[Moderated]Question for the TM: what exactly did the 9/11 demolitions do?

[CHF]

What I'm looking for are specifics, not "the CDs took down the buildings!"

Laying out what exactly the CDs supposedly did would go a long way towards examining the plausibility of any demolition theory and would also help answer a question that the TM has (to the best of my knowledge) thus far left unanswered: how many CD charges would be needed to take down the WTC?

The answer to this depends entirely on what you claim the CDs did.

So I would like to open the floor for truthers to explain what they think the CDs were responsible for.

For example, did the CD charges ...

- remove all resistance to the upper block?
- blast the towers into dust?
- eject massive beams horizontally?
- destroy the sub-levels and lobby?
- or did they just serve to get the collapse started (cuz a jet impact and a multi-floor inferno coudn't) before gravity took it from there?

In other words, stop JAQ-ing off by switching back-and-forth between lots of bombs and a few bombs, or between bombs and thermite, depending on which piece of "evidence" is being discussed.

Please take this opportunity to go on record stating which CD talking-points you believe in.

[LastChild]

What I'm looking for are specifics, not "the CDs took down the buildings!"

Laying out what exactly the CDs supposedly did would go a long way towards examining the plausibility of any demolition theory and would also help answer a question that the TM has (to the best of my knowledge) thus far left unanswered: how many CD charges would be needed to take down the WTC?

This is the question I asked you. You who claim it was a traditional CD or nothing at all.

So? For someone who claims the tower can fall from just structural damage and pockets of fire to a few upper floors how many CD charges in addition to that would they need to help it along? Would they have to be CD charges? If someone did put explosives in the towers were the planes just a pleasant surprise to help there little demolition project along or wouldn't they know the planes were coming to help? Is that normally part of a regular CD too?

[CHF]

This is the question I asked you. You who claim it was a traditional CD or nothing at all.

Stop lying. I said nothing about a 9/11 CD being "traditional." Clearly it wasn't.

I simply asked you to explain what you think the charges did.

So? For someone who claims the tower can fall from just structural damage and pockets of fire to a few upper floors....

You're lying again. Stop it.

how many CD charges in addition to that would they need to help it along?

None.

Would they have to be CD charges? If someone did put explosives in the towers were the planes just a pleasant surprise to help there little demolition project along or wouldn't they know the planes were coming to help? Is that normally part of a regular CD too?

What did the CD charges do, in your opinion, LC?

If you're too cowardly to answer then just say so.

[e^n]

So? For someone who claims the tower can fall from just structural damage and pockets of fire to a few upper floors how many CD charges in addition to that would they need to help it along?
None of course, if you believe there were CD charges required then you need to specify how many. A common truther claim is that there were explosives planted throughout the building, the free-fall claim requires this inherently. The 'official' position is that impact damage and fire is more than sufficient.

Would they have to be CD charges? If someone did put explosives in the towers were the planes just a pleasant surprise to help there little demolition project along or wouldn't they know the planes were coming to help? Is that normally part of a regular CD too?
This statement is a little rambling and so I don't want to attempt to decode it, suffice it to say it is for you to determine how many charges are required in your own individual theory. If you believe the collapse time was appropriate but the initiation not, then you obviously require fewer CD charges in your theory than someone who believes the collapse time to be suspect also.

Why Conspiracy Theorists have such a hard time understanding this I don't know.

[e^n]

edit: Double posted :(

[The Doc]

Claiming that the World Trade Center was a controlled demolition implies one of two things:

1. The perpetrators initiated the collapse with explosive devices.
2. The perpetrators knew that the planes would initiate the collapse, and therefore only used explosives to help it along.

For the first point, I would have to question how on Earth explosives could survive an airliner impact, being that the collapses began at the impact points.

For the second point, I would have to question how the perpetrators could be 100% sure that the planes would initiate a collapse. If they didn't, firefighters and clean up teams surely would have found the explosives during clean-up. Furthermore, I would also have to question why the buildings would even need to entirely collapse for the perpetrators to achieve their goals. It seems to me like two burning buildings would have been enough to go into Iraq/Afghanistan, and achieving a complete collapse merely added to the risk factor for those who planned such an operation.

Neither of these two theories makes any logical sense. The theory that terrorists flew planes into the buildings and got lucky by causing enough impact and fire damage to cause a collapse does, on the other hand, make sense.

[CHF]

Why Conspiracy Theorists have such a hard time understanding this I don't know.

I suspect they do understand it.

However they also know that the amount of explosives required to eliminate all resistance would render their theory completely stupid.

At least Max Photon had the sense to spot this problem and opt for a collapse initiation theory instead.

[Pardalis]

Claiming that the World Trade Center was a controlled demolition implies one of two things:

1. The perpetrators initiated the collapse with explosive devices.
2. The perpetrators knew that the planes would initiate the collapse, and therefore only used explosives to help it along.

For the first point, I would have to question how on Earth explosives could survive an airliner impact, being that the collapses began at the impact points.

For the second point, I would have to question how the perpetrators could be 100% sure that the planes would initiate a collapse. If they didn't, firefighters and clean up teams surely would have found the explosives during clean-up. Furthermore, I would also have to question why the buildings would even need to entirely collapse for the perpetrators to achieve their goals. It seems to me like two burning buildings would have been enough to go into Iraq/Afghanistan, and achieving a complete collapse merely added to the risk factor for those who planned such an operation.

Neither of these two theories makes any logical sense. The theory that terrorists flew planes into the buildings and got lucky by causing enough impact and fire damage to cause a collapse does, on the other hand, make sense.

Oh do I wish a twoofer would answer your post, or at least read it.

They make me laugh when they say no building has ever collapsed due to fire, which we all know isn't the only thing that occured. I'd like to ask them has any CD ever been done with a jet plane impact?

[LastChild]

Stop lying. I said nothing about a 9/11 CD being "traditional." Clearly it wasn't.

Why don't you stop with your strawman nonsense? When did i claim to know the wtc was a controlled demolition? You are the one who claims to know what happened based on nothing.

I simply asked you to explain what you think the charges did.

I seem to remember asking you a few things. Do you ever answer anything? What do demolition charges normally do?

You're lying again. Stop it.

You have nothing but nonsense to cling to. Does it frighten you?

None.

None? So why don't they only use one or two near the top in a normal CD? How many demo charges equate a plane crash according to you of course? Because everything is according to you isn't it?


What did the CD charges do, in your opinion, LC?

They turn buildings into rubble. What are planes for according to you CHF?

If you're too cowardly to answer then just say so.

If you don't have a complete and realistic version of 9/11 you need to admit it to yourself and come out of your denial.

Don't get mad at me.

[applecorped]

Why don't you stop with your strawman nonsense? When did i claim to know the wtc was a controlled demolition? You are the one who claims to know what happened based on nothing.



I seem to remember asking you a few things. Do you ever answer anything? What do demolition charges normally do?



You have nothing but nonsense to cling to. Does it frighten you?



None? So why don't they only use one or two near the top in a normal CD? How many demo charges equate a plane crash according to you of course? Because everything is according to you isn't it?




They turn buildings into rubble. What are planes for according to you CHF?



If you don't have a complete and realistic version of 9/11 you need to admit it to yourself and come out of your denial.

Don't get mad at me.

Out of your denial yet LC?

[CHF]

When did i claim to know the wtc was a controlled demolition?

Ah I see....you don't want to advance beyond the JAQ-off stage so now you're playing the semantics game.

You don't KNOW the WTC was a CD. :rolleyes:

But you certainly THINK it was, don't you? At least I'm guessing that's why you've been defending CD talking-points since you arrived here...

So what do you THINK the CD charges did, LC?

Be brave and lay it out for me.

[e^n]

LastChild, you seem to be ignoring me, but I will reply to you anyway.

I seem to remember asking you a few things. Do you ever answer anything? What do demolition charges normally do?
Linear Shaped Charges normally destroy a section of column by using explosives to accelerate a thin sheet of metal to high velocity, in a similar method to how RPGs work but linear rather than conical.

None? So why don't they only use one or two near the top in a normal CD? How many demo charges equate a plane crash according to you of course?
Normal Controlled Demolitions require debris control, whatever you believe regarding 911 there was no control of debris. A plane crash equates to hundreds of thousands of demolition charges.

They turn buildings into rubble
See above for a more thorough explanation.

If you don't have a complete and realistic version of 9/11 you need to admit it to yourself and come out of your denial.
Challenge me.

[aggle-rithm]

What I'm looking for are specifics, not "the CDs took down the buildings!"

Laying out what exactly the CDs supposedly did would go a long way towards examining the plausibility of any demolition theory and would also help answer a question that the TM has (to the best of my knowledge) thus far left unanswered: how many CD charges would be needed to take down the WTC?

The answer to this depends entirely on what you claim the CDs did.

So I would like to open the floor for truthers to explain what they think the CDs were responsible for.

For example, did the CD charges ...

- remove all resistance to the upper block?
- blast the towers into dust?
- eject massive beams horizontally?
- destroy the sub-levels and lobby?
- or did they just serve to get the collapse started (cuz a jet impact and a multi-floor inferno coudn't) before gravity took it from there?

In other words, stop JAQ-ing off by switching back-and-forth between lots of bombs and a few bombs, or between bombs and thermite, depending on which piece of "evidence" is being discussed.

Please take this opportunity to go on record stating which CD talking-points you believe in.

You forgot one thing:

- Send some of the debris hurtling groundward at faster-than-freefall.

[DC]

i think atleast, the core columns of floor 85, 75 and 55 was "cut" once the collapse was initiated. would prolly need up to 2 tons of cutter charges. (North Tower)

ETA: This view is the sole responsibility of the author, and not representing TM or any other group

[lapman]

i think atleast, the core columns of floor 85, 75 and 55 was "cut" once the collapses was initiated. would prolly need up to 2 tons of cutter charges.

ETA: The view is the sole responsibility of the author, and not representing TM or any other group
And they did this whithout anybody noticing. :rolleyes: That mind control beam is really effective.

[Lensman]

I wish some people would TRY to learn the differences between "their", "there" and "they're".

IT'S DRIVING ME NUTS!!!

[fezzic]

i think atleast, the core columns of floor 85, 75 and 55 was "cut" once the collapse was initiated. would prolly need up to 2 tons of cutter charges. (North Tower)

ETA: This view is the sole responsibility of the author, and not representing TM or any other group


Any particular reason why you think they were demoed OR why a conspiracy would demo those or just those particular floors? If the structure was coming down anyway (my assumption) then placing additional charges on any (or those particular) floors would not make any sense in the context of a building collapse.

[Drudgewire]

I wish some people would TRY to learn the differences between "their", "there" and "they're".

IT'S DRIVING ME NUTS!!!

For those who can't get it right, might I suggest just using this .gif instead of typing it in:

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/their.gif

This way, assuming you can at least figure out "they are," you'll only be wrong 50% of the time. :p

[DC]

Any particular reason why you think they were demoed OR why a conspiracy would demo those or just those particular floors? If the structure was coming down anyway (my assumption) then placing additional charges on any (or those particular) floors would not make any sense in the context of a building collapse.

oc when you assume the buildings come down anyway, it makes no sence :)

i can agree on that.

[theauthor]

Debunkers try to claim that 1000's of demolition charges were needed. i even heard debunkers claiming it would be over half a million pounds of explosives.

BUT...

They also claim that gravity + fire + damage was enough to bring down the building, so why would so much explosive be needed?

[fezzic]

Debunkers try to claim that 1000's of demolition charges were needed. i even heard debunkers claiming it would be over half a million pounds of explosives.

BUT...

They also claim that gravity + fire + damage was enough to bring down the building, so why would so much explosive be needed?


The "blow every floor" scenario, in a relatively practical version, would entail on the order of 3,000 to 4,000 charges and that just assumes that the 47 core columns were blown. More extreme would be to include the outer perimeter columns though being exposed would entail an unavoidable near certainty of the demolitions being unambiguously observed.

I haven't read any posting here that 500,000 pounds or more would be needed, much less that any debunker here has made that claim. Perhaps you have a link to the posting?

[johnny karate]

Debunkers try to claim that 1000's of demolition charges were needed. i even heard debunkers claiming it would be over half a million pounds of explosives.

BUT...

They also claim that gravity + fire + damage was enough to bring down the building, so why would so much explosive be needed?

The large amount of explosives claim is rooted in your movement's assertion that the buildings fell "faster than freefall speed" with "no resistance". It would take a large amount of explosives to accomplish such a feat.

However, I must warn you that if you're going to go the "it didn't take very many explosives" route, you'll be treading a very thin line between the damage and fire not being quite enough, but a certain small amount of explosives being able to get the job done.

I think the easiest way to progress from here is for you to tell us precisely what amount of explosives would be required and where you think they needed to be placed. That way, we have an actual substantial claim that can be examined, instead of this constant hopping from one foot to the other you Truthers are so fond of. Don't forget to show your calculations.

[theauthor]

Van Romero, despite retracting his opinion on CD, didn't retract his statement that the buildings could be demolished using a small amount of explosives at key points.

[johnny karate]

Van Romero, despite retracting his opinion on CD, didn't retract his statement that the buildings could be demolished using a small amount of explosives at key points.

Doesn't mean it happened that way though, does it? You still need evidence. And an explanation why a small amount of explosives will get it done, but the damage and fire were somehow insufficient.

[theauthor]

Doesn't mean it happened that way though, does it? You still need evidence. And an explanation why a small amount of explosives will get it done, but the damage and fire were somehow insufficient.


You still need evidence that the damage and fire was sufficient. Got any?

[johnny karate]

You still need evidence that the damage and fire was sufficient. Got any?

Sure do. Pages and pages and pages. You'll find some of it here (http://wtc.nist.gov/).

Your turn.

[theauthor]

Sure do. Pages and pages and pages. You'll find it here (http://wtc.nist.gov/).

Your turn.

You linked to a study which only concluded that damage and fire could initiate collapse. It only mentions global collapse to say it was "inevitable".

[Drudgewire]

You still need evidence that the damage and fire was sufficient. Got any?

Yeah, and almost everybody in the world has seen the video at least once.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Since you have none, the way everyone outside of the lunatic fringe says it happened is the way it happened until you can prove otherwise.

Sucks, huh? Oh well, that's life. v:)v

[johnny karate]

You linked to a study which only concluded that damage and fire could initiate collapse. It only mentions global collapse to say it was "inevitable".

I gave you what you asked for. If you personally find it insufficient despite the fact that the worldwide structural engineering community seems satisfied, you'll pardon me if I don't lose any sleep over it.

Which is all beside the point. We were playing "You show me yours and I'll show you mine", not "Show me yours and I'll nitpick over details far beyond my understanding". I have supplied you with evidence to support my claims which you are unable to refute. Whether or not you accept it is irrelevant.

Now it's your turn. Please provide evidence that the WTC collapsed due to controlled demolition.

[theauthor]

I gave you what you asked for. If you personally find it insufficient despite the fact that the worldwide structural engineering community seems satisfied, you'll pardon me if I don't lose any sleep over it.

Which is all beside the point. We were playing "You show me yours and I'll show you mine", not "Show me yours and I'll nitpick over details far beyond my understanding". I have supplied you with evidence to support my claims which you are unable to refute. Whether or not you accept it is irrelevant.

Now it's your turn. Please provide evidence that the WTC collapsed due to controlled demolition.


No you didn't provide what was asked for. The NIST report doesn't even pretend to show that fire and damage would cause global collapse.

Forgive me for being picky, but a report that simply says global collapse was "inevitable" isn't evidence.

If it is then I submit Van Romero's testimony.

[Arus808]

You still need evidence that the damage and fire was sufficient. Got any?

its the old WTC7 still standing?

[Stellafane]

Claiming that the World Trade Center was a controlled demolition implies one of two things:

1. The perpetrators initiated the collapse with explosive devices.
2. The perpetrators knew that the planes would initiate the collapse, and therefore only used explosives to help it along.

For the first point, I would have to question how on Earth explosives could survive an airliner impact, being that the collapses began at the impact points.

For the second point, I would have to question how the perpetrators could be 100% sure that the planes would initiate a collapse. If they didn't, firefighters and clean up teams surely would have found the explosives during clean-up. Furthermore, I would also have to question why the buildings would even need to entirely collapse for the perpetrators to achieve their goals. It seems to me like two burning buildings would have been enough to go into Iraq/Afghanistan, and achieving a complete collapse merely added to the risk factor for those who planned such an operation.

Neither of these two theories makes any logical sense. The theory that terrorists flew planes into the buildings and got lucky by causing enough impact and fire damage to cause a collapse does, on the other hand, make sense.

That pretty much sums up the whole thing right there. I can't see how any sane person could disagree with you.

[GeeMack]

So the Truthers responding so far are unable and/or unwilling to offer any kind of quantitative response as requested in the OP. But the thread is still young, so there might still be a straight answer forthcoming. Or not.

[HyJinX]

I'm going to go with "not" on this one.

[HyJinX]

So, TheAuthor, why couldn't fire and damage be the reason for the collapse of WTC7 again? Can you re-cap for me?

[maxpower1227]

None? So why don't they only use one or two near the top in a normal CD?

...Because they're usually not demolishing half a dozen surrounding buildings as well? Do you even think these questions through before you ask them?

[aggle-rithm]

i think atleast, the core columns of floor 85, 75 and 55 was "cut" once the collapse was initiated. would prolly need up to 2 tons of cutter charges. (North Tower)

ETA: This view is the sole responsibility of the author, and not representing TM or any other group

It amazes me that with all the basic services that weren't working as a result of the calamity in the WTC area, such as the radio communications, water to fight the fires in the aftermath of the twin tower collapses, etc....somehow, the controlled demolitions performed perfectly, even though they were clearly of an untested, experimental variety that could be completely hidden from view and detonated silently.

Or, maybe they never existed. Which is the more rational view?

[aggle-rithm]

So the Truthers responding so far are unable and/or unwilling to offer any kind of quantitative response as requested in the OP. But the thread is still young, so there might still be a straight answer forthcoming. Or not.

It's about this time they start trying to get us to focus on the put options or Bush's brother being in charge of security or how apartment buildings in earthquake zones can topple over, or some other such nonsense. Anything to avoid facing the inevitable.

[LastChild]

LastChild, you seem to be ignoring me, but I will reply to you anyway.

You're replying to your claim that I'm ignoring you? Are you sure you need me for this?

Linear Shaped Charges normally destroy a section of column by using explosives to accelerate a thin sheet of metal to high velocity, in a similar method to how RPGs work but linear rather than conical.

And? How does that equate to a plane being able to globally collapse a steel structure high-rise in less then an hour and leave the rubble hot for months?

Oh... is it your turn to ignore something?

Normal Controlled Demolitions require debris control, whatever you believe regarding 911 there was no control of debris.

So if some people were inclined to crash planes into towers and place explosives into the same building without any regard for human life these same people would worried about debris control?

Wow. Talk about having your priorities screwed up.

A plane crash equates to hundreds of thousands of demolition charges.

Is that an exact number? lol


See above for a more thorough explanation.

You're not shorting my quotes are you? What are explosives for? What are planes for?

Challenge me.

I did. Have you seen the light?

