Evidence against CD - placed there on purpose?

[Praktik]

What if all the evidence that goes against the Controlled Demolition hypothesis were placed there by the conspirators to test the faith of Truthers?

Discuss...

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

What if all the evidence that goes against the Controlled Demolition hypothesis were placed there by the conspirators to test the faith of Truthers?

Discuss...

Then the Conspirators are even cleverer than any of us supposed?

 

[Dave Rogers]

What if all the evidence that goes against the Controlled Demolition hypothesis were placed there by the conspirators to test the faith of Truthers?

Discuss...

Tricky one. Since there isn't any evidence in favour of CD, the evidence against it is mainly inferential and negative, an unending series of curious events of the dog in the night-time. How would the conspirators have planted evidence, for example, of thousands of workers in the Twin Towers not seeing the installation of demolition charges going on around them, or planted the absence of a loud enough bang to deafen anyone within half a mile of WTC7?

And, in the light of the level of denial they seem able to reach, the faith of some truthers hardly needs testing.

Dave

 

[Oystein]

What if all the evidence that goes against the Controlled Demolition hypothesis were placed there by the conspirators to test the faith of Truthers?

Discuss...

Which "Controlled Demolition hypothesis"? I haven't actually ever seen any that offers sufficient detail to even allow for falsification. They never really say how any building was CD'ed - no naming of devices, no suggestion for location and size of charges, no claims about timing, no szenario for how, when and by whom they were installed, nothing.

Perhaps you can link to a truther website that offers an actual "Controlled Demolition hypothesis" that goes beyond the naked claim "it was CD!"?

 

[marplots]

Placed there on purpose? Seems more likely than the alternative: placed there by accident. Unless people are just wandering around with stuff that could take down a skyscraper...

"Now, where did I leave that 500lb box of nano-thermite? I'm sure I had it on the subway. Darn. My kid is going to be so disappointed if I don't bring it home - again."

 

[Foolmewunz]

What if all the evidence that goes against

All WHAT evidence. There is no evidence against CD... there is simply no evidence FOR a CD. There is specifically no evidence for and the zero evidence for is the evidence against.

the Controlled Demolition hypothesis

As mentioned above.... which one? There are several variations, each with its own remarkable lunacy. There's no evidence against any of them. There's simply no evidence for them. (This is sounding familiar, eh?)

were placed there by the conspirators to test the faith of Truthers?

Well, now you're just getting silly. The IVC (impossibly vast conspiracy) perpetrators would have to have known that there were Truthers, which there weren't before the events of 9/11/01. And then, why the hell would the conspirators want to test the faith.... faith in what.... of those pesky kids who were going to figure out their dastardly plot.

Ah, I get it. You're working on the theory that 9/11 was a false flag operation by the soon-to-be-birthed Truther Movement and that their leadership wanted to see which of them was worthy of carrying Alex Jones' jockstrap onto the battlefield. Now it all makes sense.

Discuss...

Just did.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Can this thread be closed now?

Thank you.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Which "Controlled Demolition hypothesis"? I haven't actually ever seen any that offers sufficient detail to even allow for falsification. They never really say how any building was CD'ed - no naming of devices, no suggestion for location and size of charges, no claims about timing, no szenario for how, when and by whom they were installed, nothing.

Perhaps you can link to a truther website that offers an actual "Controlled Demolition hypothesis" that goes beyond the naked claim "it was CD!"?

Attack Scenario 404 is worth a read, if only to see how bizarre truther claims get when actually articulated in any detail. (I particularly like the bit where the missile battery pops up from the Pentagon lawn to blow the tail off AA77 milliseconds before impact, just to give contradictory evidence that will discredit truthers. It's like Thunderbirds with delusional schizophrenia.)

Dave

 

[Praktik]

Haha!!

Wow! Nice to see the effort put in!

 

[JayUtah]

What if all the evidence that goes against the Controlled Demolition hypothesis were placed there by the conspirators to test the faith of Truthers?

Discuss...

