• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Logic stalemate: planting demolitions impossible

RedIbis said:
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.
Click to expand...

They also had to know in advance that Column 79 was a weak point in the structure, and set off the charges without them being damaged by the fire. And there wasn't even a loud enough bang at the right time for that to have happened.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
They also had to know in advance that Column 79 was a weak point in the structure, and set off the charges without them being damaged by the fire. And there wasn't even a loud enough bang at the right time for that to have happened.

Dave
Click to expand...

Are you still stuck on the idea that an internal explosion would have been recorded by handheld videocameras a few blocks away?
 
RedIbis said:
Are you still stuck on the idea that an internal explosion would have been recorded by handheld videocameras a few blocks away?
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't it? If its so weak it wouldn't have done anything.
 
UWdude said:
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.
Click to expand...

Had you ever been in either of the twin towers prior to their destruction?

If you had, you may have cause to rethink your argument about planting the explosives. Couldn't be done. Simple as that.
 
RedIbis said:
Are you still stuck on the idea that an internal explosion would have been recorded by handheld videocameras a few blocks away?
Click to expand...

Are you still stuck on the idea that handheld video cameras a few blocks away are the only thing that would have heard the very loud explosion?
 
I'd not seen the amount of explosives needed for demolition quantified as 2 million pounds before. It may be of interest to know that the British Army (rather unsportingly!) blew up the German defenders of the Messines Ridge in 1917 with slightly less than half that amount. The corresponding explosion was heard in London. Messines is in Belgium.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then you would have to abandon nearly every claim Tricky Dick & Co. hold near and dear to them. "free fall speed pyroclastic flow concrete into dust blah blah blah".
 
UWdude said:
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.
Click to expand...
.
You seem to be conflating the *planting* of explosives with the *use* of explosives.

The fact that plane impacts and resultant fires took the towers down means that the *use* of explosives was unnecessary.

It says nothing at all about the impossibility of the separate of *planting* those explosives to begin with.
.
 
Truthers not only claim that explosives were needed, but explosives in huge amounts far beyond a standard controlled demolition. Enough to sever the columns on every floor, pulverize all the concrete, and yet leave molten pools of thermite 6 weeks later. If I recall correctly Niels Harrit estimated 100 tons of "nanothermite" alone.
 
UWdude said:
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.

...
Click to expand...
Forgive me if this has been mentioned already, as I haven't had time to read the entire thread. But I've thought about this before (as has everyone else who read your post, incidentally), and I think you've got your conundrum somewhat backwards:

Planes and explosives are at opposite ends of the number line, so to speak.

That is to say, as you started out saying, the more capable you believe a plane was of inflicting catastrophic damage to the WTC buildings etc, the less you need explosives to explain the subsequent collapse of the towers. The more you need to include explosives into the scenario, the less you accept the destructive power of said large aircraft slamming into said buildings at several hundred miles per hour. This also applies to the far extreme of the "video fakery" conspiracy theorists, who believe that no planes hit the buildings at all, and that they came down solely due to explosives or some unseen explosive device.

Trying to stay in the middle as it sounds like you (the OP) are doing is an untenable position in its own way, because as you are able to accept the a plane would do significant damage to the buildings, the explosives become unnecessary. This is relevant because the imagined perpetrators (those who planted/activated the supposed explosives) would have been planting them for no reason- which means they would have risked being caught installing them for no reason, risked error (premature/faulty detonation) for no reason, detection etc.

So, logically, it would seem that even from the POV of a conspirator that it would be better just to, you know, just fly the planes into the buildings, as was done. Either that, or you must protest, to an increasing degree, the effect of slamming a loaded aircraft into a skyscraper at high speeds.

What do you think? Someone should make a graph, I wish I was good at that stuff...
 
Last edited:
UWdude said:
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.
Click to expand...
The argument I see often about how a jet slamming into the building could do it, is really quite silly if you think explosives were needed. A moot point.
 
UWdude said:
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.
Click to expand...

But thats exactly why debunkers have the upper hand in this discussion. Sure if a plane could do it then explosives large enough could as well. But it is us who agrees with that point. Its the truthers who say its not enough and require more explosives.

The truthers are the people who point out the 'squibs' on almost every floor and say look explosives. Its the truthers who say only explosives could have pounded the WTC into little tiny bits of dust. That would have required a lot more more explosives. And if More explosives weren't required, If the only amount of explosives that were required was the amount that would cause the same amount of damage as a jet impact and start the subsiquent fires... Then Why couldn't a jet have simply done it?
 
atecom said:
But thats exactly why debunkers have the upper hand in this discussion. Sure if a plane could do it then explosives large enough could as well. But it is us who agrees with that point. Its the truthers who say its not enough and require more explosives.

The truthers are the people who point out the 'squibs' on almost every floor and say look explosives. Its the truthers who say only explosives could have pounded the WTC into little tiny bits of dust. That would have required a lot more more explosives. And if More explosives weren't required, If the only amount of explosives that were required was the amount that would cause the same amount of damage as a jet impact and start the subsiquent fires... Then Why couldn't a jet have simply done it?
Click to expand...

Makes me laugh every time i see the word 'squib' used next to explosive and demolition.

The gubmint wanted to fool ya with the planes but they also wanted to give the impression that it was really explosives so they put 'squibs' in too:rolleyes:

They still wont understand even if left clues to follow.
 
I see UWDude got suspended again. Quelle Surprise! I think we have only ever had one poster who used this particular line of "reasoning" before... What was his name again? I think he had a fat wife...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom