Debunker says what?

Homeland Insurgency said:
Oh give it up...

http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse".

But you can right debunker?
Click to expand...

Just because they didn't waste their time and money (Twoofers were clamoring for the WTC 7 report at the time, remember?) giving a floor by floor description of the failures doesn't mean that they didn't know the mechanisms for those failures. They demonstrated that just a few months after that letter was dated by releasing the FAQ that I linked to that gave a more detailed explanation of why the floors immediately below couldn't arrest the movement. They even used smaller, non technical words as much as possible, so that the average person could follow the reasoning. I guess they didn't dumb it down enough though...
 
Sam.I.Am said:
Just because they didn't waste their time and money (Twoofers were clamoring for the WTC 7 report at the time, remember?) giving a floor by floor description of the failures doesn't mean that they didn't know the mechanisms for those failures. They demonstrated that just a few months after that letter was dated by releasing the FAQ that I linked to that gave a more detailed explanation of why the floors immediately below couldn't arrest the movement. They even used smaller, non technical words as much as possible, so that the average person could follow the reasoning. I guess they didn't dumb it down enough though...
Click to expand...

Because they didn't take the time or money giving a floor by floor description of the failures means that they can't claim to now know the mechanisms for those failures.

Sam.I.Am said:
They demonstrated that just a few months after that letter was dated by releasing the FAQ that I linked to that gave a more detailed explanation of why the floors immediately below couldn't arrest the movement.
Click to expand...

They demonstrated what? How do they come to that conclusion if they didn't investigate it because they didn't have the time or money? How did they go from not being able to explain to explaining with no investigation?

Sam.I.Am said:
They even used smaller, non technical words as much as possible, so that the average person could follow the reasoning. I guess they didn't dumb it down enough though...
Click to expand...

I guess not. You are obviously having trouble.
 
triforcharity said:
I am absolutely done with HI. He is trying to get me to lash out at him, but I am better than that.
Click to expand...

Absolutely true, you are better than that. But I'm not. Thus I am free to offer the observation that HI seems to be of that particular Truther breed that subscribes to the "pissing in the pool" school of debate. Just keep pissing into the pool (and our boy appears to have an endless supply) and sooner or later everyone just gets out in disgust. Then declare victory. It takes a particularly diseased sort of infantile mind to stoop to such tactics (never mind actually take pride in it) but for some people, that's all they've got going for them I guess.

Let's face it, it's been years since I've seen a Truther say anything that was even particularly cogent, never mind logical or original. So by now they're strictly a source of low comedy for me. I suppose I should feel ashamed of myself for deriving amusement out of a few pathetic and deluded people, and were I a better person I probably would. But as I said I'm not, so I don't.
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
Because they didn't take the time or money giving a floor by floor description of the failures means that they can't claim to now know the mechanisms for those failures.
Click to expand...

Do you read what you type? It's simple maths. Connection type A has a load capacity of (X), There are 208 type A connections 208* (X) = (Y). Each floor weighs (Z). (Z) * 12 = > (Y) when static. (Z) * 6 = > (Y) when dynamic. Both collapses were >12 floors and dynamic.

Homeland Insurgency said:
They demonstrated what? How do they come to that conclusion if they didn't investigate it because they didn't have the time or money? How did they go from not being able to explain to explaining with no investigation?
Click to expand...

Seriously. Do you read what you type? It's simple maths. Connection type A has a load capacity of (X), There are 208 type A connections 208*(X) = (Y). Each floor weighs (Z). (Z)*12 = > (Y) when static. (Z)*6 = > (Y) when dynamic. Both collapses were >12 floors and dynamic.

Homeland Insurgency said:
I guess not. You are obviously having trouble.
Click to expand...

Apparently not seeing as I understand the concept of what they were talking about and you apparently do not.
 
Last edited:
Homeland Insurgency said:
Actually I also pointed out and sourced an article that claimed bomb sniffing dogs don't work well in places like subway stations. The WTC which had a path train stop underneath it also employed thousands of people.

This was after bomb sniffing dogs were brought up to me.
Click to expand...
The dogs were brought up because unlike the other buildings in the test you brought up , the WTC had bomb sniffing dogs.

The supposed explosives were not in a subway tunnel, they were in the building were they not? They were responsible for the initiation of collapse and the continuation of collapse as it progressed from its initial point 1000 feet above the subway, right?

On top of that I also don't know why it would have taken more then a couple days when in the initial investigation I posted in the OP any given building didn't take more then a few hours to smuggle explosives inside.
Click to expand...

Then why did you opine that a lot of explosives could be carried into a building over the course of a year?

Try to stick to one story there HI rather than changing it constantly and contradictorily.
 
show us the Path

This "subway" he speaks of was separated from the towers by a wall of glass doors which served to separate the conditioned space (air) from the tower lobby and shopping concourse, And a bank of escalators that descended below the shopping concourse to the station below which were quite a distance from the tower footprints themselves as seen in this map below. I suspect the bomb sniffing dogs ears would perk up from the cinnamon buns baking at Au Bon Pain before they would catch any hint of a subway below.

http://www.labelscar.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/wtcconcoursezk3.png
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
Anyway you want to look at it jaydees the debunkers debunk themselves every time they claim it would have taken tons of explosives strategically placed on every floor to get a building the size of the towers to collapse, then out of the other side of their mouth claim for instance that flight 175 randomly striking between the 78th to 84th floors, randomly hitting different columns, caused every floor above it to come down.
Click to expand...

A muddled view as is common for you HI.
the explosives contention IS NOT that of the debunkers. The amount of explosives used, calculated by debunkers relies on the contentions of the TM regarding the condition of the structure, the manner in which it collapsed and the description by the TM of events occuring during collapse.

The TM contends:
- the buildings were in good shape as far as load carrying capacity after the aircraft impacts. YOU attempted to illustrate this notion by your out-of-context quoting of NIST's description of this.
-the buildings could only have been brought down in their own footprint as much as they were, by the planting of explosives in order to fail each floor in succession. YOU have ignored this contention by the TM thus far in this thread.
-the buildings could only have collapsed at the rate they did by planting explosives within the building to fail each floor. YOU have ignored this contention by the TM thus far in this thread.
-the so called 'squibs' are the direct evidence of explosives being detonated ahead of the outwardly visible collapse zone. YOU have ignored this contention by the TM thus far in this thread.



So even if just your NIST collapse initiation hypothesis is correct then it must also be true that explosive like the aircraft on just a few floors could collapse up to twenty floors above it.
Click to expand...

Incorrect again. NIST stated that the aircraft impact weakened the load carrying capacity of the building but that the building still stood. It was the further weakening by the resultant , immediatly ignited, widespread, multi-floor fires that caused initial collapse. You used the example of the Murrah building. It also did not collapse despite the 4 tons of anfo explosive used. It was a wreck surely, but it still stood even a week later and had to be brought down.

Collapse initiation I remind you, came a hour after the impact and that if YOUR contention of explosive use is correct then it occured then, and affected a building , at the level of the impacts, which was already weakened by the impacts. The aircraft impacts then of course were inflicted on a structure that was , at that time, still in pristine condition.

It does not however mean it would continue below the impact or explosives zone, or if it did for how long.
Click to expand...

The NIST and debunker contention is, and the math that shows this (see Bazant for eg.), contend that gravity alone would account for global collapse after initial collapse. YOU contend that explosives are neccessary. YOU cite the fact that they are required in all 'normal' CD's by explosives. In those 'normal' CD's by explosive means there are indeed a lot of explosives loaded ONTO the columns AND there is significant pre-weakening of key structural members which again all leads to a TM requirement for more explosives(since pre-weakening is out of the question). The debunkers simply carry forth on the TM contention, and illustrate that this contention would require a lot of explosives.
You are welcome.I did hear you say thank you , right?

YOU cannot have it both ways HI. You cannot claim that few explosives would be required but also that NIST is incorrect in stating that once initial collapse had taken place as it did that global collapse would ensue. If NIST is incorrect on that point then YOUR contention requires more explosives.

And none of this even gets near the main conspiracy I've also heard which is thermite. Thermite that debunkers are quick to point out doesn't explode.
Click to expand...

Again we come to the TM contention of co-ordinated failing of the columns. Thermite is unreliable as far as timing goes. It is also unreliable in causing a quick and accuratecutting of large cross section , vertical columns. Thermite also has its own markers. First of all the amount required to significantly weaken, let alone cut through a thick, vertical column is quite large. YOUR contention is that little material would have to be smuggled in in the preceeding few days(or a year if bomb sniffing dogs are as useless as you wish them to be). Thermite would also absolutly have to be mounted ON the columns. Your contention previous to this page was that this was not neccessary(since you would have to explain how this was accomplished).

The fire that supposedly caused the collapse initiation by weakening steel in the NIST version also made no noise after the impact of the plane. But according to NIST caused at least in the case of the flight 175 impact zone about 20 floors above it to collapse..
Click to expand...

NIST and many other fire engineering tests illustrate that office fires can and do weaken stell to the point of causing significant deformations of load carrying members. In addition, the impacts had already compromised the capacity of the structure, AND in 'normal office fores the conflagration begins small, spreads about one floor, eventually spreads to adjacent floors again starting small on those floors and spreading to larger areas WHEREAS IN THE TOWERS, it was within seconds of impact a large area fire on each of several adjacent floors.

So keep talking. You debunk yourself.

In short it was the cumulative effect of several insults to the impact floors that caused initiation and the manner of construction(long span, trusses and tube in tube) that allowed this initial collapse to keep progressing.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
A muddled view as is common for you HI.
the explosives contention IS NOT that of the debunkers. The amount of explosives used, calculated by debunkers relies on the contentions of the TM regarding the condition of the structure, the manner in which it collapsed and the description by the TM of events occuring during collapse.

The TM contends:
- the buildings were in good shape as far as load carrying capacity after the aircraft impacts. YOU attempted to illustrate this notion by your out-of-context quoting of NIST's description of this.
-the buildings could only have been brought down in their own footprint as much as they were, by the planting of explosives in order to fail each floor in succession. YOU have ignored this contention by the TM thus far in this thread.
-the buildings could only have collapsed at the rate they did by planting explosives within the building to fail each floor. YOU have ignored this contention by the TM thus far in this thread.
-the so called 'squibs' are the direct evidence of explosives being detonated ahead of the outwardly visible collapse zone. YOU have ignored this contention by the TM thus far in this thread.





Incorrect again. NIST stated that the aircraft impact weakened the load carrying capacity of the building but that the building still stood. It was the further weakening by the resultant , immediatly ignited, widespread, multi-floor fires that caused initial collapse. You used the example of the Murrah building. It also did not collapse despite the 4 tons of anfo explosive used. It was a wreck surely, but it still stood even a week later and had to be brought down.

Collapse initiation I remind you, came a hour after the impact and that if YOUR contention of explosive use is correct then it occured then, and affected a building , at the level of the impacts, which was already weakened by the impacts. The aircraft impacts then of course were inflicted on a structure that was , at that time, still in pristine condition.



The NIST and debunker contention is, and the math that shows this (see Bazant for eg.), contend that gravity alone would account for global collapse after initial collapse. YOU contend that explosives are neccessary. YOU cite the fact that they are required in all 'normal' CD's by explosives. In those 'normal' CD's by explosive means there are indeed a lot of explosives loaded ONTO the columns AND there is significant pre-weakening of key structural members which again all leads to a TM requirement for more explosives(since pre-weakening is out of the question). The debunkers simply carry forth on the TM contention, and illustrate that this contention would require a lot of explosives.
You are welcome.I did hear you say thank you , right?

YOU cannot have it both ways HI. You cannot claim that few explosives would be required but also that NIST is incorrect in stating that once initial collapse had taken place as it did that global collapse would ensue. If NIST is incorrect on that point then YOUR contention requires more explosives.



Again we come to the TM contention of co-ordinated failing of the columns. Thermite is unreliable as far as timing goes. It is also unreliable in causing a quick and accuratecutting of large cross section , vertical columns. Thermite also has its own markers. First of all the amount required to significantly weaken, let alone cut through a thick, vertical column is quite large. YOUR contention is that little material would have to be smuggled in in the preceeding few days(or a year if bomb sniffing dogs are as useless as you wish them to be). Thermite would also absolutly have to be mounted ON the columns. Your contention previous to this page was that this was not neccessary(since you would have to explain how this was accomplished).



NIST and many other fire engineering tests illustrate that office fires can and do weaken stell to the point of causing significant deformations of load carrying members. In addition, the impacts had already compromised the capacity of the structure, AND in 'normal office fores the conflagration begins small, spreads about one floor, eventually spreads to adjacent floors again starting small on those floors and spreading to larger areas WHEREAS IN THE TOWERS, it was within seconds of impact a large area fire on each of several adjacent floors.

So keep talking. You debunk yourself.

In short it was the cumulative effect of several insults to the impact floors that caused initiation and the manner of construction(long span, trusses and tube in tube) that allowed this initial collapse to keep progressing.
Click to expand...

Excellent summarization, Jaydee
 
The contention of the debunkers on this thread and in this forum from time to time has been that for explosives to have been involved in the collapse of the towers then tons and tons of them would have been needed. These explosives according to debunkers would have needed to have been strategically placed on structural supports on EVERY floor. This process according to debunkers could take as long as a year. So there is no way according to debunkers that this could have gone on without being witnessed. It is further contented in this thread by debunkers that because of the amount of explosives needed it would have easily been discovered by things like bomb sniffing dogs and security. Even though I sourced how an investigation got explosives into 10 federal buildings post 9/11 and another article where an expert claims bomb sniffing dogs are not dependable in busy populated areas. Debunkers also claim because of the amount of detonator charges needed and how loud they are the sound would have been heard by everyone in Manhattan if not upstate NY.

Some truthers also have claimed explosives and CD, but the conspiracy theory I have always heard the most is thermite. Supposedly according to debunkers though, tons and tons of thermite would also have been needed to take down the towers.

The problem with debunkers is that after they make all the proclamations about just how many explosives would be needed to bring down the towers in a CD and how long it would take in preparation, in the very next breathe they claim a plane randomly hitting the towers anywhere near the top on one side will bring the towers straight down in an hour. Even when according to their official version it’s not really the plane, the impact, or the jet fuel primarily that caused the collapse of the towers. It’s plain old building content fire.

Well then. So much for TONS and TONS of explosives huh?

So much for months and months of preparation needed.

Well not always with debunkers. Because when you point out to them that building content fire has never caused the collapse of a steel structured high rise in the history of high rise fires then they go back to the plane impacts.

That is until the WTC-7 report. That is sometimes. Like I said they are all over the place. You corner them and then they start spouting off the same crap from 3 years ago that their own official version doesn’t even endorse. Go figure.

Because now theoretically these days since the release of the NIST WTC-7 report according to debunkers to globally collapse a steel structured high-rise building there is absolutely no need for any kind of explosives at all on even one structural support.

There is no need for such a freak thing like an intentional plane crash going 500 miles an hour, or jet fuel ignited fires to structural supports that knocks off fire-proofing.

Nope.

There is no need at all for anything like that according to debunkers these days.

This is of course after they shot off their snotty mouths for years and years about oil tanks and 10 story gashes.

Theoretically according to debunkers all you need these days is one match to start a building content fire and then thermal expansion can set in to one column and the entire structure will fall down like a house of cards.

One day. That’s it. No preparation at all.

I can’t tell anymore what a debunker believes. Depending on which one you talk to and even which day it is you talk to them you can get any one or all of these excuses.

Just as long as it doesn’t involve an inside job or any kind of cover-up it’s okay by debunkers. Doesn’t matter what it is. Any excuse will do.

Or not?

I can’t tell anymore.

Make up your minds.

Debunker says what?
 
Last edited:
Homeland Insurgency said:
The problem with debunkers is that after they make all the proclamations about just how many explosives would be needed to bring down the towers in a CD and how long it would take in preparation, in the very next breathe they claim a plane randomly hitting the towers anywhere near the top on one side will bring the towers straight down in an hour. Even when according to their official version it’s not really the plane, the impact, or the jet fuel, primarily that caused the collapse of the towers. It’s plain old building content fire.
Click to expand...
Energy911.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom