Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

Clayton Moore said:
In no special order 2 goals, based on the result, had to be attained.
Click to expand...

Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. Prove that anyone had to attain these specific goals:

Clayton Moore said:
Total collapse of each tower.

Total destruction of each floor and it's contents.
Click to expand...

Now some speculation:

Clayton Moore said:
Two types of destruction occurred in a synchronized fashion.
Click to expand...

Synchronised by an unstated means to a precision required, by the later stages of collapse, to be in the region of ten milliseconds. How was this achieved?

Clayton Moore said:
The support columns had to be disabled to keep the buildings basically within their footprints when they collapsed.
Click to expand...

More Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. Prove that there was any prior requirement for the collapses to be kept "basically within their own footprints".

Clayton Moore said:
Each floor and its contents were completely destroyed with some type of explosive, as evidenced by the 1/4 inch body part remains, which caused the ejections and eliminated the pancaking that would be expected in a collapse.
Click to expand...

Firstly, no explosives are necessary to explain the small body part remains; aircraft impacts at 4-500mph and floor-on-floor impacts of 100+mph are easily capable of doing this. Secondly, we have evidence of the expacted pancaking from the compressed slabs comprising multiple floors compressed together, found in the rubble pile.

Clayton Moore said:
There you go. 9/11 figured out by former IBM systems programmer in 100 words or less.
Click to expand...

Pathetically inadequately, though. Do you somehow think that nothing happened on 9/11 but the collapses of three WTC buildings? You haven't "figured out" who were the perpetrators, what were their motives, how did they plan and execute the attacks, or what happened at the Pentagon and Shanksville.

(By the way: an al-Qaeda cell led by Mohammed Atta, to draw America into an unwinnable ground war in Afghanistan resulting in the expulsion of American forces from the Middle East and a restored Islamic caliphate, hijackings and suicide attacks, and the first succeeded in its purpose while the other was a deliberate crash to prevent the passengers taking back control of the plane. You see, we've got a complete and thorough understanding of 9/11, whereas you've just got a logically unnecessary and physically impossible view of one tiny bit of it.)

Dave
 
Grizzly Bear said:
He openly admits there's no science, engineering, architecture, physics, or otherwise behind his reasoning for embracing the controlled demolition "theory," just his gut feeling :o
Click to expand...

As Dilbert explained to Bob the Dinosaur, most of us have brains that are good enough to do all our thinking, without the other organs having to chip in.

Dave
 
Clayton Moore said:
In no special order 2 goals, based on the result, had to be attained.
Total collapse of each tower.

Total destruction of each floor and it's contents.

Two types of destruction occurred in a synchronized fashion.

The support columns had to be disabled to keep the buildings basically within their footprints when they collapsed.

Each floor and its contents were completely destroyed with some type of explosive, as evidenced by the 1/4 inch body part remains, which caused the ejections and eliminated the pancaking that would be expected in a collapse.

There you go. 9/11 figured out by former IBM systems programmer in 100 words or less.

No bodies, just body parts, NBC, 08:49, 9/13
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpjsFQuf_7U&feature=related
Click to expand...

How can you know what the goals were unless you were in on the planning.
 
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore
The support columns had to be disabled to keep the buildings basically within their footprints when they collapsed.
More Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. Prove that there was any prior requirement for the collapses to be kept "basically within their own footprints".
Click to expand...

Not to mention that its nothing more than Clayton's personal incredulity that puts forth the contention that the 'support columns' all had to be cut in order to arrange a collapse into its footprint(except, of course, for those exceptions where explosives were required to send them hundreds of feet horizontally)
 
Clayton Moore said:
In no special order 2 goals, based on the result, had to be attained.

Total collapse of each tower.

Total destruction of each floor and it's contents.
Click to expand...
You KNOW that this was the goal?
It was the result, sure. That is not particularily unusual given the specific construction of the towers and the total damage done to them

Two types of destruction occurred in a synchronized fashion.
Click to expand...

Synchronized? Really? IIRC the acelleration of the collapse zone varied though it averaged 20% or so less than 'g'.

The support columns had to be disabled to keep the buildings basically within their footprints when they collapsed.
Click to expand...
Why would the columns have to be destroyed to have this result?
I already explained the most probable sequence of collapse. It involved the failure of the trusses and their seats with column failure mostly caused by the subsequent loss of lateral support.

Each floor and its contents were completely destroyed with some type of explosive, as evidenced by the 1/4 inch body part remains, which caused the ejections and eliminated the pancaking that would be expected in a collapse.
Click to expand...

Really? These people were hugging the area of the explosives were they? I witnessed a guy have six sticks of dynamite explode that were strapped to his body(he was attempting a bank robbery) Yep some pieces were quite small but I personally saw one of his legs, boot still on, arc through the air and land about 30 feet from where I was. His fingerprints and dental details were recovered(as was his DNA I suppose but this was in 1973). He was never identified.http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/world/2009/05/10/9411136-sun.html
No bodies, just body parts, NBC, 08:49, 9/13
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpjsFQuf_7U&feature=related
Click to expand...

Gruesome but that'll happen in a high speed rock crusher.
 
Last edited:
Grassy Knowlington said:
I have never understood why it was necessary to ensure 'total collapse'. If the NWO wanted an excuse for war then flying planes into the buildings would have been sufficient surely? As in a NWO board meeting: 'If the sheeple see Johnny Foreigner can fly planes into buildings with large loss of life they'll be wondering what else can they do and will be up for let's get 'em' and 'last one to make a big profit buys the next round, bonuses all round anyway, yee-har!'.
Click to expand...
Truthers seem to reluctant to explain why there would be a need for both multiple planes and explosives, each element increasing complexity and risk exponentially. Just fly a plane into the Statue of Liberty or the 1st National Kitten Orphanage and be done with it.
 
Last edited:
000063 said:
Truthers seem to reluctant to explain why there would be a need for both multiple planes and explosives, each element increasing complexity and risk exponentially. Just fly a plane into the Statue of Liberty or the 1st National Kitten Orphanage and be done with it.
Click to expand...

Ahhh the old double talk diversion.
 
Lest we forget the opening post and intention of this thread. . .

So we know what controlled demolition using detonation charges sounds like in emptied out buildings where the charges are laid throughout the building, including the perimeter structures. Do we know what detonations sound like if they have only been laid in the core column structure, in a building that has not been emptied out - indeed, is full of furniture, and sadly, still has people in it? I don't think we can know that because it hasn't occurred before.

Putting detonation charges on only the core columns, at intervals, would mitigate the sound. Perhaps not many charges would be needed to bring down the core. We certainly have read and heard testimony about the huge explosions that occurred in the basement levels, and have seen and heard the evidence of the blown-out lobbies, which cannot be explained by a fuel fireball traveling half a kilometre down through a staggered elevator system, as Jeff King easily points out. As well as testimony from inside-the-tower witnesses of explosions occurring on levels below them.
Click to expand...
 
Need we remind ergo that 20 survivors of the WTC collapses were pulled out from the debris, none of whom suffered any form of blast trauma or support the notion that explosives were present. Survivors in the stairwell of one of the towers were inside the core region at the time of the tower's collapse placing them within the range of shrapnel from any explosives that would have been in the same area.

And since the core remained largely intact beyond the collapse of the perimeter columns and floors we can rule out weakening of the core structure due to any form of explosives unless it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that they were placed within the impact region and were capable of surviving the impact shock of the planes, and extended heat exposure from the fires.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom