Controlled demolition vs. the towers collapsing

ergo said:
In other words, you made it up. Are you deliberately misrepresenting the testimony of people who were actually there?
Click to expand...
The quotes are from people who heard bodies hitting the ground. You and 911 truth use these as evidence for explosives. No explosives on 911, only liars in 911 truth making up delusions you think are real.

Those are real quotes used by you and 911 truth to lie.

You find the original article, and you find out the people heard bodies hitting the ground and they told everyone it was bodies. Not made up. You thought they were talking about explosives, you lost, because you can't do rational research.
 
Last edited:
Java Man said:
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?
Click to expand...

No, what they usually do is survey the structure of the building in detail, removing any material that might get in the way of the survey - for example, taking out ceilings, stripping off drywall and removing furniture and partitions - so that they can examine all the structural components. They then strip away any remaining ceilings, drywall, partitions etc. that might get in the way of the explosives, and fix the charges in close contact to the structural members to minimise the amount of explosive they need to bring down the structure. Even with all this preparatory work, which nobody working in the building could possibly fail to notice, the minimum amount of explosives needed still makes so much noise that it's usually louder than the collapse that follows it. If they weren't able to place the charges correctly, then far more explosive would be needed; the case, recently suggested, of buildings brought down by bombing and shelling is a case in point.

The idea that all this could be done without anybody noticing is so mind-bogglingly stupid, it's a miracle that people can believe it and still tie their own shoelaces.

Dave
 
ergo said:
I don't know, but a "bird crap" theory sounds like it would be in about the same league as "the tops of two buildings crushed down through the rest of their buildings within seconds of free fall" theory.
Click to expand...

Despite the fact that the theory you so quickly dismiss has, since 9/11, become the basis of the verinage demolition technique, and is known from earlier progressive collapses.

Still, what's reality? Just a minor inconvenience you can handwave away.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
...The idea that all this could be done without anybody noticing is so mind-bogglingly stupid, it's a miracle that people can believe it and still tie their own shoelaces...
Click to expand...
PLUS the additional barrier of making the demolition "hide" inside the apparent natural consequences of a large body impact plus accumulating damage from unfought fires AND a top down collapse.

Which is why I am bemused at all the detailed examination of whether NIST was right or not in the fine details of the initial collapse. Why bother? Why does it matter? The big picture is that impact damage plus fire damage led somehow or other to an initial collapse (Twin Towers) which precipitated an unavoidable global collapse.

No demolition needed.

No demolition used.

End of case. Close the books.
 
Originally Posted by beachnut
People jumping, bodies hitting the ground, I proved you don't do research. Bodies hitting the ground, the people who said the quotes said dead people and you can't do research to figure out anything! You fell for lies and you don't' have a clue how to comprehend reality.
Click to expand...
ergo said:
In other words, you made it up. Are you deliberately misrepresenting the testimony of people who were actually there?
Click to expand...


Eyewitness at WTC know that the body of a jumper hitting the concrete sounds like an explosion. The sound is on the Naudet 9/11 film. When you learn what the sound is, it's chilling.

I continue to be amazed at how little the people that obsess over details about 9/11 know about what really happened.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
In other words, you made it up. Are you deliberately misrepresenting the testimony of people who were actually there?
Click to expand...

I suspect you've never read or heard so much as a complete paragraph from anyone that was there.

Some of us were there. Others know lots of people that were there. I'm one of the latter group.
 
ergo said:
No, "explosion" means "the act or an instance of exploding".

"To explode" means "to blow up" or "to burst or to cause to burst violently and noisily".
Click to expand...

Your point? Lots of stuff blew up or fell on 9/11. Nobe of the noises There were no eyewitnesses reports of noises consistent in timing, loudness and brisance with man-made demolition.
 
Dave Rogers said:
They then strip away any remaining ceilings, drywall, partitions etc. that might get in the way of the explosives, and fix the charges in close contact to the structural members to minimise the amount of explosive they need to bring down the structure.
Click to expand...

But you still haven't addressed the point. You've made a very elaborate comment regarding the preparation of the structural members and maximizing efficiency of the explosives. But you're assuming the "structural members" have been already identified. Which is the key point and true "value" of the comments in the blueprints raised by the original post.
 
Java Man said:
But you still haven't addressed the point. You've made a very elaborate comment regarding the preparation of the structural members and maximizing efficiency of the explosives. But you're assuming the "structural members" have been already identified. Which is the key point and true "value" of the comments in the blueprints raised by the original post.
Click to expand...

How very clever of you to delete the part of the post where I did address that very point, then pretend I hadn't addressed it. Your mother must be very proud of you.

Dave
 
Java Man said:
But you still haven't addressed the point. You've made a very elaborate comment regarding the preparation of the structural members and maximizing efficiency of the explosives. But you're assuming the "structural members" have been already identified. Which is the key point and true "value" of the comments in the blueprints raised by the original post.
Click to expand...

Generally, in a building, the vertical members are the important structural ones.
 
Dave Rogers said:
How very clever of you to delete the part of the post where I did address that very point, then pretend I hadn't addressed it. Your mother must be very proud of you.

Dave
Click to expand...

How can I delete or edit a post of yours? And what's stopping you from reposting it to clarify it for us?
 
Java Man said:
How can I delete or edit a post of yours? And what's stopping you from reposting it to clarify it for us?
Click to expand...

You can change the quote. I think the part he's talking about is when he said this:

no, what they usually do is survey the structure of the building in detail, removing any material that might get in the way of the survey - for example, taking out ceilings, stripping off drywall and removing furniture and partitions - so that they can examine all the structural components.
Click to expand...

which was a direct answer to your question.
 
Java Man said:
How can I delete or edit a post of yours? And what's stopping you from reposting it to clarify it for us?
Click to expand...

Twinstead has it correctly. I responded to the very point you raised, and went on to mention some other relevant points. You then replied to the continuation, complaining that I hadn't addressed your point. As for reposting it, just scroll up the page and you'll be able to re-read the post that you must have read in the first place in order to select which parts to delete.

Really, this sort of petty, pointless, low-level and transparently obvious dishonesty is one of the most depressing characteristics of "truthers". It seems like you can't even be bothered to pretend you're honest.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom