Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

jaydeehess said:
Quotes proving beyond any reasonable doubt that both of you are basically technically illiterate and easily misled.

A few centuries ago you'd have been argueing that the world was flat.

Clayton, I asked before how you can state that the towers both collapsed in their own footprints making the collapses suspicious, AND debris was thrown several hundred meters also making the collapses suspicious.

You have explosives bringing all debris straight down=suspicion, and debris landing supposedly too far away also = suspicion. Which is it, debris too compact of a pile, or debris being flung too far?
Click to expand...

Wow that was tricky.
 
Clay, you have to at least pretend to argue to be a proper troll, not just dismiss everything with a "witty" remark.
jaydeehess said:
Part of WTC 7 fell across Vesey Street and impacted WTC 6. The 911 conspiracists ignore this and claim that WTC 7 fell in its own footprint. It is true that because WTC 6 was also largely destroyed that its not immediatly obvious that it was hit by WTC 7 but it is quite obvious that WTC 7 debris in in Vesey Street up to the north wall of WTC 6 and if one cares to look closely you can see that WTC 7 debris is on too of what's left of #6 as well.

The 911 conspiractors completely ignore that fact you bring up, that the eastern part of WTC 7 fell across Broadway to impact the Fitterman building. All they seem to care about is that the Post office seems to have escaped with only superficial damage at its base. :eek:
Click to expand...
Earlier today, I was arguing with someone in the comments of an AE911 vidya on the Youtubes who thinks he won the debate because Barclay St. isn't four lanes like I claimed, though he has yet to produce evidence that it wasn't in 2001 before the accident. He also claims that falling "mostly" in its footprint is evidence, after I pointed out multiple other buildings isn't in its footprint. Basically, the only way the fall pattern wouldn't be evidence of CD would be if every of ounce debris was somehow teleported away from its 7's footprint, like Clay here.

He swears at me a lot.

He calls me illogical.

Of course, anyone who believes in a man who thinks that two small boxes are an acceptable facsimile for hundreds of feet and a half-million tonnes of skyscraper isn't going to be swayed by logic in the first place.
 
Last edited:
000063 said:
Clay, you have to at least pretend to argue to be a proper troll, not just dismiss everything with a "witty" remark.
Click to expand...
Didn't you hear him? His work is done!

Clayton Moore said:
My work was done when the "collapse" of all three buildings was captured on video.
Click to expand...


We can all rest easy now that we're safe from...uh...OK, what was it that trutherism is keeping us safe from, again?
 
Clayton Moore said:
Who the heck is we?
Click to expand...

Science and technically savvy persons with a modicum of logical thought.
ETA: Dave's answer above is also quite to the point.
So Clayton, why is it necessary for you to invoke the 'you don't know what they had' appeal to magic?
After all I thought it was supposed to be obvious.
Clayton Moore said:
Wow that was tricky.
Click to expand...

What was, you once again avoiding the question?

Come to think of it have you EVER answered a question posed to you?
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
snip

Clayton, I asked before how you can state that the towers both collapsed in their own footprints making the collapses suspicious, AND debris was thrown several hundred meters also making the collapses suspicious.

You have explosives bringing all debris straight down=suspicion, and debris landing supposedly too far away also = suspicion. Which is it, debris too compact of a pile, or debris being flung too far?
Click to expand...

Bumped for Clayton.
 
Clayton Moore said:
My pronouncements are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

So its both suspicious that debris fell so very far from the base of the towers and at the same time its suspicious that the debris pile was confined to the structure's 'footprint'.

Anyone know what the logical fallacy is called in which a person holds to two mutualy exclusive beliefs?

Ok Clayton, ,,,,,,,,,

How does one load explosives onto a piece of perimeter column in order to launch it farther than one would expect it to travel under any other conditions? (its been asked before and yet you seem to have,,, surpise!!,,, never addressed it)

OTOH the direction of the acelleration vector due to gravity is always straight down so one wonders how a non-solid object can be expected to collapse in any other direction other than straight down, and have the vast bulk of its constituent parts therefore land within a relatively small area about the footprint of the structure. A few individual parts may be subjected to compressive/torsion forces(illustrated in pages past by a very succinct video) and have a horizontal velocity imparted to them.
 
femr2 said:
Anyone venturing to provide a useful response to the OP is going to have to get their hands dirty with...

a) Specific device position, especially height
b) The effect of all materials between sound source and receiver in terms of deflection and absorbtion

Render from source to receiver and see what amplitude you end up with.

Anything else is not going to answer the question, however much you may think other factors negate actually doing so.

Have fun ;)
Click to expand...

I am. Keep posting.
 
jaydeehess said:
So its both suspicious that debris fell so very far from the base of the towers and at the same time its suspicious that the debris pile was confined to the structure's 'footprint'.

Anyone know what the logical fallacy is called in which a person holds to two mutualy exclusive beliefs?

...<snip>...
Click to expand...


Doublethink?
 
jaydeehess said:
So its both suspicious that debris fell so very far from the base of the towers and at the same time its suspicious that the debris pile was confined to the structure's 'footprint'.

Anyone know what the logical fallacy is called in which a person holds to two mutualy exclusive beliefs?

Ok Clayton, ,,,,,,,,,

How does one load explosives onto a piece of perimeter column in order to launch it farther than one would expect it to travel under any other conditions? (its been asked before and yet you seem to have,,, surpise!!,,, never addressed it)

OTOH the direction of the acelleration vector due to gravity is always straight down so one wonders how a non-solid object can be expected to collapse in any other direction other than straight down, and have the vast bulk of its constituent parts therefore land within a relatively small area about the footprint of the structure. A few individual parts may be subjected to compressive/torsion forces(illustrated in pages past by a very succinct video) and have a horizontal velocity imparted to them.
Click to expand...



In no special order 2 goals, based on the result, had to be attained.

Total collapse of each tower.

Total destruction of each floor and it's contents.

Two types of destruction occurred in a synchronized fashion.

The support columns had to be disabled to keep the buildings basically within their footprints when they collapsed.

Each floor and its contents were completely destroyed with some type of explosive, as evidenced by the 1/4 inch body part remains, which caused the ejections and eliminated the pancaking that would be expected in a collapse.

There you go. 9/11 figured out by former IBM systems programmer in 100 words or less.

No bodies, just body parts, NBC, 08:49, 9/13
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpjsFQuf_7U&feature=related
 
Clayton Moore said:
In no special order 2 goals, based on the result, had to be attained.

Total collapse of each tower.

.....

There you go. 9/11 figured out by former IBM systems programmer in 100 words or less.

No bodies, just body parts, NBC, 08:49, 9/13
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpjsFQuf_7U&feature=related
Click to expand...

I have never understood why it was necessary to ensure 'total collapse'. If the NWO wanted an excuse for war then flying planes into the buildings would have been sufficient surely? As in a NWO board meeting: 'If the sheeple see Johnny Foreigner can fly planes into buildings with large loss of life they'll be wondering what else can they do and will be up for let's get 'em' and 'last one to make a big profit buys the next round, bonuses all round anyway, yee-har!'.
 
I read earlier that CM only had to watch the collapses to come to a conclusion... give him some credit; at least he's honest about abandoning the scientific method facade that the "mainstream" truth movement always puts up. He openly admits there's no science, engineering, architecture, physics, or otherwise behind his reasoning for embracing the controlled demolition "theory," just his gut feeling :o
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
In no special order 2 goals, based on the result, had to be attained.

Total collapse of each tower.

Total destruction of each floor and it's contents.
Click to expand...
Hogwash. Two broken teeth standing empty and useless in the middle of the city would be an ugly reminder for years that they can snuff us whenever they so choose.

The support columns had to be disabled to keep the buildings basically within their footprints when they collapsed.
Click to expand...
Horse feathers. The core columns were not damaged below the points of impact until the wave of destruction had long passed. They actually guided the collpase so that the towers would not tip over or slump off in one direction.

Each floor and its contents were completely destroyed with some type of explosive, as evidenced by the 1/4 inch body part remains, which caused the ejections and eliminated the pancaking that would be expected in a collapse.
Click to expand...
Utter balderdash. The slabs and the bodies were destroyed by collisions with each other. There aint any bloody Hush-a-booms. How many times needwe repeat that? That amount of explosives needed to destroy the slabs would have blown the eardrums out of those fire fighters who were trapped in one of the stairwells during collapse.

They would also have caused a pulsing in the flow of dust and smoke upware through the core. But we see only minor perturbations of that flow.

We would also have seen all manner of small junk ejected out at random through the dust plumes.

Didn't freaking happen.

There you go. 9/11 figured out by former IBM systems programmer in 100 words or less.
Click to expand...

Not a bit of it. You just pulled stuff out of your butt. You do need to bring some relevant skills set in here when you want to sell that sort of woo. There are too many of us here who have far more relevant experience in one or more applicable fields.

You have wandered into territory in which I have had far more experience than you have time to make up for, such as fire fighting and construction labor and concrete work and manufacturing field expedient weapons, to include thermite and bombs of various sorts. It all looks exactly as it should, from my perspective.
 
I see Clayton Moore is an adherent of the Bill Smith School of "pulling random things out of his nether regions instead of presenting a coherent, well-thought out theory that actually fits the evidence better than the commonly-held narrative of the event".

Nice. Smoke generating machines, anyone?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom