It was the first time in history

[ref]

And I'm not talking about the first time fires brought down tall buildings. I am talking about the major truther claims, that have never happened before.

Never before has thermite been used to bring down a building. Should we believe on 9/11 this happened?

Never before has there been a top-down demolition with explosives. Should we believe on 9/11 this happened?

Never before has a 47 story tall building been demolished. Should we believe on 9/11 this happened?

Never before have remote controlled commercial aircraft been used to attack own citizens. Should we believe on 9/11 this happened?

Never before have the bad guys made so many mistakes, but not got caught. Should we believe on 9/11 this happened?

Never before has a theologist know more about physics than the experts of physics. Should we believe this is now happening?

Never before have 9/11 truthers gotten any claims right. And I am not still seeing it happening.

Just some stupid thoughts.

[twinstead]

Never before have you started a thread titled "It was the first time in history". This thread is a hoax!

[Blender Head]

Never before has there been a top-down demolition with explosives. Should we believe on 9/11 this happened?

Can we confirm the lack of top-down demolitions pre-9/11?

[Pardalis]

And I'm not talking about the first time fires brought down tall buildings.

Actually, the second time it happened (the north tower), it had already happened at least once (the south tower). So therefore their argument fails.

[ref]

Can we confirm the lack of top-down demolitions pre-9/11?

If you have examples, let us take a look.

[Beerina]

IIRC, demolitions of non-trivial height buildings are done at various floors, designed precisely so the building will not topple over and cause greater damage, but collapse, more or less in-place.

And in any case, buildings beyond a certain height, which are usually in a city, are disassembled the hard way since demolition is considered too risky, no matter how carefully planned, though what's left may be demolished once it is below a certain height.


But why would conspirators plan on demolishing WTC 7? Weren't the two main towers enough? And why not just do it when the closer of the two main towers were demolished so it looked like an obvious side-effect? Why wait hours?

What was their thought process? "Oh, ok, there's a fire raging in there and a 10 story hole. I guess that's a good enough cover story. Pull it!"

??? :boggled:

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

And I'm not talking about the first time fires brought down tall buildings. I am talking about the major truther claims, that have never happened before.

Never before has thermite been used to bring down a building. Should we believe on 9/11 this happened?

Never before has there been a top-down demolition with explosives. Should we believe on 9/11 this happened?

Never before has a 47 story tall building been demolished. Should we believe on 9/11 this happened?

Never before have remote controlled commercial aircraft been used to attack own citizens. Should we believe on 9/11 this happened?

Never before have the bad guys made so many mistakes, but not got caught. Should we believe on 9/11 this happened?

Never before has a theologist know more about physics than the experts of physics. Should we believe this is now happening?

Never before have 9/11 truthers gotten any claims right. And I am not still seeing it happening.

Just some stupid thoughts.

[/truther/] Never before have 19 radical muslims hijacked commercial airlines and flown them into the WTC buildings. Should we believe this happened? [/truther/]

[Blender Head]

If you have examples, let us take a look.

When did I say I had any example of a top-down demolition? I was simply wondering if 'no top-down demolition occured pre-9/11' was confirmable or not.

[Mobyseven]

When did I say I had any example of a top-down demolition? I was simply wondering if 'no top-down demolition occured pre-9/11' was confirmable or not.

It is falsifiable. Do you have evidence that would falsify it?

[Sizzler]

And I'm not talking about the first time fires brought down tall buildings. I am talking about the major truther claims, that have never happened before.

Never before has thermite been used to bring down a building. Should we believe on 9/11 this happened?

Never before has there been a top-down demolition with explosives. Should we believe on 9/11 this happened?
Never before has a 47 story tall building been demolished. Should we believe on 9/11 this happened?

Never before have remote controlled commercial aircraft been used to attack own citizens. Should we believe on 9/11 this happened?

Never before have the bad guys made so many mistakes, but not got caught. Should we believe on 9/11 this happened?

Never before has a theologist know more about physics than the experts of physics. Should we believe this is now happening?

Never before have 9/11 truthers gotten any claims right. And I am not still seeing it happening.

Just some stupid thoughts.

(Bolding mine)

That one isn't true. There is at least one top down demolition example on you tube.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8

[Sizzler]

oh, and it looks as though explosives were used.

[LashL]

And I'm not talking about the first time fires brought down tall buildings. I am talking about the major truther claims, that have never happened before.

Never before...



Never before has a 110 story building been demolished with explosives. Should we believe that this happened not only once, but twice, on 9/11?

[MG1962]

Never before have you started a thread titled "It was the first time in history". This thread is a hoax!

shill!!!!!!

[Blender Head]

(Bolding mine)

That one isn't true. There is at least one top down demolition example on you tube.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8

Was that pre-9/11?

[PB&J]

Don't forget, Never before was a DEW used for... anything?

[CHF]

(Bolding mine)

That one isn't true. There is at least one top down demolition example on you tube.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8

A four story warehouse. Oh and listen to those blasts and watch those flashes.... Where was that on 9/11?

[Sizzler]

A four story warehouse. Oh and listen to those blasts and watch those flashes.... Where was that on 9/11?

Well video certainly doesn't suggest there were blasts or flashes. Eye witness testimony is full of sounds of blasts and sights of flashes though.

Mackey has done a good job explaining eye witness testimony within the official account. Truthers of course would say eye witness testimony supports CD.

Anyway, at least one top down CD has been presented. But, I'm not sure if it occurred before or after 9-11. Nonetheless, it does refute the claim that a top down CD has never occurred in history.

[Tbone]

Well video certainly doesn't suggest there were blasts or flashes. Eye witness testimony is full of sounds of blasts and sights of flashes though.

Mackey has done a good job explaining eye witness testimony within the official account. Truthers of course would say eye witness testimony supports CD.

Anyway, at least one top down CD has been presented. But, I'm not sure if it occurred before or after 9-11. Nonetheless, it does refute the claim that a top down CD has never occurred in history.

This is not the claim made.

[funk de fino]

Distinct lack of the usual supects in this thread

C'mon Red, LC, Swing, JCM, how about a reply to the conundrum in the OP?

At least sizz had a go at it (even if he had another F-)

[Sizzler]

This is not the claim made.

Never before has there been a top-down demolition with explosives. Should we believe on 9/11 this happened?

I just demonstrate that a top down demolition has occurred.

No F-. That would be an A+ thank you very much.

[peteweaver]

The top down collapse, occured because the structure damaged by impact of aircraft failed.

This can happen with steel, because its a maleable METAL. Its not stone. When it gets hot, the carbon crystals in it start breaking, the ferrite and carbon bonds therefore weaken, and the material becomes softer, and more bendy, it becomes more susceptible to torsion, tension, shear and bending. And when it fails, the only thing between the stuff it supported and the ground below, are the bolts holding the structure below the damaged area. And they were never designed to withstand the blow from a dynamic load, and so these bolts shear, and more structure falls.

[peteweaver]

A four story warehouse. Oh and listen to those blasts and watch those flashes.... Where was that on 9/11?

Blasts and flashes, something lacking from the conspiracists 'evidence'

[gumboot]

Anyway, at least one top down CD has been presented. But, I'm not sure if it occurred before or after 9-11. Nonetheless, it does refute the claim that a top down CD has never occurred in history.


That implosion was the demolition of the Casino Barge at the Grand Casino, Gulfport MS, which was washed ashore during Hurricane Katrina and partially blocked the main beach front roadway. The barge was too big to move so it was imploded to clear the road. The demolition occurred on September 21, 2005.

[Sizzler]

That implosion was the demolition of the Casino Barge at the Grand Casino, Gulfport MS, which was washed ashore during Hurricane Katrina and partially blocked the main beach front roadway. The barge was too big to move so it was imploded to clear the road. The demolition occurred on September 21, 2005.

Thanks for the info. It is still a top down CD though.

[Sizzler]

Blasts and flashes, something lacking from the conspiracists 'evidence'

Oral history is full of reports of blasts and flashes.:)

[gumboot]

Thanks for the info. It is still a top down CD though.


I believe the OP has used incorrect tense, which makes it a little confusing. The "first time in history" maxim is in the context of September 11, 2001. As in, at the time that the alleged event occurred (the top down demolition), it was the first time in history that such an event had occurred.

Therefore any example of such events occurring after the date of the alleged event are moot. They do not address the point.

[funk de fino]

I just demonstrate that a top down demolition has occurred.

No F-. That would be an A+ thank you very much.

Only if you found one from pre 911. Most people here knew about the one you posted, as it has been posted here before.

Get some time in;)

[Blender Head]

I just demonstrate that a top down demolition has occurred.

No F-. That would be an A+ thank you very much.

Actually the phrase never before, in the context of 9/11, demonstrates that pre-9/11 top-down controlled demolition had never occured.

That barge was blown in 2005.

Double fail, sizz.

[Sizzler]

He should have used had instead of has. Nonetheless, a top down demolition exists. Yes, it occurred after 9-11. Narrowing the goal posts are we?

[Sizzler]

Only if you found one from pre 911. Most people here knew about the one you posted, as it has been posted here before.

Get some time in;)

It's a fact. OP addresses it. Is there some time limit on how long a fact can be stated? He should have left that off the list. He had plenty others to play around with. Heck he could have just thought of 4 more.:boggled:

[Sizzler]

OP is actually really stupid. What is with the rule (misworded statement in reality?!/1) that, these things have to be prior to 9-11?

The building that collapsed in madrid really made me understand just how weak steal can get. But wait, it happened after 9-11!!! It doesn't count in this fairy land of a thread. Is this JREFogic?

[pomeroo]

I just demonstrate that a top down demolition has occurred.

No F-. That would be an A+ thank you very much.



Would that be an "A" for Agnostic, you sly devil, you?

[DavidJames]

OP is actually really stupid. What is with the rule (misworded statement in reality?!/1) that, these things have to be prior to 9-11?

The building that collapsed in madrid really made me understand just how weak steal can get. But wait, it happened after 9-11!!! It doesn't count in this fairy land of a thread. Is this JREFogic?Reading comprehension is not a strong suite with CTists.

The point is it's the CTists who keep referring to "first time in history", not those of us grounded in reality. Do try and and keep up.

[Sizzler]

Would that be an "A" for Agnostic, you sly devil, you?

facts are facts right?

[pomeroo]

facts are facts right?


It is a fact that you aren't an agnostic.

[Sizzler]

Reading comprehension is not a strong suite with CTists.

The point is it's the CTists who keep referring to "first time in history", not those of us grounded in reality. Do try and and keep up.

Well that is just stupid. First time in history should refer to "this has never happened before". That makes more sense. He should take it off the list because it makes sense. Wether it happened before or after 9-11 doesn't make it less true.

Anyway I guess I just don't get some of the "claims" made by truthers. I didn't know they all backed a specific stance on this line of argument.

Anyhow. This claim is true.

"A top down demolition exists in history":)

[funk de fino]

OP is actually really stupid. What is with the rule (misworded statement in reality?!/1) that, these things have to be prior to 9-11?

The building that collapsed in madrid really made me understand just how weak steal can get. But wait, it happened after 9-11!!! It doesn't count in this fairy land of a thread. Is this JREFogic?

As has been said, it is the truthers who claim the first time in history conundrum. Problem is, when you use this point to look at other things that happened that day, like the OP does, they flee from the answers.

Sizz, why do you think none of the truther trolls, who are normally so quick to jump in with a witty remark, have avoided this thread like superman avoids kryptonite?

be honest now!

[Sizzler]

It is a fact that you aren't an agnostic.

Well that is just being childish. Lets get back on topic shall we

[funk de fino]

Now the quote below was one of the thousands of hits that come up on google when the keywords "first time history three buildings collapse" are typed in.

The OP is a direct challenge to these numerous type of claims. Fair enough for you Sizz?

The first total collapse of a high-rise during a fire in United States history.

[Sizzler]

As has been said, it is the truthers who claim the first time in history conundrum. Problem is, when you use this point to look at other things that happened that day, like the OP does, they flee from the answers.

Sizz, why do you think none of the truther trolls, who are normally so quick to jump in with a witty remark, have avoided this thread like superman avoids kryptonite?

be honest now!

I can't say I have actually had many conversations with other truthers. I myself bought into the "first time in history" line but meant it in a way that included past present and future. I've since looked at the facts and see that steel has failed at 9-11ish temperatures before and after 9-11. Thus the "never before in history" isn't confined to anything except showing that such an event can occur at least once in history. In fact the Madrid failure, as I previously mentioned, is one that really helped me get over the steel/fire temperature issues

So this thread is a parody of some sort. I get it. Jokes on me again:)

[funk de fino]

I can't say I have actually had many conversations with other truthers. I myself bought into the "first time in history" line but meant it in a way that included past present and future. I've since looked at the facts and see that steel has failed at 9-11ish temperatures before and after 9-11. Thus the "never before in history" isn't confined to anything except showing that such an event can occur at least once in history. In fact the Madrid failure, as I previously mentioned, is one that really helped me get over the steel/fire temperature issues

So this thread is a parody of some sort. I get it. Jokes on me again:)

If you want one that deals with explosions and witness to them then look at the following link

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/741

During the early morning hours, explosions could be heard as flammable material ignited as well as the explosion of windows that were reached by the fire.

Now this building is used by truthers to show that buildings can be ablaze for hours and not collapse. They conveniently avoid the issue of different building design and no aircraft damage. They also avoid the explosions claims. They do this because it shows that you get explosions in buildings on fires and if you take these witness statements in the Caracas case then it means there were bombs in the building ergo it was CD.

If you really look hard enough you will eventually see this is all they have, no hard evidence just twisted and cherry picked statements, irrational claims and political bias.

[Sizzler]

If you want one that deals with explosions and witness to them then look at the following link

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/741



Now this building is used by truthers to show that buildings can be ablaze for hours and not collapse. They conveniently avoid the issue of different building design and no aircraft damage. They also avoid the explosions claims. They do this because it shows that you get explosions in buildings on fires and if you take these witness statements in the Caracas case then it means there were bombs in the building ergo it was CD.

If you really look hard enough you will eventually see this is all they have, no hard evidence just twisted and cherry picked statements, irrational claims and political bias.

Ok well you are right assuming truthers are basing their entire argument on witness testimony. I think that is an unfair assumption. Your example of a logical fallacy does not work here because there is a greater context of "evidence" truthers are "supporting" their claims with. This a=b and b=c so a=c is old hat. It doesn't apply to a cumulative argument.

You'd have to do, what each debunker claims to have already done, is dispute a sufficient amount of the claims to show CT is wrong.

Anyway that is a bit off topic.

My point is that a top down CD exists in the history of whatever...

[rwguinn]

Ok well you are right assuming truthers are basing their entire argument on witness testimony. I think that is an unfair assumption. Your example of a logical fallacy does not work here because there is a greater context of "evidence" truthers are "supporting" their claims with. This a=b and b=c so a=c is old hat. It doesn't apply to a cumulative argument.

You'd have to do, what each debunker claims to have already done, is dispute a sufficient amount of the claims to show CT is wrong.

Anyway that is a bit off topic.

My point is that a top down CD exists in the history of whatever...
Do you really expect us to believe tyhat you cannot read, and that you are that stupid? Why would you want that? You're not.
"It was the first time in history.
"It" obvioulsy refers to 9/11.
"Never before has there been a top-down demolition with explosives. Should we believe on 9/11 this happened?"
"Before" refers to 9/11
Things that happen AFTER are never BEFORE.
This is just another case of the cherry-picking and strawman arguments used by the troofers. If you really don't want to be taken seriously, keep it up.

[Blender Head]

He should have used had instead of has. Nonetheless, a top down demolition exists. Yes, it occurred after 9-11. Narrowing the goal posts are we?

Words cannot express the ignorance showcased in this post.

Ref said Never before...top-down demolition

You say, after giving an example of such a demolition Yes, it occurred after 9/11. (Emphasis added in both quotes)

[LastChild]

When will be the first time in history something actually gets debunked here?

[Mr. Skinny]

When will be the first time in history something actually gets debunked here?
I think it was around March, 2006.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53102

[Sizzler]

I think it was around March, 2006.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53102

You get an F- because obviously;

When will be the first time in history something actually gets debunked here?

he was specifically talking about the future (JRefogic applied here).

However your example applies to the past. You lose (according to JRefogic).

This is a fun thread.

[Sizzler]

Do you really expect us to believe tyhat you cannot read, and that you are that stupid? Why would you want that? You're not.
"It was the first time in history.
"It" obvioulsy refers to 9/11.
"Never before has there been a top-down demolition with explosives. Should we believe on 9/11 this happened?"
"Before" refers to 9/11
Things that happen AFTER are never BEFORE.
This is just another case of the cherry-picking and strawman arguments used by the troofers. If you really don't want to be taken seriously, keep it up.

Do you want to talk semantics all day? When one uses "before" refering to a point in time "before" another event, they have to use "had" in the past. If one uses "has" it indicates that the time is unspecific. Sorry but that is just semantics.

Anyway. Like I've said many of times already. A top down CD does exist before in history (yes, post 9-11).

[beachnut]

When will be the first time in history something actually gets debunked here?
Darn, you missed that too. No evidence, no ideas, nothing on 9/11 and it has been 6 years. (are you sizzlers cousin or something)

[LashL]

Do you really expect us to believe tyhat you cannot read, and that you are that stupid? Why would you want that? You're not.



Unfortunately, it appears as though you over-estimated Sizzler's abilities, rw, as demonstrated below. As difficult as it is to believe that people can even function at such depths of stupidity, there it is:


You get an F- because obviously;
he was specifically talking about the future (JRefogic applied here).

However your example applies to the past. You lose (according to JRefogic).

This is a fun thread.

[DavidJames]

Unfortunately, it appears as though you over-estimated Sizzler's abilities, rw, as demonstrated below. As difficult as it is to believe that people can even function at such depths of stupidity, there it is:It appears Sizzler is beginning to adopt a LastChilds like persona and is moving quickly to the troll kingdom.

[jaydeehess]

Actually Sizz scores a little on this one. That barge had its first detonations at the upper most floor. The next ones all occur before the debris from above can reach their level.

The steel used in that 4 storey structure is rather light compared to the columns of the towers though. In such a demoltion as the casino, columns would be pre-weakened as well. One also notes that the sound of the explosives stands out quite readily from the sounds of the collapsing rubble. One does note the intense 'bang' of the detonations of the charges used to cut them though, and would expect an even greater noise from anything used on the much larger tower columns that have not been pre-weakened. Despite the characterization of sounds at the towers as 'explosions' there should be some very definitive 'bangs' heard on the audio portion of the videos of the collapses had any of these been from explosive detonations. Indeed given a 110 storey building there should have been a great staccato cracking similar, but even greater in intensity, as playing that casino video 25 times in succession with each loop running slightly faster than the previous one. This is most certainly not in evidence. We could also expect banging sounds to be produced as thousands of tons of material collapses which would not stand out in the way that actual detonations do. In videos of people running as the towers collapse you can hear them telling each other to run. In videos of actual explosive detonations we see people covering their ears and we would have to expect then that if huge explosions were responsible for severing these very large columns we would not have been able to hear anything esle.

Thank you sizzler for the example of why the explosive demolition is not a viable explanation for the destrution of the towers.

Now, got any thermite induced building demolitions, even a 4 storey one?

[jaydeehess]

When will be the first time in history something actually gets debunked here?

If a tree falls in front of you and you turn your back and deny it occured, did it make any sound?

[LashL]

Actually Sizz scores a little on this one.

Perhaps so - if his purpose was to demonstrate yet again that he is grossly lacking in reading comprehension skills, analytical skills, and rational and critical thinking skills.

Otherwise, no.

Sizzler offered his posts up as a purported rebuttal to the portion of the OP that referred to there being no top-down explosive demolitions carried out prior to September 11, 2001. Sizzler's suggestion that a barge demolition that took place several years later somehow refutes the OP is, therefore, ludicrous on its face.

The rest of your post, though, is certainly valid. It's just the quoted sentence that I had to take issue with. :)

[Corsair 115]

If a tree falls in front of you and you turn your back and deny it occured, did it make any sound?There was no tree!

[Sizzler]

Actually Sizz scores a little on this one. That barge had its first detonations at the upper most floor. The next ones all occur before the debris from above can reach their level.

The steel used in that 4 storey structure is rather light compared to the columns of the towers though. In such a demoltion as the casino, columns would be pre-weakened as well. One also notes that the sound of the explosives stands out quite readily from the sounds of the collapsing rubble. One does note the intense 'bang' of the detonations of the charges used to cut them though, and would expect an even greater noise from anything used on the much larger tower columns that have not been pre-weakened. Despite the characterization of sounds at the towers as 'explosions' there should be some very definitive 'bangs' heard on the audio portion of the videos of the collapses had any of these been from explosive detonations. Indeed given a 110 storey building there should have been a great staccato cracking similar, but even greater in intensity, as playing that casino video 25 times in succession with each loop running slightly faster than the previous one. This is most certainly not in evidence. We could also expect banging sounds to be produced as thousands of tons of material collapses which would not stand out in the way that actual detonations do. In videos of people running as the towers collapse you can hear them telling each other to run. In videos of actual explosive detonations we see people covering their ears and we would have to expect then that if huge explosions were responsible for severing these very large columns we would not have been able to hear anything esle.

Thank you sizzler for the example of why the explosive demolition is not a viable explanation for the destrution of the towers.

Now, got any thermite induced building demolitions, even a 4 storey one?

Thanks for your comments:) I do agree with you on most of your post except that I think detonation sounds could have been, shall we say "disguised" during a secret CD; if in fact 9-11 was a CD. But that topic is beyond the scope of this thread.

Top down demolition should be removed from OP in a show of good faith to logical thinking. Otherwise it is just a parody and of very little use.

Oh and I don't have an example of a CD using therm?te. I wonder though if it has ever been used by military engineers to bring steel structures down. That of course would be beyond the scope of this thread too though.

[jaydeehess]

Thanks for your comments:) I do agree with you on most of your post except that I think detonation sounds could have been, shall we say "disguised" during a secret CD; if in fact 9-11 was a CD. But that topic is beyond the scope of this thread.

It si very hard to envision a 'secret' CD of massive columns in the fashion seen utilized in the casino video where each floor is blown. At least not without invoking the sarcastically labeled 'hushaboom' explosives, or just plain magic.

Which just adds to the thread;
Never before had a CD been disguised in sight and sound.

Top down demolition should be removed from OP in a show of good faith to logical thinking. Otherwise it is just a parody and of very little use

Well, no, as pointed out by others and most recently by LashL the OP did indeed refer to 'before 9/11/01' and thus your example does not fit the criteria.

I only allow you some merit in that one might assume that the technology to produce the CD of that casino, in the fashion seen in the video, existed in 2001. Whether or not the collapse of the towers gave the engineers the idea that this could be accomplished safely is unknown.

I am a test marker who would allow partial points in any question. Others are binary markers, either you are correct or you get zero. I had many a prof who was a binary marker.

Oh and I don't have an example of a CD using therm?te. I wonder though if it has ever been used by military engineers to bring steel structures down. That of course would be beyond the scope of this thread too though.


Once again adding(or is it in the OP or another post?);

Never before was a demolition accomplished on a building by setting incindiaries to melt through the steel.

[jaydeehess]

There was no tree!

Who cares about a tree? Its the small furry rodents that really mean something.:D

[Mobyseven]

Thanks for your comments:) I do agree with you on most of your post except that I think detonation sounds could have been, shall we say "disguised" during a secret CD; if in fact 9-11 was a CD. But that topic is beyond the scope of this thread.

Come again? Multiple, simultaneous explosions, could have been somehow disguised? Forget the fact that they would have been visible to start with, how exactly does one disguise the sound of multiple explosions powerful enough to fell a building? Was Spinal Tap playing a concert at Ground Zero?

[jaydeehess]

Come again? Multiple, simultaneous explosions, could have been somehow disguised? Forget the fact that they would have been visible to start with, how exactly does one disguise the sound of multiple explosions powerful enough to fell a building? Was Spinal Tap playing a concert at Ground Zero?

volume setting ... 11

[DC]

Come again? Multiple, simultaneous explosions, could have been somehow disguised? Forget the fact that they would have been visible to start with, how exactly does one disguise the sound of multiple explosions powerful enough to fell a building? Was Spinal Tap playing a concert at Ground Zero?

how powerfull have those explosions to be? after impact of airplanes and atleast 56 min. of fires.

how powerfull would a beliver of the Bazantsche Progressive Collapse Theory, estimate those explosives? those explosives he belives are not even needed?

[Blender Head]

how powerfull have those explosions to be? after impact of airplanes and atleast 56 min. of fires.

how powerfull would a beliver of the Bazantsche Progressive Collapse Theory, estimate those explosives? those explosives he belives are not even needed?

Powerful enough to sever steel columns, at least.

[DC]

Powerful enough to sever steel columns, at least.

well according to the Bazantsche theory the "force" coming , and progressively increasing, from the upper falling part of the tower was already enough to "sever steel columns"

[defaultdotxbe]

well according to the Bazantsche theory the "force" coming , and progressively increasing, from the upper falling part of the tower was already enough to "sever steel columns"
so then you agree no explosives would be needed?

[DC]

so then you agree no explosives would be needed?

how do you come to that conclusion?

[jaydeehess]

how powerfull have those explosions to be? after impact of airplanes and atleast 56 min. of fires.

how powerfull would a beliver of the Bazantsche Progressive Collapse Theory, estimate those explosives? those explosives he belives are not even needed?
Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe
so then you agree no explosives would be needed?
how do you come to that conclusion?




To answer your question; "how powerfull would a beliver (sic)of the Bazantsche Progressive Collapse Theory, estimate those explosives?" the answer is that a person accepting Bazant's calculations would not require any explosives and thus there would be no loud 'bang' and flash that is associated with explosives nor would there be a need to disguise any sound and visual from said explosives.

Bazant does illustrate that no explosives were required and you point it out. Other believe that explosives were required not only at the initial failure but also all the way down the tower at each floor.

What is your point then? Do you believe explosives were not required or they were? Do you believe they would be required on the columns at the fire floor levels or just on lower floors? Do you believe that explosives were required to break up the upper section?

[DC]

To answer your question; "how powerfull would a beliver (sic)of the Bazantsche Progressive Collapse Theory, estimate those explosives?" the answer is that a person accepting Bazant's calculations would not require any explosives and thus there would be no loud 'bang' and flash that is associated with explosives nor would there be a need to disguise any sound and visual from said explosives.

Bazant does illustrate that no explosives were required and you point it out. Other believe that explosives were required not only at the initial failure but also all the way down the tower at each floor.

What is your point then? Do you believe explosives were not required or they were? Do you believe they would be required on the columns at the fire floor levels or just on lower floors? Do you believe that explosives were required to break up the upper section?

well i do belive that this was not investigated enough. no conclusive answer was found. no conclusive test demonstrated that would backup theyr findings. and NIST only investigated until initial collapse. then we are left with that strange Bazant theory wich just doesnt hold water in many eyes. and does indeed sound very strange and is not enough to deliver a conclusive answer i think.

i do think that the collapses we saw, needed "explosives". but it is oc a very complicated case. 2 unique buildings with a very special construction.
but when i see the acceleration and the speed of the collapses, i think that there was indeed explosives involved.

but how much? when you consider normal demolitions with explosives wich are not top down, you hear they use alot explosives. on the other hand you have NIST and Bazant that say the impact of the among 3.7m accelerated upper part was enough to initiate a global unstoppable relative symetric collapse.

complicated

[defaultdotxbe]

i do think that the collapses we saw, needed "explosives". but it is oc a very complicated case. 2 unique buildings with a very special construction.
but when i see the acceleration and the speed of the collapses, i think that there was indeed explosives involved.
and that brings us back to you telling us how much explosive would be needed to bring down the building

the circle you took is in was fun and all, but do you have an answer for the question? if not, how can you be so certain the answer isnt "0"?

[DC]

and that brings us back to you telling us how much explosive would be needed to bring down the building

the circle you took is in was fun and all, but do you have an answer for the question? if not, how can you be so certain the answer isnt "0"?

would you have readed my whole post, you would have seen that i already answered it.

i dont know.

[LastChild]

If a tree falls in front of you and you turn your back and deny it occured, did it make any sound?

Were you standing under it?

Well then yeah it made a sound like a screaming little girl.

[FreeRomanian]

indeed

[gumboot]

I think detonation sounds could have been, shall we say "disguised" during a secret CD;


You are mistaken.

[Sizzler]

How to disguise sounds?

Well here is a way.

1. Pre weaken by cutting key columns rather silently with therm?te.

2. Initiation detonation is perceived as "initiation event" for both sight and sound. All other detonations become "floors hitting other floors" for both sights and sounds.

Some witnesses even testify to seeing and hearing explosions before collapse initiation. It has been pointed out that these events do not show up on seismic readings and thus could not have been CD explosions.

However NIST claims that their fall times were based on seismic readings. They began when the first piece of WTC rubble hit the ground. From this it can be inferred that the "floor hitting floor" action did not cause seismic readings; yet, they were of a very powerful and explosive nature.

So why should we assume that explosives must cause seismic readings? Hoffman has even pointed out one CD of a much smaller building that did not register on the local seismigraph.

I don't think it is unreasonable to accept that a CD could be perceived as a natural event as long as it was "staged" well. Two large airliners could have set the stage well?

But this all conspiracy anyway and offtopic.

[beachnut]

Hoffman. LOL

Fall times can be seen on video. Video? Yes on video. oops

The fantasy of 9/11 truth continues making lies, false statements and hearsay the only tool needed to join.

[Tbone]

2. Initiation detonation is perceived as "initiation event" for both sight and sound. All other detonations become "floors hitting other floors" for both sights and sounds.

If this "initiation event" was caused by explosives, they would have been heard. They weren't.

[Sizzler]

If this "initiation event" was caused by explosives, they would have been heard. They weren't.

People report hearing "explosive sounds" as soon as the buildings started to collapse. Several of them actually. The sound of buckling and glass breaking could have the been the "mask". It isn't unreasonable to think that people would perceive a collapsing building and a cleverly hiddden CD the same way. Witness testimony demonstrates such. Some even compared the sights and sounds as being like a CD.

It is also important to note that sound travels slower than light. If a detonation event at the top caused the already weakened structure to begin collapse initiation, the recording of that sound could be percieved as occurring as the building falls. Timing would be essential in making it "look" and "sound" natural. I can provide a video of several "puffs" of smoke occurring just before initiation of WTC1. The people in the helicopter then describe "seeing" an explosion and then subsequent collapse.

[beachnut]

But not explosives. Darn, strike 1,000,047. Fantasy 9/11 false idea movement is still making up stuff.

[gumboot]

People report hearing "explosive sounds" as soon as the buildings started to collapse. Several of them actually. The sound of buckling and glass breaking could have the been the "mask". It isn't unreasonable to think that people would perceive a collapsing building and a cleverly hiddden CD the same way. Witness testimony demonstrates such. Some even compared the sights and sounds as being like a CD.


It's not unreasonable that people would witness a collapse and comment that it looked like a CD. It is absolutely unquestionable unreasonable that people would witness an explosive demolition and comment that it sounded like a collapse.

Please, please, please just watch a few building implosions. The detonations are deafening. There is absolutely no disguising explosive charges like that. They would be easily heard over the collapse.

Suggesting that these explosions could some how be disguised by breaking glass is utterly ludicrous.

People who have never experienced an explosion quite commonly think they have witnessed an explosion when they have not.

People who have never experienced an explosion seldom if ever think they have not witnessed an explosion when they have.

I've personally witnessed quite a few explosive detonations, and believe me, there is no mistaking them for something else.

[Tbone]

People report hearing "explosive sounds" as soon as the buildings started to collapse.

But not explosives. Explosives are very distinct in their sound, even in the amount needed to even start the collapse of the WTC would have been heard easily, twice.

The sound of buckling and glass breaking could have the been the "mask".

You think glass breaking can cover up the sound of high explosives detonating?

It isn't unreasonable to think that people would perceive a collapsing building and a cleverly hiddden CD the same way. Witness testimony demonstrates such. Some even compared the sights and sounds as being like a CD.

No, it wouldn't be unreasonable to think that a collasping building and a CD is the same. Fortunately for rationalists, the only similar characteristics the WTC towers have to a demolition is that the building fell down.

It is also important to note that sound travels slower than light. If a detonation event at the top caused the already weakened structure to begin collapse initiation, the recording of that sound could be percieved as occurring as the building falls. Timing would be essential in making it "look" and "sound" natural. I can provide a video of several "puffs" of smoke occurring just before initiation of WTC1. The people in the helicopter then describe "seeing" an explosion and then subsequent collapse.

How far away from the towers do you think people were!?

[Mobyseven]

...lolz. I've got the following conversation taking place in my imagination:

Mastermind: Dammit, the explosives are in place. Now we need to mask the sound of the detonations somehow...

Lackey: Sir, the WTC just started collapsing!

Mastermind: Perfect! The sound of the collapsing building will perfectly cover up the sounds of the explosions needed to collapse the building! Set off the charges!

Lackey: ...

[LashL]

...lolz. I've got the following conversation taking place in my imagination:

Mastermind: Dammit, the explosives are in place. Now we need to mask the sound of the detonations somehow...

Lackey: Sir, the WTC just started collapsing!

Mastermind: Perfect! The sound of the collapsing building will perfectly cover up the sounds of the explosions needed to collapse the building! Set off the charges!

Lackey: ...


To rational people, such a conversation could occur only in one's imagination and, even then, only in jest. Twoofers, on the other hand, actually have to buy into such nonsense in order to sustain their delusional beliefs. Rational people can only shake their heads in wonderment at the depths of delusion to which twoofers will willingly trawl.

[DC]

To rational people, such a conversation could occur only in one's imagination and, even then, only in jest. Twoofers, on the other hand, actually have to buy into such nonsense in order to sustain their delusional beliefs. Rational people can only shake their heads in wonderment at the depths of delusion to which twoofers will willingly trawl.

Rational ppl normaly dont debate ppl they think are liars or totaly nuts and theyr theorys make no sence and are selfdebunking....

[DavidJames]

Rational ppl normaly dont debate ppl they think are liars or totaly nuts and theyr theorys make no sence and are selfdebunking....You are correct, but for this rational person, the forum rules and in some cases pity, prevent me from responding the way I would like.

[DC]

You are correct, but for this rational person, the forum rules and in some cases pity, prevent me from responding the way I would like.

so you handle controversal topics in a way that would not suit the forum rules?

does not sound very rational :)

but understandable in such a hard and emotional topic.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

And I'm not talking about the first time fires brought down tall buildings. I am talking about the major truther claims, that have never happened before.

Never before has thermite been used to bring down a building. Should we believe on 9/11 this happened?

Never before has there been a top-down demolition with explosives. Should we believe on 9/11 this happened?

Never before has a 47 story tall building been demolished. Should we believe on 9/11 this happened?

Never before have remote controlled commercial aircraft been used to attack own citizens. Should we believe on 9/11 this happened?

Never before have the bad guys made so many mistakes, but not got caught. Should we believe on 9/11 this happened?

Never before has a theologist know more about physics than the experts of physics. Should we believe this is now happening?

Never before have 9/11 truthers gotten any claims right. And I am not still seeing it happening.

Never before has the government of the United States of America carried out, or participated in a "false flag" attack.

[ref]

Well, this took an interesting turn.

Of course, as any rational person could determine, in the OP I meant "before 9/11, xxx had never happened". I thought it was so obvious. If something happened in 2002 or 2005, it is not before 9/11. I should have used the tense "had" instead of "has" or "have" though. My small mistake, since I speak Finnish most the time.

[chillzero]

Keep it civil please, and not personalised toward a member.

[jaydeehess]

well i do belive that this was not investigated enough. no conclusive answer was found. no conclusive test demonstrated that would backup theyr findings. and NIST only investigated until initial collapse. then we are left with that strange Bazant theory wich just doesnt hold water in many eyes. and does indeed sound very strange and is not enough to deliver a conclusive answer i think.

What, exactly are the problems that you or others have found in the calculations of Bazant et al?

i do think that the collapses we saw, needed "explosives". but it is oc a very complicated case. 2 unique buildings with a very special construction.
What causes you to believe this?

but when i see the acceleration and the speed of the collapses, i think that there was indeed explosives involved.

So its just a hunch on your part then?

but how much? when you consider normal demolitions with explosives wich are not top down, you hear they use alot explosives. on the other hand you have NIST and Bazant that say the impact of the among 3.7m accelerated upper part was enough to initiate a global unstoppable relative symetric collapse.

In a typical controlled demolition the charges are on all floors and this is to ensure that the structure does come down and to prevent debris from exiting the area where the engineers want it to land. The fact that much of the tower debris landed well outside its 'footprint' is due in large part to the falling debris first having to impact the intact sturcture below the collapse zone. That 'mushrooming' of the dust and debris is seen in no other 'normal' controlled demolition.


complicated

Yes, yet you still wish to determine the requirement for explosives through your hunch that it would be.

[Corsair 115]

Please, please, please just watch a few building implosions. The detonations are deafening. There is absolutely no disguising explosive charges like that. They would be easily heard over the collapse...

People who have never experienced an explosion quite commonly think they have witnessed an explosion when they have not.I blame, at least in part, Hollywood movies and TV shows. In those, it is not uncommon to have an explosion depicted with characters only a few tens of feet away who are merely knocked down by the explosion and afterwards pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and are none the worse off. Whereas in reality being that close to a major detonation would result in death and/or dismemberment.

There's an episode of Mythbusters when they blew up a car Hollywood-style then blew up another car using actual explosives. The difference was quite dramatic and obvious.

[Drs_Res]

I blame, at least in part, Hollywood movies and TV shows. In those, it is not uncommon to have an explosion depicted with characters only a few tens of feet away who are merely knocked down by the explosion and afterwards pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and are none the worse off. Whereas in reality being that close to a major detonation would result in death and/or dismemberment.

There's an episode of Mythbusters when they blew up a car Hollywood-style then blew up another car using actual explosives. The difference was quite dramatic and obvious.

And here is that episode:
2uXeC39ut_8&hl=en