Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

[A W Smith]

Would the fact that not all explosions are caused by explosives rule out explosives at the site of reported explosions?

Just answer yes or no.

[Tiresome disclaimer: I do not believe there were explosives in the towers. I am not a twoofer. I just prefer arguments that have real merit, rather than cheap rhetorical games. I prefer both to outright insults, which convince nobody of anything.]

Would the fact that explosions that were reported at the WTC site, absent of any physical evidence whatsoever for those alleged explosives, detonators, explosive residue, det cord, fractures or severed steel consistent with cd, rule that the collapse of any of the buildings at the site were the result of explosive controlled demolition? Yes or no?

 

[funk de fino]

None of this changes what firefighters themselves reported having seen and heard that day. Get over it.

That many of them later clarified as being not bombs or explosives. OK?

Why wont you contact them?

 

[WildCat]

If I was asked to describe the sound in this video of a fire, I would say it sounded like a bomb. Was it a bomb?

Ergo will ignore this post.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Would the fact that explosions that were reported at the WTC site, absent of any physical evidence whatsoever for those alleged explosives, detonators, explosive residue, det cord, fractures or severed steel consistent with cd, rule that the collapse of any of the buildings at the site were the result of explosive controlled demolition? Yes or no?

Do try to keep up. I don't actually care what the answer to your question is. I'm not one one side or the other. I just take issue with cheap rhetorical games like "just say yes or no" - even if you (or in this case someone else) create a well-annotated logical argument that includes strawmanning (labelled 'implied' - it was my understanding that the original argument recognised that not all explosions are explosives, but that one 'side' were reluctant to concede that some explosions might be explosives. The proper refutation of that has been provided by Noah - once he'd been called on the cheap rhetorical games).

I expect to be labelled 'hypocrite' again for using the same cheap rhetorical game in my response. At least I had an excuse...

 

[A W Smith]

Do try to keep up. I don't actually care what the answer to your question is. I'm not one one side or the other. I just take issue with cheap rhetorical games like "just say yes or no" - even if you (or in this case someone else) create a well-annotated logical argument that includes strawmanning (labelled 'implied' - it was my understanding that the original argument recognised that not all explosions are explosives, but that one 'side' were reluctant to concede that some explosions might be explosives. The proper refutation of that has been provided by Noah - once he'd been called on the cheap rhetorical games).

I expect to be labelled 'hypocrite' again for using the same cheap rhetorical game in my response. At least I had an excuse...

So the whole of the evidence refuting explosive CD is now straw manning?
Me thinks thou doth protest too much. Please do better or come out of your truther closet already.

 

[NutCracker]

Do try to keep up. I don't actually care what the answer to your question is. I'm not one one side or the other. I just take issue with cheap rhetorical games like "just say yes or no" - even if you (or in this case someone else) create a well-annotated logical argument that includes strawmanning (labelled 'implied' - it was my understanding that the original argument recognised that not all explosions are explosives, but that one 'side' were reluctant to concede that some explosions might be explosives. The proper refutation of that has been provided by Noah - once he'd been called on the cheap rhetorical games).

I expect to be labelled 'hypocrite' again for using the same cheap rhetorical game in my response. At least I had an excuse...

You seem to be confused. Asking someone to answer a question yes or no, is only a cheap rhetorical trick if the question at hand is a loaded question. The question we are talking about, clearly is not a loaded question. Either all ravens are black or not all ravens are black. Either all explosions are caused by explosives or not all explosions are caused by explosives. Elementary predicate logic.

Let E denote the set of explosions. Let T denote the set of explosions caused by explosives. The assertion "there where explosions heard, therefore these explosions where caused by explosives" can thus be formulated as "for any A, A is a subset of E => A is a subset of T." Therefore if this assertions holds true, it holds true that "for any x, x is an element of E => x is an element of T." By definition of the subset relation, it follows that E is a subset of T, ie. "all explosions are caused by explosives."

Calling an assertion "implied" where it actually is, is not "straw manning."

May I suggest you climb off your pseudo-intellectual soap box? Is has been demonstrated here you have little justification for standing on it. Your bable, is just that.

 

[tfk]

I told you to read the thread. I think you should follow my advice.

I also asked you previously whether any firefighters had commented on record that the explosions they reported hearing were standard to building fires. You didn't answer this.

Don't make me put you on Ignore.

Yeah, actually many of them said this. Indirectly.

As someone else (Tri?) pointed out, when FFs encounter REAL explosives, they are trained to clear the area & call the bomb squad.

All those FFs who commented on "explosions". And NOT ONE time, not ONCE, "We've got bombs going off up here! Pull everyone out & get the bomb squad here quick!"

So, yep. Every FF who mentioned explosions, but did not call for the bomb squad, did say, in essence, "I believe that those explosions were not from explosives."


tk

 

[jaydeehess]

Yeah, actually many of them said this. Indirectly.

As someone else (Tri?) pointed out, when FFs encounter REAL explosives, they are trained to clear the area & call the bomb squad.

All those FFs who commented on "explosions". And NOT ONE time, not ONCE, "We've got bombs going off up here! Pull everyone out & get the bomb squad here quick!"

So, yep. Every FF who mentioned explosions, but did not call for the bomb squad, did say, in essence, "I believe that those explosions were not from explosives."


tk

An excellent point tfk.

The 911 conspiracy squads would haver us beliebe that despite believeing that explosives were going off all over the structure that the FFs simply continued about their business.

 

[Jackanory]

Yeah, actually many of them said this. Indirectly.

As someone else (Tri?) pointed out, when FFs encounter REAL explosives, they are trained to clear the area & call the bomb squad.

All those FFs who commented on "explosions". And NOT ONE time, not ONCE, "We've got bombs going off up here! Pull everyone out & get the bomb squad here quick!"

So, yep. Every FF who mentioned explosions, but did not call for the bomb squad, did say, in essence, "I believe that those explosions were not from explosives."


tk

Tips hat.

This should be bumped as often as possible.

 

[slojoe]

Truthers are too stupid to realise that people actually read links posted. They ofcourse very rarely bother to either read articles they link to or those debunkers link to. I particularly enjoy it when their own links debunk their arguments. We don't have a big enough irony meter smilie.

I'm not sure stupid is the right word, although the obtuseness of their reasoning is something to behold in an "Oh God, humanity is doomed" sort of way.

 

[slojoe]

Heh. If you yourself read links--or, indeed, read any factual information at all, you would know that [forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7002239&postcount=300"]slojoe[/URL] merely moved his goalposts here. What a bedunker surprise!

Why would I need to move the goalposts when you keep running off the field?

But let's let folks judge for themselves:

That's not what the seismographers say.

mgs.md.gov/esic/publications/download/911pentagon.pdf[/url]

But if that's what you want to insist upon, you go right ahead. I'm not sure our 9/11 bedunkers even know what they are saying anymore.

That right ergo? What do the seismographers say? Why don't you quote them if they back you up?

It's just the old Truther dodge of posting a tangential link without an excerpt, trying to fake supporting documentation.

I'll stick with real proofs like the one you're running from. Here it is again, from people who own seismographs and know controlled demolition, your friends at Implosion World:

In all cases where seismographs detected the collapses, waveform readings indicate a single, gradually ascending and descending level of ground vibration during the event. At no point during 9/11 were sudden or independent vibration “spikes” documented by any seismograph, and we are unaware of any entity possessing such data.

This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses. However, a detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presence of any unusual or abnormal vibration events.​

BTW. Figure 4 in that Pentagon paper you cite shows no big spikes before the south tower collapsed. You probably should read your links.

Yep, no spikes, no explosives, no controlled demolition, or so say the folks at Implosion World (implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf), also known as Demolition Contractors for 9/11 Truth.

 

[ergo]

The question we are talking about, clearly is not a loaded question. Either all ravens are black or not all ravens are black. Either all explosions are caused by explosives or not all explosions are caused by explosives. Elementary predicate logic.

Yeah, well, I guess this is where your problem is. This is why responding to most bedunker posts would be a waste of time.

 

[ergo]

Yeah, actually many of them said this. Indirectly.

Source.

And NOT ONE time, not ONCE, "We've got bombs going off up here! Pull everyone out & get the bomb squad here quick!"

Um, wrong.

 

[triforcharity]

Would the fact that not all explosions are caused by explosives rule out explosives at the site of reported explosions?

Just answer yes or no.

[Tiresome disclaimer: I do not believe there were explosives in the towers. I am not a twoofer. I just prefer arguments that have real merit, rather than cheap rhetorical games. I prefer both to outright insults, which convince nobody of anything.]

Well, when there is no other evidence of said explosives, and explosions being common in a highrise fire, then yes, it most certainly would.

 

[triforcharity]

Source.



Um, wrong.

Really? Wanna back that up with someone evacuating the towers pre-collapse?

You know, the radio transmissions are on record too.

Hey there Ergo,

Why don't you address the post here?

It's waiting for your response.

 

[jaydeehess]

In fact some did call for a complete evacuation of the north tower, however it was beacuse they feared, correctly, that it too was about to collapse, not because they believed that explosives were going to cause that collapse.

IIRC the NYPD ordered their men out when the copter crew said they thought it was about to go down. The msg never reached the NYFD brass in time, though FFs would probably not have left.

 

[WildCat]

If I was asked to describe the sound in this video of a fire, I would say it sounded like a bomb. Was it a bomb?

ergo, care to comment? Or does reality get in the way of your fantasy?

 

[triforcharity]

Just FYI guys, that fire is CGI.

Here's a better one.

This is a simple, yet very poweful FAE.



Start at 1:50

Here's another one.



Another



Another (about 1:10)

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Before 1337m4n's post gets bogged down with other points let's re-emphasize, because god-forbid, explosions are apparently supposed to be anomolies in fires.

Witnesses report explosions in car fire

Residents in the Orchard Mesa neighborhood reported hearing several explosions during the fire. The SUV was completely gutted

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/0...on-hillside-near-san-francisco/#ixzz1HWDbp0Mf

It's not the first time a deadly explosion on a PG&E gas line has devastated a Northern California neighborhood.
On Christmas Eve 2008 an explosion killed a 72-year-old man in the Sacramento suburb of Rancho Cordova, destroyed one home and seriously damaged others.
The National Transportation Safety Board's final report said PG&E used a wrong pipe to repair the gas line two years before the explosion. Rancho Cordova residents had reported of a gas smell in the area before the blast

Explosions are one of many hazards that firefighters risk encountering, and is mentioned extensively in literature related to firefighter training.

To the truther who still do not get the "message;" Explosions during fires are routine occurrences. They are constant hazards. You want people to disprove the use of explosives as a cause? Then prove to us that the explosions in a large fuel ignited fire are anomalous, and explain how.


BTW, let me just reiterate my first comment in this thread; core-led collapse as the title depicts suggests that core failure was the principal driver of collapse initiation and progression. It was not the driver of collapse progression, this is not disputable. If it "led" the collapse then the core spires would not have lagged behind the collapse of the rest of the buildings.

That is all.

 

[triforcharity]

I ca do this all day long.