Controlled demolition vs. the towers collapsing

bardamu said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wait... so challenging nonsensical CTs with actual evidence is illogical ? No wonder you're confused.
 
Firefighter Timothy Brown:

http://www.thebravest.com/xaboutusTimtestimony.html

For those Truthers who think that "explosives" were used in the basement & that jet fuel couldn't possibly have gone down the elevator shaft had this coming:

The elevator pit was on fire with the jet fuel. People were screaming in the elevator. They were getting smoked and cooked. There weren't a lot of firemen there at the time. I grabbed some of the Port Authority employees and asked them where the fire extinguishers were and told them to get as many fire extinguishers as they could so we could try and fight this fire. As they were doing that, firemen started showing up, and I started asking them to get big cans, let's try to put this fire out.
Click to expand...

And actually the firefighters did say that the bodies that hit the pavement did sound like explosions.
 
I can't believe it. I haven't participated in 9/11 stuff here in a couple years and I come back to see that the same arguments are being used over and over again...

No wonder religion's been so resilient...
 
Belz... said:
I can't believe it. I haven't participated in 9/11 stuff here in a couple years and I come back to see that the same arguments are being used over and over again...

No wonder religion's been so resilient...
Click to expand...

Yup. One big heaping helping of déjà vu, isn't it.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Still kinda curious about this....
Seems characteristic to cast doubt on other causes, I'm interested in how all other potential causes have been eliminated all together. Some reasoning to this conclusion would be appreciated
Click to expand...
I guess I shouldn't be at all surprised that there's not even a spark of interest in discussion of how more common and plausible explanations were eliminated to the point of bombs being considered as the only ever possible culprit?

This shouldn't be hard people... JM wants us to include explosives as a "possibility" so it's really ironic to find that the same philosophy hasn't been adopted by the arguers asking for that. since the defacto conclusion proposed by TM proponents is explosives, I would at least have assumed they'd be ready to explain how all of the other sources that would explain witness testimony have been eliminated as impossible... there's been over 9 years of rehearsal and regurgitation afterall
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
9 or 10 structures destroyed and apprx 3000 dead, more death and destruction in the USA than that caused by any other man made disaster and he talks about the supposed conspirators limiting damage!
Click to expand...

Java Man said:
Well imagine the same scenario, but the buildings fall sideways along Manhattan. How many dead then? Damage in USD?
Click to expand...

Zzzzoooooommmmmmm, right over your head!

Tell me again why persons who can expect up to 50,000 dead (the approx max occupancy of the WTC) would care if that number were instead 75,000 or 150,000 or if instead of 10 totally destroyed structures it was 20 or 30?
 
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...

English is not your first language is it?
Its not a slam, we can make adjustments to how things are worded to make the comprehension better for a ESL poster.

What he meant was that in quoting him you did not include relevent parts of his post.
 
Java Man said:
How can I post such idiotic, insane, stupid bull**** day in and day out? Well, you see, I am controlled by the NWO, and am a disinfo agent brought to you by PBS.
Click to expand...

I just did.

MODS: This is just an example, and am not aiming this as a personal attack on Java. It is just s demonstration as to how someone can change a quote.

Java,

You can put anything you want in these brackets ]QUOTE=Whomever[ Blah blah blah ]/QUOTE[ Just switch the brackets around and it will look like this.

Whomever said:
Blah blah blah
Click to expand...

Simple really.
 
twinstead said:
which was a direct answer to your question.
Click to expand...

No it is not. Because the pillars are not marked "demolish me to bring building down" just like the blueprints are not marked "demolish this to bring building down". More so, by inspecting the pillars it is harder to determine the steel thinkness, concrete type etc. of a pillar. This is much better done with the blueprints.

So he still hasn't answered the question and neither have you. Unless your answer implies that "through inspection" the pillars to demolish are determined. In which case you are supporting my position that labeling on the blueprints "demolish this to bring building down" are indeed not required.
 
jaydeehess said:
English is not your first language is it?
Its not a slam, we can make adjustments to how things are worded to make the comprehension better for a ESL poster.

What he meant was that in quoting him you did not include relevent parts of his post.
Click to expand...

First of all I think you meant "relevant", not "relevent". So before taking time to make comments about ESL I'd suggest you take time to proofread your post or use something to check your spelling.

Now to the matter at hand. The part that I left out is not relevant, although he makes it look like it. Please read the other posts I've made regarding this. He's just transferring responsibility from "markings on the blueprint" to "markings on the columns". The original argument was that "blueprint markings were required for CD", which brought to my attention that then only buildings with said markings on the blueprints could be CDed. Which is not the case.
 
Java Man said:
No it is not. Because the pillars are not marked "demolish me to bring building down" just like the blueprints are not marked "demolish this to bring building down". More so, by inspecting the pillars it is harder to determine the steel thinkness, concrete type etc. of a pillar. This is much better done with the blueprints.
Click to expand...

It now seems you believe that the only inspection that demolition engineers are capable of is reading pre-written instructions. Has it crossed your mind that other people may possess abilities and expertise that you lack?

Java Man said:
So he still hasn't answered the question and neither have you. Unless your answer implies that "through inspection" the pillars to demolish are determined. In which case you are supporting my position that labeling on the blueprints "demolish this to bring building down" are indeed not required.
Click to expand...

I think we'd better go back and look through the series of stupid comments and questions you've been posting, since you've shown that not only are you incapable of using the scroll bar, but that you think you can get away with misrepresentation because nobody else is capable of using it either.

This all started with a post from carlitos:

carlitos said:
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.
Click to expand...

Carlitos is saying, for the edification of conspiracy theorists and other forms of idiot, that the availability of blueprints for the buildings didn't provide sufficient information for the planning of a controlled demolition without considerable further study and analysis.

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...

Java Man is attempting to misrepresent what carlitos said as a claim that further information on the blueprints is needed to demolish a building, rather than study of the building.

Dave Rogers said:
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...

I'm pointing out that physical inspection of the structure of the building is an important part of planning a controlled demolition. I then went on to describe preparation of the structure for demolition; Java Man then selected my post for quoting, removed the passage I've quoted above, and responded as if it had never been there:

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...

Java Man now seems to be presenting a completely different argument, namely that structural members of a building cannot be identified without recourse to the blueprints. I suspect that any demolition engineer would be laughing out loud at this point. And then, when twinstead pointed out that he'd deleted the part of my post that he was then pretending he'd never read, we get this:

Java Man said:
So he still hasn't answered the question and neither have you. Unless your answer implies that "through inspection" the pillars to demolish are determined. In which case you are supporting my position that labeling on the blueprints "demolish this to bring building down" are indeed not required.
Click to expand...

So, finally, Java Man is attacking a position that nobody has ever proposed: that labels on a blueprint to specify the positions of demolition charges are a requirement for demolition of a building.

While I suppose it's possible for blueprints to specify demolition charge locations, the point both carlitos and I have been trying to make, and Java Man has been trying to obscure, is that considerable preparation, planning and physical inspection is necessary to set up a controlled demolition, because blueprints normally don't specify this information.

Please keep on beating up your strawman, Java Man. I'm sure we're all finding it very entertaining, and there's even a chance that you may end up knocking it down. When you've finished, perhaps you'd like to rejoin the relevant part of the discussion?

Dave
 
Java Man said:
Now to the matter at hand. The part that I left out is not relevant, although he makes it look like it. Please read the other posts I've made regarding this. He's just transferring responsibility from "markings on the blueprint" to "markings on the columns". The original argument was that "blueprint markings were required for CD", which brought to my attention that then only buildings with said markings on the blueprints could be CDed. Which is not the case.
Click to expand...

Gosh, what an imagination you have. "Markings on the columns" were entirely your own fantasy, and the original argument was nothing like your misrepresentation of it, as I've just shown.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Gosh, what an imagination you have. "Markings on the columns" were entirely your own fantasy, and the original argument was nothing like your misrepresentation of it, as I've just shown.

Dave
Click to expand...

Actually that was carlitos fantasy

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6362218#post6362218

As you have quoted him correctly already.

More so carlitos, to my understanding, misrepresents the information. As he says "modeling to analyze how the buildings collapsed". Which is a partial truth. According to debunkers here the analysis was made to determine the initial collapse, but the actual fall was not analyzed. So what started the collapse is known. What allowed it to continue in such a vertical manner is not fully analyzed. Actually according to your camp it is practically un-analyzed and just assumed to be so.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
Java Man now seems to be presenting a completely different argument, namely that structural members of a building cannot be identified without recourse to the blueprints. I suspect that any demolition engineer would be laughing out loud at this point.
Click to expand...

Laughing? Really? You must hire x-engineers. With xray vision or similar skills. How are they going to know the thickness of a steel column from the outside? Drill a hole and find out? Are you paying them like a buck an hour to afford that amount of lost time. Are they going to drill a hole in every column to figure that out? Or just assume all columns are the same?

What about concrete columns? The steel inside? What thickness is it? How many rods, what about braces? How many, what diameter and how far apart are they? All that shows up in a blue print, but is hard to "inspect". What about concrete itself? What type is it?

So many questions you an carlitos leave unanswered yet you want us to buy your lines "just like that".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom