Controlled demolition vs. the towers collapsing

[doogiet]

One of the things that I've never understood about the whole Truther movement is the comparison (again and again) of the two towers collapsing to buildings that were intentionally demolished by explosives. Can't they see that demolished buildings have explosives on the BOTTOM, while the towers collapsed from the TOP DOWN?

If explosives were planted in the towers with the intent to destroy them, they would be in the bottom and would let gravity do its work. There would also be no reason to hijack planes and crash them. The evil conspirators could just say that someone drove a truck with explosives in, or something similar.

Occam's Razor for the win.

 

[The Almond]

One of the things that I've never understood about the whole Truther movement is the comparison (again and again) of the two towers collapsing to buildings that were intentionally demolished by explosives. Can't they see that demolished buildings have explosives on the BOTTOM, while the towers collapsed from the TOP DOWN?

If explosives were planted in the towers with the intent to destroy them, they would be in the bottom and would let gravity do its work. There would also be no reason to hijack planes and crash them. The evil conspirators could just say that someone drove a truck with explosives in, or something similar.

Occam's Razor for the win.

Hi doogiet, welcome to me about 6 years ago. When I first heard about 9/11 conspiracies, I had roughly this same objection. To be fair, though, there are many ways to demolish a building using explosives. The problem is that they all require several months worth of work on a completely empty building with all of the major structural members exposed. Frequently, the largest steel columns are pre-cut with torches, which is in turn only possible because so much of the live load on the building has been removed.

Anyway, blah blah blah. 6 years of me asking this and similar questions have yielded no cogent responses. I guess that I'm advising you not to hold your breath.

 

[T.A.M.]

2002-2006
------------
Truther: WTC1/2 were brought down via Controlled Demolition

2007-2010
-------------
Debunkers: CD is done via explosives at the based of the building.
Truther: WTC1/2 were brought down via UNCONVENTIONAL NONSTANDARD Controlled Demolition.

Stanadard Truther Protocol...modify your accusations to fit the ever shrinking wiggle room.

TAM

 

[TJM]

The best explanation a truther ever gave me was there were explosions in the bottom of the towers. We were all too busy looking up to notice them going off.

 

[jaydeehess]

What has always struck me is that in comparing the WTC tower collapses to either controlled demolitions and to partial collapses caused by fires the towers most resemble the later.

Yes, in one fashion they resemble a CD in that 'building fall down, go boom'. However, the actual collapse detail has more in common with buildings that fall apart with fire as the initiator of the collapse.

 

[bardamu]

2002-2006
------------
Truther: WTC1/2 were brought down via Controlled Demolition

2007-2010
-------------
Debunkers: CD is done via explosives at the based of the building.
Truther: WTC1/2 were brought down via UNCONVENTIONAL NONSTANDARD Controlled Demolition.

Stanadard Truther Protocol...modify your accusations to fit the ever shrinking wiggle room.

TAM

Not quite correct. Let me fix it for you.

2006
Truthers: Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition.
----------------------------------
2007
Debunkers: It wasn't controlled demolition because. . .[ILLOGICAL ARGUMENT].
Truthers: That argument is illogical..
Debunkers: Fair enough. It was worth a try, though.
----------------------------------
2010
New Debunker: It wasn't controlled demolition because. . .[SAME ILLOGICAL ARGUMENT].
Old Debunkers: Forget it - we've already tried that one.

 

[Derek Johnson]

Maybe it would have been easier to sort out if they have retained more than 0.5% of the steel (246 pieces).

WTC 7 was completely recycled.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Not quite correct. Let me fix it for you.

2006
Truthers: Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition.
----------------------------------
2007
Debunkers: It wasn't controlled demolition because. . .[ILLOGICAL ARGUMENT].
Truthers: That argument is illogical..
Debunkers: Fair enough. It was worth a try, though.
----------------------------------
2010
New Debunker: It wasn't controlled demolition because. . .[SAME ILLOGICAL ARGUMENT].
Old Debunkers: Forget it - we've already tried that one.

It only seems illogical to you because you don't understand it, Mr. space-beamer.

The fact that our arguments have largely remained unchanged, unlike yours, should tell you something.

 

[Stylesjl]

I find the whole CD theory to be superfluous, I mean I get the whole idea of the government crashing planes into the buildings, but why go to all the extra trouble with explosives? Aren't planes destructive enough? Why can't conspiracy theories follow Occam's razor? Well, okay if they did they would hardly be postulating a conspiracy theory now would they?

 

[T.A.M.]

Maybe it would have been easier to sort out if they have retained more than 0.5% of the steel (246 pieces).

WTC 7 was completely recycled.

SO expert, what Percentage of the steel should they have saved while downtown was in chaos, while people were trapped under the rubble, while fires continued to burn under the rubble?

Hmmmm? What percentage if not 0.5% genius?

TAM

 

[Oliver]

I find the whole CD theory to be superfluous, I mean I get the whole idea of the government crashing planes into the buildings, but why go to all the extra trouble with explosives? Aren't planes destructive enough? Why can't conspiracy theories follow Occam's razor? Well, okay if they did they would hardly be postulating a conspiracy theory now would they?

I guess it's a psychological problem Truthers have: It's their way to try to explain what happened since their minds are not capable to accept that the events happened the way the rest of the world accepted.

In many Truther cases it may be a kind of mourning process due to a unsolved psychic trauma caused by the events, thus preventing them from going through the events and facts using their logic in lieu of going through it on an emotional level that leads to confusion and misinterpretation.

Do some of you in here know about Truthers who did have quite an awful awakening to the facts after they were trapped in their Truther-Worldview for some years? My guess is that such an awakening may be as horrible or maybe even worse than their emotional state on 9/11 itself.

 

[bardamu]

It only seems illogical to you because you don't understand it, Mr. space-beamer.

Well, you'd better explain to me and The Almond why controlled demolitions have to start at the bottom.

The fact that our arguments have largely remained unchanged, unlike yours, should tell you something.

Your basic arguments have largely remained unchanged because, being a priori, they're unaffected by physical evidence.

 

[Horatius]

I find the whole CD theory to be superfluous, I mean I get the whole idea of the government crashing planes into the buildings, but why go to all the extra trouble with explosives? Aren't planes destructive enough? Why can't conspiracy theories follow Occam's razor? Well, okay if they did they would hardly be postulating a conspiracy theory now would they?

It's an outgrowth of the truthers' refusal to dispose of any evidence, even if such evidence has been shown to be flawed.

Most of the original truthers started by looking at the collapse of the Twin Towers, and saying, "Damn, that looked odd! It must have been a conspiracy!" For them to now accept that the collapses could have happened just because of the plane impacts and fires, with no explosives, means that the one thing that first attracted them to the CT in the first place was, in fact, a red herring. They'll never do that.

And now, the "CD hypothesis" is such a central tenet of the truther faith that no new convert will be allowed to question it. Any that do are dismissed as shills or closet debunkers out to disrupt the movement. When was the last time anyone here saw an actual "LIHOP" truther in the wild?

 

[twinstead]

Yup. The ONLY conspiracy theory that has a chance, and even it has very little hard evidence to support it, is LIHOP. One would think that since most truthers simply enter into this debate from an ideological standpoint, the evidence be damned, LIHOP would be a shoe in.

I guess it's not cool enough. Space beams or exotic, secret silent explosives or super-duper nano-thermite is more exciting.

 

[Jackanory]

Well, you'd better explain to me and The Almond why controlled demolitions have to start at the bottom.

And therein lies your problem. A complete lack of understanding of how the world and it's inbuilt magnets works. If I flicked you ear, would you fall over? If i took out your legs from the ankles, would you fall over?

Go and search the conspiracynet and look for buildings that failed to collapse properly when using explosives. Plenty of them. Quite funny too. Then look at why they failed to collapse properly. Then ask yourself if those who were hired to place those explosives are still in a job. Or you could ask a 16 year old burger flipper from McDonalds what he knows about explosives or brain surgery and quote him as fact!! After all.....it is those 16, 17, 18 ,19 20, 21, 22, 23 year olds who you keep quoting as fact. Do you ask your postman to take your teath out too?

 

[ergo]

2002-2006
------------
Truther: WTC1/2 were brought down via Controlled Demolition

2007-2010
-------------
Debunkers: CD is done via explosives at the based of the building.
Truther: WTC1/2 were brought down via UNCONVENTIONAL NONSTANDARD Controlled Demolition.

I'm not clear on what you mean here, T.A.M., are you saying that "debunkers" are now agreeing that explosives were used?

By the way, isn't this thread a bit redundant, since there are at least four other discussions going on about this topic?

 

[T.A.M.]

Holwy **** are you guys all dense?

No, i am saying that a REAL CD, should havehad explosives at the base of the building, and hence the collapse should have started at the base, not up top, like it did for wtc 1/2...when we pointed this out to truthers, they simply modified what typeof scenario had to have occured from a traditonal CD to as i havr described....

Why is it only the truthers don't get that from what i posted?

TAM

 

[Jackanory]

I'm not clear on what you mean here, T.A.M., are you saying that "debunkers" are now agreeing that explosives were used?

By the way, isn't this thread a bit redundant, since there are at least four other discussions going on about this topic?

Isn't the whole 911 CT thing redundant, since it's been 9 years of the same ole same ole regurgitated BS from a progressively less informed and more misguided and dimmer generation of gullible fools. Long live the internet warriors bored of CoD. lol.

 

[ergo]

No, i am saying that a REAL CD, should have had explosives at the base of the building, and hence the collapse should have started at the base, not up top, like it did for wtc 1/2...when we pointed this out to truthers, they simply modified what typeof scenario had to have occured from a traditonal CD to as i havr described....
TAM

Ah, thank you. But your first assertion is incorrect. Explosives are often, if not usually laid throughout the building in CD, not just in the lower part of it. This is how you get a tall structure to fall into its own footprint rather than topple over dangerously.

 

[Jackanory]

Explosives are often, if not usually laid throughout the building in CD, not just in the lower part of it. This is how you get a tall structure to fall into its own footprint rather than topple over dangerously.

Spot on. Can you then tell me in what order those explosives are detonated? And why?

As for 'falling in its own footprint'. lol. Are you saying that the entire mass of all CD's fall within their own footprint? lol. Yet another truther 'buzz phrase' taken out of context.