What is the point of explosives?

Undesired Walrus

Penultimate Amazing
Undesired Walrus
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
11,691
Jones accepts that it would have been impossible for the towers not to collapse right? He simply believes it would have taken 36 seconds?

You have to ask, what is the point? To make it more dramatic? That's a big ****ing risk simply to double the rate of collapse.

Do Avery and pals accept the building would have collapsed anyway? Or do they deny this?

I guess what I ask, is what do theorists accept had to have happened to the towers? If they accept the only thing odd about it was the rate, then what is the point of bombs?
 
Most Truthers seem to think that the top should have just fallen off, if that.
 
I made this point to Ace, but he did not respond to the point. In addition to that, I included asking why go to the trouble of faking videos for the same reason? No response. There's to much wasted common sense of some people, provided they had any to begin with. :rolleyes:
 
This sort of ties in with the thread where everyone experimented with ideas about making a conspiracy theory that actually makes sense, instead of leaving all these "obvious clues" for no apparent reason.

I asked a pod-person this yesterday, too- what the crap is the point of sticking this gigantic pod underneath the plane if you have bombs there anyway, or could just fill the cabin with whatever fireworks you want?

It makes no friggen sense.
 
Most of them believed that the lower sections of the towers should have been able to hold up the upper sections. They don't understand the difference between static and dynamic loads. Thus the need for explosives. Even when it is explained to them that a falling object exerts much more force than when it it at rest, many of them still refuse to accept it. And those that do will usually say something like "They just used explosives to be on the safe side."

Steve S.
 
I believe Jones is the one who used the 'law of entropy' to claim that the towers should have toppled.

What? I don't know, why? I have no idea.
 
C'mon people....

Imagine if the tops of the WTC towers had toppled over thanks to some kind of lateral force. Imagine if those top chunks had fallen on the people below.

Imagine if the collapses had taken 36 seconds instead of 12-15.

Imagine if WTC7 hadn't come down.

Had such a scenario taken place, would any of you have agreed to wage war in response? Well of course not! :boggled:

As the world watched in horror as those towers collapsed I'm sure the only thing going though anyone's mind was "this had better take under 15 seconds or else this isn't worth war." At least that's what I was thinking.

So now you know why the government needed to complicate their plan with explosives.

(That's the closest I can get to making sense of the twoofer mentality).
 
CHF said:
C'mon people....

Imagine if the tops of the WTC towers had toppled over thanks to some kind of lateral force. Imagine if those top chunks had fallen on the people below.

Imagine if the collapses had taken 36 seconds instead of 12-15.

Imagine if WTC7 hadn't come down.

Had such a scenario taken place, would any of you have agreed to wage war in response? Well of course not! :boggled:

As the world watched in horror as those towers collapsed I'm sure the only thing going though anyone's mind was "this had better take under 15 seconds or else this isn't worth war." At least that's what I was thinking.

So now you know why the government needed to complicate their plan with explosives.

(That's the closest I can get to making sense of the twoofer mentality).
Click to expand...
It was actually the burning cars that convinced me that war was necessary.
 
WildCat said:
It was actually the burning cars that convinced me that war was necessary.
Click to expand...



Really? For me it was the undamaged passports. That just settled it for me. I remember seeing all of the coverage and thinking, "Well, this is terrible and all, but well, it's understandable, isn't it? The USA certainly had it coming."

But then when I heard they'd found a passport intact, well, that just did it for me. "The nerve!" I cried. "The cheek of it! As if killing thousands isn't enough, they had to wave their passports in our faces! Disgusting!"

-Gumboot
 
It was flying the airliner into the newly renovated section of the Pentagon that did it for Me. The nerve of them, not only did they kill other fellow Americans, but they had to fly into that new section. It was the first time I got to see it, and it was destroyed, awful!
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Do Avery and pals accept the building would have collapsed anyway? Or do they deny this?
Click to expand...
In my experience, most of the inside job movement say it wouldn't have collapsed without explosives. And that collapse was necessary so as to create the right "shock and awe" effect. Of course even they know that's an astonishingly feeble argument, which is why they moved on to lying about the WTC losing money, being short on tenants etc. They have to, because not having a sensible motive for all this controlled demolition is a major weakness that they have to work hard to obscure.
 
Would the huge hole in both towers that ruined them beyond all repair, and most likely, require them to be demolished not be a psychological impact enough?? Or did they hire professors from Harvard to go "Yes, yes, 10-13 second collapse, that will allow you to invade Iraq on the pretext of WMD's".
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Would the huge hole in both towers that ruined them beyond all repair, and most likely, require them to be demolished not be a psychological impact enough??
Click to expand...
The real impact came from seeing the second plane hit. That's what got repeated over and over again, the plane approaching from various directions and the fireball.

Then, less than a month later, we had al Qaeda (Suleiman Abu-Ghaith) telling us:

"The youths who did what they did and destroyed America, they have done a good deed," he said. "The storm of airplanes will not stop. There are thousands of young people who look forward to death like the Americans look forward to living."
www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2001/10/09/alqaeda_warn011009.html
Click to expand...

Hmm. An terrorist attack on US soil of unprecedented scale, and a warning that there will be more? Plenty of justification to launch a war on terror there, I'd have thought. And no need to demolish the WTC at all.
 
The second plane and the jumpers carried the most psychological impact in my opinion.
 
Due to uncertainty in the E1 values and the mass ejected there is nothing you can say about the collapse time. The collapse model also says, if there is a collapse then it will be fast. For a very slow collapse the values should be very balanced which is very improbable. Of course there are much more questions but that's why I'm a tw:) :) fer ...
 
A number of times, when contemplating CTer demolition theories, I have ran in my mind a hypothetical scenario where neither tower collapses.

In some ways, I think it would have been worse.

New Yorkers (and the world) experienced 102 minutes of staring helplessly while people jumped to their deaths. Then the towers collapsed, and all of those New Yorkers became directly involved in the event. When you're caught up in it, the psychological stuff is often easier to deal with because you have a motivation and a goal - your own survival. You're no longer totally helpless.

Had the towers not collapsed, those fires would have burned for hours. Possibly days. The FDNY had no hope of putting them out - and they knew that within minutes.

The overwhelming majority of people who died at the WTC were killed by the impact, or were trapped above the impact zone. Collapse or not, those people above the impact zone were doomed. None of them were going to make it out alive. Over the coming hours and possibly days, one by one they would have succumbed. We would have thousands of horrific 9/11 calls to listen to, thousands of horrific stories of phone calls from loved ones. We would have had people jumping to their deaths all day. People all day desperately crying for assistance from a city that was powerless to save them.

The burnt out husk of the towers would have probably been taken down. That would have taken much longer than clearing Ground Zero took, and all the while those burnt husks would be standing there for all to see.

I think, in some ways, New Yorkers, and those trapped in the towers especially, were lucky they collapsed so fast.

-Gumboot
 
Imagine the might of American economic power standing there with two massive holes in view of the entire world to see, for weeks and months on end.

The thing I do not get is the 36 second collapse. Is that just bad maths, or do they see it as one floor collapsing onto the other then stopping?:confused:

I mean, what the hell would it look like?
 
Undesired Walrus said:
The thing I do not get is the 36 second collapse. Is that just bad maths, or do they see it as one floor collapsing onto the other then stopping?:confused:
Click to expand...

Basically yeah.

Judy Wood thinks the same thing, only her model had it taking 96 seconds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom