Logic stalemate: planting demolitions impossible

[UWdude]

Trying to argue that the amount of demolitions needed to destroy the twin towers would have taken to long to plant and rig is a logical stalemate.

If a plane slamming into WTC 1 & 2 was enough to make them fall, then no explosives were needed.

If explosives needed to be planted, then any amount should have sufficed by that logic. So if they were only planted on every 10th floor, it would still have been enough, because the de-bunker admits that a plane flying into the WTC towers 1 or 2 was enough.

In fact, the towers could have been demolished by only planting enough explosives to blow or cut a hole equivalent to the size of the hole the jets punched through. If that is the case, then surely enough explosives to cut through, say, 10 times damage area would be sufficient.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

If a plane slamming into WTC 1 & 2 was enough to make them fall, then no explosives were needed.

This is correct.

Now prove a plane and the subsequent fires couldn't do it.

 

[dtugg]

Trying to argue that the amount of demolitions needed to destroy the twin towers would have taken to long to plant and rig is a logical stalemate.

It doesn't really matter how much explosives would have been needed or how long it would have taken to plant them since it is a fact that no explosives were used.

If a plane slamming into WTC 1 & 2 was enough to make them fall, then no explosives were needed.

Well, the planes plus the fires they started. But correct, zero explosives were needed, evidenced by the fact that none were used and the towers still fell.

If explosives needed to be planted, then any amount should have sufficed by that logic. So if they were only planted on every 10th floor, it would still have been enough, because the de-bunker admits that a plane flying into the WTC towers 1 or 2 was enough.

Hell, explosives on one single floor would have probably been enough to destroy the towers. But since that didn't happen it's a moot point.

In fact, the towers could have been demolished by only planting enough explosives to blow or cut a hole equivalent to the size of the hole the jets punched through. If that is the case, then surely enough explosives to cut through, say, 10 times damage area would be sufficient.

Perhaps. But video of the event clearly shows that no such explosion happened. Explosives make a very loud and distinctive noise. No such noise was recorded, therefore no explosives.

 

[Kafka]

Trying to argue that the amount of demolitions needed to destroy the twin towers would have taken to long to plant and rig is a logical stalemate.

If a plane slamming into WTC 1 & 2 was enough to make them fall, then no explosives were needed.

If explosives needed to be planted, then any amount should have sufficed by that logic. So if they were only planted on every 10th floor, it would still have been enough, because the de-bunker admits that a plane flying into the WTC towers 1 or 2 was enough.

In fact, the towers could have been demolished by only planting enough explosives to blow or cut a hole equivalent to the size of the hole the jets punched through. If that is the case, then surely enough explosives to cut through, say, 10 times damage area would be sufficient.

Truthers don't accept the premise that planes and fire were sufficient to bring down the towers, hence the need for explosives. If they did, the whole CD argument would be a non-starter.

Adopting a debunker premise to make a truther argument is quite silly.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Trying to argue that the amount of demolitions needed to destroy the twin towers would have taken to long to plant and rig is a logical stalemate.

It's an unnecessary argument in any case. There is no evidence of any demolition explosives contributing to the collapse of the twin towers. Conspiracy theorists argue that the effects of the plane impacts alone could not have produced the collapses observed, therefore some explosives had to have been involved. However, when asked the amount of explosives required to produce the effects seen, they reply along the lines that:

If a plane slamming into WTC 1 & 2 was enough to make them fall, then no explosives were needed.

So, in fact, they are trying to defend their premise by decaring it invalid. However, many of them then have a sufficient lack of understanding of the collapse initiation mechanism to go on to say patently stupid things like:

In fact, the towers could have been demolished by only planting enough explosives to blow or cut a hole equivalent to the size of the hole the jets punched through.

This is, of course, an idiotic statement, because the towers remained standing after the initial impact. The resulting fires, fuelled by office contents and accelerated by jet fuel, added to the damage from the initial impact to cause the collapses. The dynamics of this fire were, of course, radically different to those of a normal building contents fire, due to the wide distribution of accelerant and the consequently rapid - in fact, effectively immediate - spread of the fire across the building.

If that is the case, then surely enough explosives to cut through, say, 10 times damage area would be sufficient.

Since no explosive detonations were seen on the exterior columns (although conspiracy theorists like to pretend they were), and enough explosives to sever even a single core column would have been loud enough to cause temporary hearing loss and yet weren't even heard on phone messages from above the collapse initiation zone even as the collapse began, we can be certain that even this amount of explosives was not present.

Dave

 

[Brainache]

Trying to argue that the amount of demolitions needed to destroy the twin towers would have taken to long to plant and rig is a logical stalemate.

If a plane slamming into WTC 1 & 2 was enough to make them fall, then no explosives were needed.

If explosives needed to be planted, then any amount should have sufficed by that logic. So if they were only planted on every 10th floor, it would still have been enough, because the de-bunker admits that a plane flying into the WTC towers 1 or 2 was enough.

In fact, the towers could have been demolished by only planting enough explosives to blow or cut a hole equivalent to the size of the hole the jets punched through. If that is the case, then surely enough explosives to cut through, say, 10 times damage area would be sufficient.

Except that these explosives that you talk about were apparently silent and not powerful enough to smash more than one or two windows.
Real explosives that can cut through steel collumns are very loud and would blow out every window in every building for blocks, if not miles around.
No explosives there UW.

 

[UWdude]

well thanks for the deluge of debunking, I was merely stating that the argument I see often about how impossible it would be to plant explosives, is really quite silly if you think a jet slamming into the building could do it. A moot point.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

well thanks for the deluge of debunking, I was merely stating that the argument I see often about how impossible it would be to plant explosives, is really quite silly if you think a jet slamming into the building could do it. A moot point.

We're not arguing with people who believe a jet plane can do it, though.

We're arguing with you kooks.

 

[Dave Rogers]

well thanks for the deluge of debunking, I was merely stating that the argument I see often about how impossible it would be to plant explosives, is really quite silly if you think a jet slamming into the building could do it.

Like I said, it's a pointless argument. But what's even more ridiculous is the cognitive dissonance required to defend an assertion that plane crashes could not have caused the collapses by asserting that plane crashes could have caused the collapses.

Dave

 

[djlunacee]

Couldn't you also say that arguing that you would only need a limited amount of explosives to do the job be a moot point as well since, 1) no physical evidence of explosives being used was found, and 2) it has been proven time and time again that the impact of the planes and resulting fires causing catastrophic damage in the structure is what caused the global collapse?

 

[NutCracker]

Like I said, it's a pointless argument. But what's even more ridiculous is the cognitive dissonance required to defend an assertion that plane crashes could not have caused the collapses by asserting that plane crashes could have caused the collapses.

Dave

Yes, the OP's argument is an attempt to tie the Truther's opponents into a logical knot, where in reallity it puts the Truther's into a rather uncomfortable logical mess.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Wait, who was that masked man?

Unsuspended for 12 hours and 61 posts - now suspended again.

My, Toto, people sure seem to come and go in an awful hurry around here.

 

[NutCracker]

well thanks for the deluge of debunking, I was merely stating that the argument I see often about how impossible it would be to plant explosives, is really quite silly if you think a jet slamming into the building could do it. A moot point.

Evidence in favour of the demolition hyptohesis is absent. That is wehre the Truth comes to a dead end.


Your argument is an attempt to put debunkers into a logical knot, whereas it puts yourself into a logical knot: if the inflicting damages such as that done by the jets is sufficient to bring down the towers, why coudln't the jets have brought down the towers? Your argument nullifies one of the reasons to invoke the explosives hypothesis. That's the problem.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Unsuspended for 12 hours and 61 posts - now suspended again.

And just when he was about to present a coherent, comprehensible hypothesis backed up by evidence. If only they could do that first.

Dave

 

[TruthersLie]

Trying to argue that the amount of demolitions needed to destroy the twin towers would have taken to long to plant and rig is a logical stalemate.

If a plane slamming into WTC 1 & 2 was enough to make them fall, then no explosives were needed.

If explosives needed to be planted, then any amount should have sufficed by that logic. So if they were only planted on every 10th floor, it would still have been enough, because the de-bunker admits that a plane flying into the WTC towers 1 or 2 was enough.

In fact, the towers could have been demolished by only planting enough explosives to blow or cut a hole equivalent to the size of the hole the jets punched through. If that is the case, then surely enough explosives to cut through, say, 10 times damage area would be sufficient.

As Dr. Bazant showed, a fall of just one floor would be enough to then start a cascading global collapse.

The logical error you are making (yet again) is that the belief that there were planes AND explosives.

There is no proof of any explosives, and they weren't needed because the fires were unfought.

What part of that don't you understand?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

If you want to get really picky the chances of getting such things planted without being busted is the equivalent of getting struck by lighting 50 consecutive times, and then winning the lottery jackpot in 6 consecutive weeks. Of course discussing the odds are pointless when no evidence for their use exists.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Trying to argue that the amount of demolitions needed to destroy the twin towers would have taken to long to plant and rig is a logical stalemate.

If a plane slamming into WTC 1 & 2 was enough to make them fall, then no explosives were needed.

If explosives needed to be planted, then any amount should have sufficed by that logic. So if they were only planted on every 10th floor, it would still have been enough, because the de-bunker admits that a plane flying into the WTC towers 1 or 2 was enough.

In fact, the towers could have been demolished by only planting enough explosives to blow or cut a hole equivalent to the size of the hole the jets punched through. If that is the case, then surely enough explosives to cut through, say, 10 times damage area would be sufficient.

Why is it that conspiracy fantasists always remove context when making their statements? The reason the argument regarding time needed to implant explosives was made was because of truther arguments. It didn't arise in a vacuum, it was made in response to what you conspiracy peddlers were saying.

Back when the explosives arguments were first being made, conspiracy peddlers kept on making claims like "faster than freefall", pointing out supposed explosive squibs supposedly being seen in videos, and claiming that all the concrete in the towers was all "pulverized". Each of those claims alone bring the presumption that explosives were not merely sufficient to begin collapse, but rather were present in such abundance that they caused each of those effects:

• "Faster than free fall" requires more than floors being severed from their supports and allowed to fall. It requires that acre-sized floors be propelled at rates greater than the acceleration gravity provides. This obviously is an argument for more explosives than some baseline amount needed to simply allow the collapse to start.
• Evidence of "explosive squibs" amounted to seeing explosions on many different floors, all of which were well below the collapse initiation zone as well as the descending collapse front. This, too, makes implicit the presumption that there were more explosives used than whatever the base level is to merely start a collapse.
• The energy calculations made to argue that the entirety of the concrete used in the main towers was "pulverized" directly suggests that an amount of explosives sufficient to provide that energy was used. That amount ended up being in excess of two million pounds of TNT or the equivalent in other explosives (source).

So this is why the arguments about amount of time needed to emplace explosives was made. It was not some stand alone argument, but rather a response to the silly suggestions that came from your camp. It's the truther arguments that generated that response. You take logic and turn it on it's head to suggest logical flaws in the argument without pointing out the reasons for its genesis.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

well thanks for the deluge of debunking, I was merely stating that the argument I see often about how impossible it would be to plant explosives, is really quite silly if you think a jet slamming into the building could do it. A moot point.

it's the truther argument that explosives were planted. However, truthers never have a good explanation for HOW this was done.

 

[Scott Sommers]

At last a Truther who makes sense. There's only a small problem with his logic. It was really a space-based energy beam that destroyed the WTC.

Trying to argue that a space-based energy beam was needed to destroy the twin towers is impossible because it does not exist is a logical stalemate. If a plane slamming into WTC 1 & 2 was enough to make them fall, then no space-based energy beam were needed.

If a space-based energy beam was enough, then any kind of energy beam should have sufficed by that logic. So if even only a small energy beam was built, it would still have been enough, because the de-bunker admits that a plane flying into the WTC towers 1 or 2 was enough.

In fact, the towers could have been demolished by using only an energy beam powerful enough explosives to blow or cut a hole equivalent to the size of the hole the jets punched through. If that is the case, then surely a powerful enough energy beam to cut through, say, 10 times the damage area would be sufficient.

 

[RedIbis]

According to the same logic that the OP is suggesting, perpetrators merely had to blow Column 79 to get WTC 7 to collapse into itself.