Well, pay close attention to Dave Rogers, because he has given you an important answer by characterizing as "inferential and negative" the evidence supposedly in favor of a controlled demolition. By that he means a lack of affirmative proof. Inferential arguments are those of the form, "It must have been this way because..." And they have their place, but they become convincing only when a preponderance of affirmative evidence can be developed that later confirms it as the most likely of all the things that can have happened.

If you come home to an empty cookie jar and you infer that your 8-year-old visiting nephew "must" have eaten all the cookies, the crumbs you find on the dog's whiskers would be pretty exculpatory evidence. That's an affirmative exoneration of your nephew, for which the only evidence you may have had for his "guilt" was your supposition that he likes cookies.

That's sort of how the arguments go here. "It must have been controlled demolition because..." and then come a raft of reasons such as "The buildings fell too fast," or "They should have stayed up." Even such apparently affirmative things as ejected girders and dust blown out windows is only speculatively attributable to some sort of planted explosives.

So yes, when you say "all the evidence that goes against [some conspiracy theory]" we ask a couple of questions. First, how do you distinguish (if you do) between evidence against some particular conspiracy theory and simply the affirmative evident for a more parsimonious conclusion? Does it matter whether it's exculpatory or affirmative? And second, what particular evidence for controlled demolition do you consider worth this level of consideration?

 

[beachnut]

What if all the evidence that goes against the Controlled Demolition hypothesis were placed there by the conspirators to test the faith of Truthers?

Discuss...

The fantasy conspirators placed the no blast damage to steel from explosives, and the no damage to steel from thermite - these conspirators placed the zero evidence. A clean up crew?

They placed physics, and structural engineering. They placed zero sounds of explosives. Sound engineers.

How do you place "critical thinking skills", to test the faith, or is it ignorance of 911 truth followers.

 

[Praktik]

Can this thread be closed now?

Thank you.

No room for flippancy?

awww why so serious...

Just had the creationist line on fossils come to me in a 9/11 wrapper and got a chuckle out of it I thought I'd share.

In another board the Paris thread brought out some 9/11 references and this proved to be the moment of inspiration as I was digging up pics of WTC7 fires..

 

[JayUtah]

No room for flippancy?

awww why so serious...

Because you're posting at a board where the rules require us to take you seriously and consider you a sincere contributor unless you specifically say otherwise. There is a comedy section, I believe, if that was your intent.

 

[carlitos]

There is a "humor" section, but it is sadly bereft of comedy.

 

[George 152]

There is a "humor" section, but it is sadly bereft of comedy.

Surely you jest

 

[JoeMorgue]

Let's compare the 9/11 Paranoid Delusion to an actual event.

In 1998 the largest controlled demolition of a single "building" in history occurred. (There have been larger controlled demolitions of larger structures like stadiums and engineering projects like dams and tunnels but this is the largest "building" in the sense we normally use it) The building being demolished was the former J.L. Hudson Department Store in Detroit. It was 439 feet tall, had 23 stories, two substories, and 2.2 million square feet. It was made of brick over structural steel. The building was built in 1911. It was over 85 years old. It's last major renovation or addition had been in 1946. At the time of its demolition it had sat empty for over 20 years. The building in such bad shape that it took them 4 months of prep work, including filling the basement and subbasement levels with Earth and constructing a berm around the 1st floor. Let me repeat that. It took a 21 man engineering team 4 months to fix the building enough so it could demolished.

Even given all that. Here's what it took to perform a controlled demolition on the empty, decayed, and already crumbling J.L. Hudson Department Store Building.

- A 12 man engineering team working 24 straight days.
- 4,118 individual explosive charges comprising a total of 2,728 lbs of explosives.
- Over 7 miles of detonation cord.
- 4,512 timing relays to make sure everything went off in the correct sequence.

Yeah so take that scenario and create for me any possible way any entity working any length of time was supposed a controlled demolition of the WTC... and nobody noticed. I've heard Truthers try to claim they pulled off all the pre-staging during a fire drill that had happened a few weeks before.

That's not stupid. That's too stupid what stupid is to smart.

So yeah in a weird sort of way I almost do have to consider the 9/11 Paranoid Delusion in almost religious "The conspirators work in mysterious way" terms. I've said for years now that the 9/11 Truther movement is not a conspiracy theory. It's far too stupid to be a conspiracy theory. The 9/11 Truther Movement wishes on its best day that it was smart enough to be a conspiracy theory. At least conspiracy theories usually work as stories. They make sense internally. I mean Oswald shot Kennedy and that's the end of the story but whoever first came up with the Kennedy assassination theories missed his mark as a kickass spy novelist because that is some good cloak and dagger stuff there.

 

[tsig]

Attack Scenario 404 is worth a read, if only to see how bizarre truther claims get when actually articulated in any detail. (I particularly like the bit where the missile battery pops up from the Pentagon lawn to blow the tail off AA77 milliseconds before impact, just to give contradictory evidence that will discredit truthers. It's like Thunderbirds with delusional schizophrenia.)

Dave

In addition to coordinating the preparations for and the response to the attack, the command team staffs the command centers on the day of the attack to coordinate last-minute adjustments in the operation, and implement fall-back plans in the event of failures. The two command centers are located Office of Emergency Management bunker on the 23rd floor of Building 7, and in the basement of the White House.


Destroying your own command center seems like a strange plan.

 

[Oystein]

...
Even given all that. Here's what it took to perform a controlled demolition on the empty, decayed, and already crumbling J.L. Hudson Department Store Building.

- A 12 man engineering team working 24 straight days.
- 4,118 individual explosive charges comprising a total of 2,728 lbs of explosives.
- Over 7 miles of detonation cord.
- 4,512 timing relays to make sure everything went off in the correct sequence.
...

The Hudson was a rather peculiar and complicated building, with a history of several additions and remodelings to the original design. Brick wall, which played a significant role there, is notoriously difficult to demolish with explosives as it is an inhomogenous material and doesn't transfer shockwaves well. To bring down brick walls, you need to drill deep into the material and use different kinds of charges where volume work is more important than brisance.

For these reasons, the Hudson project required more mass of explosives and more manual prep work than clean modern steel structures.

A better point of reference would be the 30 story Landmark Tower in Ft. Worth, Texas, imploded in 2006:

http://oystein-issues.blogspot.de/2011/06/controlled-demolition-using-explosives.html

To bring down the Landmark, they used "only 364 pounds, consisting of 198 pounds of 60-percent nitroglycerine-based gel in 1-1/4 inch sticks, and 166 pounds of RDX (a C-4 derivative)" [1]. That's 53.9kg of pure nitroglycerine and 75kg of a C-4-like explosive.
[Previous paragraph not marked as quote, as I am quoting myself]

 

[Andy_Ross]

In addition to coordinating the preparations for and the response to the attack, the command team staffs the command centers on the day of the attack to coordinate last-minute adjustments in the operation, and implement fall-back plans in the event of failures. The two command centers are located Office of Emergency Management bunker on the 23rd floor of Building 7, and in the basement of the White House.


Destroying your own command center seems like a strange plan.

How else would they hide the evidence?

 

[jaydeehess]

Attack Scenario 404 is worth a read, if only to see how bizarre truther claims get when actually articulated in any detail. (I particularly like the bit where the missile battery pops up from the Pentagon lawn to blow the tail off AA77 milliseconds before impact, just to give contradictory evidence that will discredit truthers. It's like Thunderbirds with delusional schizophrenia.)

Dave

The high-explosive charges resemble conventional thermobaric devices, in which an initial charge disperses an explosive aerosol without detonating it, and a second charge ignites the aerosol, producing a strong blast wave. The delay between the dispersal and detonating charges is about five seconds, allowing the aerosol to traverse the distance between the elevator shafts and perimeter walls before being detonated. The explosive is designed to have almost no flash.

A aerosol dispersal explosive having dispersed out to the windows that disables heavy columns yet doesn't explode the windows or produce a flash.

Got it!