Controlled demolition vs. the towers collapsing

[Java Man]

SO Java, what you are saying is that the terrorists set off several preplanted explosives at prolonged, random interval, well before the buildings collapsed, and this is what brought the towers down?

Uh no. What I'm saying is that a set of well placed explosives could weaken the structure so when indeed it fell down it did so "as expected". Actually it could be done through well placed thermite as well.

 

[T.A.M.]

Oh i know...here is a new theory...I bet Java will like it.

The NWO planted explosives in the bottoms of plant pots, then placed them at random locations within the WTC. They then, at random, set them off over a period of minutes, and this brought the towers down.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Uh no. What I'm saying is that a set of well placed explosives could weaken the structure so when indeed it fell down it did so "as expected". Actually it could be done through well placed thermite as well.

prove it.

prove that a set of well placed explosives (I'll let you approximate the number of explosives and the amount of explosive needed) set off at random intervals would weaken the towers enough so they would collapse "as expected".

It is your theory, so prove it.

TAM

 

[Java Man]

and stands a MUCH MUCH MUCH smaller chance of success.

TAM

Really? So I guess that's why shelling or bombing the hell out of a building has never brought one down in history? Random explosions like that have had any success.

 

[Java Man]

prove it.

prove that a set of well placed explosives (I'll let you approximate the number of explosives and the amount of explosive needed) set off at random intervals would weaken the towers enough so they would collapse "as expected".

It is your theory, so prove it.

TAM

Well a good starting point is the NIST report.

 

[carlitos]

T.A.M., take your own advice and retire the thread. It only serves as an illustration of an argument from incredulity, and as a reminder to go find my souvenir box from the World Series.

ETA - and thanks for the cool vids of stuff blowing up!

 

[BigAl]

Really? So I guess that's why shelling or bombing the hell out of a building has never brought one down in history? Random explosions like that have had any success.

Irrelevant. There were no explosives detonated at WTC.

 

[T.A.M.]

Well a good starting point is the NIST report.

dodge noted, expected. Can't say I blame you. The others are right, you are out of your league, and simply flailing about.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

T.A.M., take your own advice and retire the thread. It only serves as an illustration of an argument from incredulity, and as a reminder to go find my souvenir box from the World Series.

ETA - and thanks for the cool vids of stuff blowing up!

yah, I know....but I am like the godfather in godfather 3...Just when you think you are out...they pull you back in.

TAM

 

[Java Man]

dodge noted, expected. Can't say I blame you. The others are right, you are out of your league, and simply flailing about.

TAM

Dodge? Why? Just take the beams NIST reports as "Critical" and take them out with explosives. Or thermite. They're both on the menu, take your pick.

 

[Java Man]

Irrelevant. There were no explosives detonated at WTC.

Still the same old tactic of repeating the same line over and over again until it sticks. Why don't you contribute something more like: ideas.

 

[T.A.M.]

Dodge? Why? Just take the beams NIST reports as "Critical" and take them out with explosives. Or thermite. They're both on the menu, take your pick.

vague, unproven, non-descriptive response noted...almost as bad as a pure dodge.

Waiting....

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Still the same old tactic of repeating the same line over and over again until it sticks. Why don't you contribute something more like: ideas.

What original idea are you proposing? You are parroting the same old truther nonsense. Dress it up with your own linguistic quirks, and propensity to obfuscate with semantic arguments all you like...it is still THE SAME OLD STUFF.

TAM

 

[Java Man]

vague, unproven, non-descriptive response noted...almost as bad as a pure dodge.

Waiting....

TAM

Are you claiming that taking out those columns in the NIST report would not have taken down the building?

 

[Java Man]

Dress it up with your own linguistic quirks, and propensity to obfuscate with semantic arguments all you like..

LOL, it's you who tried the semantics trick and ended up proving you couldn't prove anything against bomb presence.

 

[T.A.M.]

Are you claiming that taking out those columns in the NIST report would not have taken down the building?

No I am saying you are being vague, and nondescript, and expecting me to do your work for you.

Unless your theory is now,

"simply take out with explosives those beams that NIST lists as critical, and the towers collapse." is your theory.

If that is your theory, then I would like you to prove it. If you are saying it is NISTs theory, then I want a link to the area(s) in the NIST report where they state such, as you are the one claiming this.

TAM

 

[carlitos]

It's an obvious point, but the months and years of FEA modeling to analyze how the buildings collapsed were performed because and after the buildings collapsed. Oddly, the plans for the building didn't label a particular column or columns "these are the ones that will knock down the building." Just a thought.

 

[T.A.M.]

LOL, it's you who tried the semantics trick and ended up proving you couldn't prove anything against bomb presence.

I can't provide evidence that unicorns and santa were not there either...they could have been...you can't prove they don't exist, so they might. And if they do exist (santa and unicorns) they might have been in the towers...you haven't proven they weren't.

The presence of explosives is up to you to prove. You, however, have not provided any proof that explosives were used in the collapse of the towers.

TAM

 

[Java Man]

Oddly, the plans for the building didn't label a particular column or columns "these are the ones that will knock down the building." Just a thought.

So only buildings with those indicators on the blueprints can be demolished by CDs? How do the guys that make a living out of it manage it? They have a time machine and go back in time to ask the original designers to "write that down" so they can bring the building down some decades later?

 

[Java Man]

The presence of explosives is up to you to prove. You, however, have not provided any proof that explosives were used in the collapse of the towers.

TAM

Yup, that still doesn't rule out that you were trying to pull a nonsense argument against the usage of explosives.