy, and you know it.

No you don't need long cables, they just go between the core and the perimeter.. If you think about it, it would be a great way to demolish the towers. You just loop the cables around the perimeter and anchor them to some core columns. Strand jack them until the wall is pulled in or the core columns are pulled out... either way you loose vertical support to the core or the perimeter and it falls down...like this movie.

But what is more you get the perimeter columns bowing in.

I have reserved all book rights!

 

[jaydeehess]

No you don't need long cables, they just go between the core and the perimeter.. If you think about it, it would be a great way to demolish the towers. You just loop the cables around the perimeter and anchor them to some core columns. Strand jack them until the wall is pulled in or the core columns are pulled out... either way you loose vertical support to the core or the perimeter and it falls down...like this movie.

But what is more you get the perimeter columns bowing in.

I have reserved all book rights!

Hmmm, sounds like another Rube-Goldberg device. dozens of wire cables between core and perimeter attached to dozens of heavy winches that no one saw. Keep in mind that these winches could survive the collapse and be found, battered but identifiable.
BUT They were not.

More fiction from the conspiracists. Its getting marginally better than thermobaric explosives or magical therm(?)te though.

 

[Telltale Tom]

Hmmm, sounds like another Rube-Goldberg device. dozens of wire cables between core and perimeter attached to dozens of heavy winches that no one saw. Keep in mind that these winches could survive the collapse and be found, battered but identifiable.
BUT They were not.

More fiction from the conspiracists. Its getting marginally better than thermobaric explosives or magical therm(?)te though.

A strand jack is about a tenth the size of a black box. Yes there would be a few cables... and yes there are a few holes in my arguments

 

[jaydeehess]

A strand jack is about a tenth the size of a black box. Yes there would be a few cables... and yes there are a few holes in my arguments

its also a much heavier built chunk of metal than an a/c FDR.

 

[aggle-rithm]

No you don't need long cables, they just go between the core and the perimeter.. If you think about it, it would be a great way to demolish the towers. You just loop the cables around the perimeter and anchor them to some core columns. Strand jack them until the wall is pulled in or the core columns are pulled out... either way you loose vertical support to the core or the perimeter and it falls down...like this movie.

You don't need any of this. Gremlins are a much simpler explanation.

 

[Horatius]

No you don't need long cables, they just go between the core and the perimeter.. If you think about it, it would be a great way to demolish the towers. You just loop the cables around the perimeter and anchor them to some core columns. Strand jack them until the wall is pulled in or the core columns are pulled out... either way you loose vertical support to the core or the perimeter and it falls down...like this movie.

But what is more you get the perimeter columns bowing in.

I have reserved all book rights!

Sad part is, this still fits the evidence better than any other truther theory....

 

[triforcharity]

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?

Not observed. The outer columns were not designed to stand on their own. Neither were the inner columns. They were designed to work together with the floor trusses.

Remove the floor trusses, and the outer columns will fail. (unless you're only talking one floor, and that just seems silly)

Have you finished working on your complete theory yet? We're all still waiting with baited breath......

 

[triforcharity]

Genuine question. If the explosives were also on the floors where the plane crashed, they would be destroyed by and not triggered by the fire?

Correct. They would have been destroyed. Explosives are not like road flares. They don't like heat. You cannot light them with a bic lighter.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

No you don't need long cables, they just go between the core and the perimeter.. If you think about it, it would be a great way to demolish the towers. You just loop the cables around the perimeter and anchor them to some core columns. Strand jack them until the wall is pulled in or the core columns are pulled out... either way you loose vertical support to the core or the perimeter and it falls down...like this movie.

But what is more you get the perimeter columns bowing in.

I have reserved all book rights!

Another in a long, relentless line of satire that is often so effectively carried out it's difficult for regulars to see through it. You sir have earned my seal of approval for an art form.

Carry on now