[Par]

What are planes for?


Extraordinary.

[pomeroo]

I suspect they do understand it.

However they also know that the amount of explosives required to eliminate all resistance would render their theory completely stupid.

At least Max Photon had the sense to spot this problem and opt for a collapse initiation theory instead.


But Max was conspicuously incapable of integrating the planes into his fantasy.

[LastChild]

Ah I see....you don't want to advance beyond the JAQ-off stage so now you're playing the semantics game.

You don't KNOW the WTC was a CD. :rolleyes:

But you certainly THINK it was, don't you? At least I'm guessing that's why you've been defending CD talking-points since you arrived here...

So what do you THINK the CD charges did, LC?

Be brave and lay it out for me.

What are explosives for? What are planes for?

Planes can do better then explosives at something explosives are made for?

Wow what a discovery on 9/11. It must have changed the demolition industry forever huh? And think of the military implications! All that money we spent on defense for the last 60 years was just a waste.

So when do we retire some old 767's and crash them into Iran's supposed nuclear facilities? Maybe this time we can use ones will full tanks of fuel!

Three planes tops should burn the entire country to the ground I would think huh?

Nukes Shmukes

Who needs em? We got American and United.

[theauthor]

So, TheAuthor, why couldn't fire and damage be the reason for the collapse of WTC7 again? Can you re-cap for me?

Hey, i'm only quoting FEMA. "The best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurence"

Why don't we see what Shyam Sunder of NIST said: "I don't really know....we're having trouble getting a handle on building number 7"

Tell me....if fire and damage is such an obvious reason for 7's demise (predicted beforehand according to debunkers), where is the report on 7? And why did Dr Sunder of NIST say that they really didn't know why 7 had collapsed?

BTW, you got any pictures of that inferno in building 7? I, the world and probably Dr Sunder would be very interested to see them.

[pomeroo]

No you didn't provide what was asked for. The NIST report doesn't even pretend to show that fire and damage would cause global collapse.

Forgive me for being picky, but a report that simply says global collapse was "inevitable" isn't evidence.

If it is then I submit Van Romero's testimony.


You have serious problems with reading comprehension. After explaining in exhaustive detail the factors that initiated collapse, NIST summarized by stating that global collapse was inevitable. If the NIST Report doesn't "pretend" to show exactly how the impact of the planes, the dislodging of the fireproofing, and the resultant fires caused global collapse, what on earth do think the report's purpose was?

As is so frequently the case when examining the output of the latest crop of conspiracy liars, the reader is left shaking his head and wondering if they have the slightest idea of what they're saying.

[Par]

What are explosives for? What are planes for? Planes can do better then explosives at something explosives are made for?


Argument from incredulity fallacy.

(Yes. You can destroy a skyscraper more quickly by crashing a plane into it than you can by carrying out a controlled demolition. (It’s just prohibitively expensive, illegal, unpredictable, destroys surrounding buildings and kills lots of people. But if you don’t care about those things, then you’re all set!))

[theauthor]

You have serious problems with reading comprehension. After explaining in exhaustive detail the factors that initiated collapse, NIST summarized by stating that global collapse was inevitable. If the NIST Report doesn't "pretend" to show exactly how the impact of the planes, the dislodging of the fireproofing, and the resultant fires caused global collapse, what on earth do think the report's purpose was?

As is so frequently the case when examining the output of the latest crop of conspiracy liars, the reader is left shaking his head and wondering if they have the slightest idea of what they're saying.


How did it show the fireproofing was dislodged? It didn't, by any chance, fire a shotgun into a wooden box containing a foot square piece of metal with some fireproofing on?

[pomeroo]

You're replying to your claim that I'm ignoring you? Are you sure you need me for this?



And? How does that equate to a plane being able to globally collapse a steel structure high-rise in less then an hour and leave the rubble hot for months?

Oh... is it your turn to ignore something?


Sometime in the last few years, NIST is going to produce a small report on the collapses of the Towers. Be sure to look for it.

By the way, the adults here get the idea that the fires insulated by the rubble pile have zero relevance to the collapse mechanism.



So if some people were inclined to crash planes into towers and place explosives into the same building without any regard for human life these same people would worried about debris control?

Wow. Talk about having your priorities screwed up.



I'll bet you and your little buddies thought it was really neat the way the super-villains managed to place explosives on the exact floors hit by the planes. That was something, wasn't it? Who would have thought it possible?




Is that an exact number? lol


Wow! That's telling him! Just pray that he doesn't ask what possible point you could be trying to make.



You're not shorting my quotes are you? What are explosives for? What are planes for?


In the demolition industry, explosives--shaped charges--are used to bring down structures in a controlled manner, to avoid damage to nearby structures.

Planes are used for transportation.




I did. Have you seen the light?


Yes, we've seen the light. There are conspiracy liars who are amazingly obtuse. Among them, you stand out as special.

[johnny karate]

No you didn't provide what was asked for. The NIST report doesn't even pretend to show that fire and damage would cause global collapse.

That's because they weren't tasked to. It is widely accepted in the structural engineering community that once the collapse was initiated, nothing could arrest it. Just because a handful of crackpots reject this hypothesis is irrelevant.

Forgive me for being picky, but a report that simply says global collapse was "inevitable" isn't evidence.

No, but this is (http://www.debunking911.com/ProgressiveCollapseWTC-6-23-2006.pdf). All the calculations that explain the global collapse and why it was inevitable lie within.

And still no evidence of your own I see. Your research skills don't seem to go beyond parroting talking points from conspiracy theory websites.

[LastChild]

Argument from incredulity fallacy.

(Yes. You can destroy a skyscraper more quickly by crashing a plane into it than you can by carrying out a controlled demolition. (It’s just prohibitively expensive, illegal, unpredictable, destroys surrounding buildings and kills lots of people. But if you don’t care about those things, then you’re all set!))

Expensive how? Don't we ever retire old airliners and send them to the scrap heap? Think of the money we could save. And destroying surrounding buildings is just an added bonus in a military situation isn't it? Just think... one plane could take out a nuclear facility AND a terrorist compound across the street. It might take a couple hours but you saw what happen on 9/11. Whatever is across the street from the plane crash is coming down you can bet on it!

Just think how much better an old 767 would of out performed these very expensive US missiles that failed to take down this much smaller then the WTC building...

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1124/701403445_93e028afce.jpg?v=0

You debunkers really have discovered something.

Congratulations.

[pomeroo]

How did it show the fireproofing was dislodged? It didn't, by any chance, fire a shotgun into a wooden box containing a foot square piece of metal with some fireproofing on?


So you have discovered that NIST's methods were flawed? You have, of course, explained your discovery and the reasoning behind it to NIST. Were they impressed that someone barely able to read with no background in science was able to challenge a methodolgy established by engineers and fire safety specialists?

Your epochal discovery fascinates me. Having demonstrated that a shotgun blast will dislodge fireproofing, NIST failed to realize that the crash of fully-fueled jet airliner would not have the same effect. What produced your extraordinary insight? How did you figure out that the equivalent of thousands of tons of TNT would actually do less than a shotgun blast? Would it be fair to describe your experience as an epiphany?

[pomeroo]

Expensive how? Don't we ever retire old airliners and send them to the scrap heap? Think of the money we could save. And destroying surrounding buildings is just an added bonus in a military situation isn't it? Just think... one plane could take out a nuclear facility AND a terrorist compound across the street. It might take a couple hours but you saw what happen on 9/11. Whatever is across the street from the plane crash is coming down you can bet on it!

Just think how much better an old 767 would of out performed these very expensive US missiles that failed to take down this much smaller then the WTC building...

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1124/701403445_93e028afce.jpg?v=0

You debunkers really have discovered something.

Congratulations.


Congratulations, indeed!

Your fellow liars are scratching their heads and asking, what the hell is the Child raving about?

[e^n]

Debunkers try to claim that 1000's of demolition charges were needed. i even heard debunkers claiming it would be over half a million pounds of explosives.

BUT...

They also claim that gravity + fire + damage was enough to bring down the building, so why would so much explosive be needed?

I have already explained this, it depends on your theory. Many proponents of the Controlled Demolition theory have claimed that the speed of collapse is an issue, that the buildings fell at 'free fall speed' (they did not) and that this is indicative of some suspicious action. If this is the case, explosives would have to be distributed throughout the towers in order to achieve this effect, and many hundreds of pounds would be needed at minimum.

The amount of explosives required is entirely dependent on what you believe the effects of these explosives to be, if you believe they only initiated collapse a smaller amount is required than if you believe they accelerated collapse.

You linked to a study which only concluded that damage and fire could initiate collapse. It only mentions global collapse to say it was "inevitable".
For example, here you are implying global collapse is the product of explosives, in this case more explosives are required than simply to initiate collapse.

Now, as for LastChild. I am more than happy to respond to you, but as of late your posts have become increasingly arrogant and confrontational. This is the behavior of a poor troll, if not simply a child and I hope you will not continue in this trend. I will answer your questions clearly and to the best of my ability and would hope you would do the same for me.

You're replying to your claim that I'm ignoring you? Are you sure you need me for this?
I am replying to your statements, whether or not you were ignoring me.

And? How does that equate to a plane being able to globally collapse a steel structure high-rise in less then an hour and leave the rubble hot for months?
There is no direct relation at all, all but the temperature of the rubble is achieved by either mechanism. The temperature of the rubble was maintained through combustion and is independent of either process.

Oh... is it your turn to ignore something?
You cannot provoke me into angry response, it is a waste of time to even try.

So if some people were inclined to crash planes into towers and place explosives into the same building without any regard for human life these same people would worried about debris control?
Of course not, your question was this:
So why don't they only use one or two near the top in a normal CD?
Excluding issues of building design (only certain buildings would be susceptible to this type of collapse mechanism) I answered your question fully. In a normal CD, debris control is an issue. I also clearly stated:
whatever you believe regarding 911 there was no control of debris.


Is that an exact number? lol
It is not an exact number as you have not provided an exact measurement. If you were to specify the specific charge you are referring to I can give you a more accurate figure. Linear Shaped Charges vary in size and explosive composition. If you can be more specific, so can I.

You're not shorting my quotes are you? What are explosives for? What are planes for?
I cut out that section of your quote as it seemed a rhetorical question. Planes are, at the widest definition, for flying. More exactly in this case the planes we're referring to were designed to carry passengers and cargo. They were not of course designed to do damage to building elements. Such an effect is a byproduct of their momentum.

I did. Have you seen the light?
I see no challenge, you have not asked any testing question nor proposed any part of my theory which is incomplete or impossible. Again I must remind you of what you said:
If you don't have a complete and realistic version of 9/11 you need to admit it to yourself and come out of your denial.
I propose my theory of the events of 9/11 is more complete and more realistic than yours. Challenge me with any evidence you like and I will endeavor to show it is so.

edit to add:
And destroying surrounding buildings is just an added bonus in a military situation isn't it?
Generally it is not, the development of precision guided weapons is an attempt to reduce the collateral damage from military action. Millions and millions of dollars are spent on weapons which could be replaced with extremely cheap but unguided bombs. Such carpet bombing was carried out in WWII and lead to countless civilian deaths. Perhaps you could read up on the history of weaponry as you are doing your research.

[Par]

What are explosives for? What are planes for? Planes can do better then explosives at something explosives are made for?Argument from incredulity fallacy. (Yes. You can destroy a skyscraper more quickly by crashing a plane into it than you can by carrying out a controlled demolition. (It’s just prohibitively expensive, illegal, unpredictable, destroys surrounding buildings and kills lots of people. But if you don’t care about those things, then you’re all set!))Expensive how? Don't we ever retire old airliners and send them to the scrap heap? Think of the money we could save. And destroying surrounding buildings is just an added bonus in a military situation isn't it?


Remember, you were talking about the demolition industry: The demolition industry doesn’t tend to retire old aircraft with any degree of frequency, no. Nor does it have much of an interest in illegal activity, unpredictable collapses, destroying surrounding buildings or killing lots of people. These are just some of the reasons that the demolition industry doesn’t destroy buildings by crashing airliners into them.

[LastChild]

Remember, you were talking about the demolition industry: The demolition industry doesn’t tend to retire old aircraft with any degree of frequency, no. Nor does it have much of an interest in illegal activity, unpredictable collapses, destroying surrounding buildings or killing lots of people. These are just some of the reasons that the demolition industry doesn’t destroy buildings by crashing airliners into them.

Good Point! But I wasn't ONLY talking about the CD industry. You guys really need to stop editing my quotes and taking them out of context. I hope it’s not the only way you know to pretend to win an argument. That would be very sad. Besides I’m just trying to help you with your discovery.

And you forget in the demolition industry they don't usually attempt to demo buildings as large as the WTC. Or so debunkers are always reminding me anyway.

So that being the case I would suggest for a much smaller structure a plane the size of a 767 wouldn't be needed. They might even get away with just exploding a barrel of Jet fuel on a floor near the top. Don't forget the jet fuel! You debunkers are always bragging about it. (Though jet fuel is expensive these days huh?) Still one barrel, one stick of dynamite, and you should be good to go. That's got to be less expensive then a whole crew taking days to wire the entire building with very expensive explosives no? And if it's collateral damage you're worried about just lay back on the jet fuel a little. Remember it's expensive anyway so waste not want not.

In any case don't give up on your discovery Par. I really think you and your fellow debunkers accidentally stepped into something here that’s worth pursuing.

Go for it. What else have you got to do?

[pomeroo]

Good Point! But I wasn't ONLY talking about the CD industry. You guys really need to stop editing my quotes and taking them out of context. I hope it’s not the only way you know to pretend to win an argument. That would be very sad. Besides I’m just trying to help you with your discovery.

And you forget in the demolition industry they don't usually attempt to demo buildings as large as the WTC. Or so debunkers are always reminding me anyway.

So that being the case I would suggest for a much smaller structure a plane the size of a 767 wouldn't be needed. They might even get away with just exploding a barrel of Jet fuel on a floor near the top. Don't forget the jet fuel! You debunkers are always bragging about it. (Though jet fuel is expensive these days huh?) Still one barrel, one stick of dynamite, and you should be good to go. That's got to be less expensive then a whole crew taking days to wire the entire building with very expensive explosives no? And if it's collateral damage you're worried about just lay back on the jet fuel a little. Remember it's expensive anyway so waste not want not.

In any case don't give up on your discovery Par. I really think you and your fellow debunkers accidentally stepped into something here that’s worth pursuing.

Go for it. What else have you got to do?


Seriously, do you have any idea of what you're trying to argue?

[e^n]

So that being the case I would suggest for a much smaller structure a plane the size of a 767 wouldn't be needed. They might even get away with just exploding a barrel of Jet fuel on a floor near the top. Don't forget the jet fuel! You debunkers are always bragging about it. (Though jet fuel is expensive these days huh?) Still one barrel, one stick of dynamite, and you should be good to go. That's got to be less expensive then a whole crew taking days to wire the entire building with very expensive explosives no? And if it's collateral damage you're worried about just lay back on the jet fuel a little. Remember it's expensive anyway so waste not want not.

Please for the love of whatever you consider holy, stop with this ludicrously poor sarcasm. You are clearly ignoring what you have been repeatedly told and doing so intentionally.

[LastChild]

Please for the love of whatever you consider holy, stop with this ludicrously poor sarcasm. You are clearly ignoring what you have been repeatedly told and doing so intentionally.

What are planes for? What are explosives for?

[e^n]

What are planes for? What are explosives for?

I have already answered your questions extensively, you are deliberately ignoring what you have been told in order to provoke an angry response. Such trolling is of poor quality and easily observed. It fails utterly.

[CHF]

So to recap so far....

LastChild has proven himself as useless as ever by refusing to answer the question posed by the OP. Instead he has tried to side-track the issue with irrelevant nonsense like "What are explosives for? What are planes for? Planes can do better then explosives at something explosives are made for?"

theauthor has also refused to answer the OP, preferring instead to complain about the NIST report.

Dictator Cheney, meanwhile, claimed "the core columns of floor 85, 75 and 55 was "cut" once the collapse was initiated" which also didn't answer the question.

So let's try again, shall we?

What, in your opinion, did the controlled demolition charges do?

Did they....
- remove all resistance to the upper block?
- blast the towers into dust?
- eject massive beams horizontally?
- destroy the sub-levels and lobby?
- or did they just serve to get the collapse started (cuz a jet impact and a multi-floor inferno couldn't) before gravity took it from there?

This has nothing to do with NIST, and nothing to do with whether or not you think airliners and fires could take down the WTC. We already know that you think the OS is impossible by virtue of the fact that you think the buildings fell via CD!

This has only to do with what you think the CD charges did on 9/11. I'm asking you to explain your own beliefs here - the beliefs you've been forming for the past few years via countless hours of in-depth "research."

Tell me what you think the CD charges did! Seriously - how hard can this be for you?

Try again.

[LastChild]

You know what? I just though of something. Next time they demo a building in New York they should use half a tank of jet-fuel like on 9/11 and do it in the beginning of the winter. Then they can pump the heat from the rubble into everyone’s apartment.

FREE HEAT FOR THE WHOLE WINTER!

FOR EVERYBODY!

Wow that Jet Fuel is the greatest discovery since pretend economic stimulus tax rebate checks.

You guys are good.

[e^n]

You know what? I just though of something. Next time they demo a building in New York they should use half a tank of jet-fuel like on 9/11 and do it in the beginning of the winter. Then they can pump the heat from the rubble into everyone’s apartment.

Yes you've already tried this trolling technique and we've all had a good laugh at how poor it is, are you seriously going to just continue spamming this until you're banned?

[GeeMack]

And just in case nobody noticed, the Truthers still haven't been able/willing to address the question posed in the OP.

Maybe they're working their way up to a simple acknowledgment that they don't know how much of what sorts of explosives would be required, and how those explosives would need to be applied in order to cause the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Or maybe they're feverishly assembling an explanation. Maybe they're working out the details on their slide rules and preparing a credible, scientific presentation which would be persuasive to someone besides each other.

Yeah. That's it. All this apparent evasion is just a theatrical technique designed to add some drama to the thread before they actually get around to honestly and cogently responding to the OP. Or not.

[LastChild]

So to recap so far....

LastChild has proven himself as useless as ever by refusing to answer the question posed by the OP. Instead he has tried to side-track the issue with irrelevant nonsense like "What are explosives for? What are planes for? Planes can do better then explosives at something explosives are made for?"

theauthor has also refused to answer the OP, preferring instead to complain about the NIST report.

Dictator Cheney, meanwhile, claimed "the core columns of floor 85, 75 and 55 was "cut" once the collapse was initiated" which also didn't answer the question.

So let's try again, shall we?

What, in your opinion, did the controlled demolition charges do?

Did they....
- remove all resistance to the upper block?
- blast the towers into dust?
- eject massive beams horizontally?
- destroy the sub-levels and lobby?
- or did they just serve to get the collapse started (cuz a jet impact and a multi-floor inferno couldn't) before gravity took it from there?

This has nothing to do with NIST, and nothing to do with whether or not you think airliners and fires could take down the WTC. We already know that you think the OS is impossible by virtue of the fact that you think the buildings fell via CD!

This has only to do with what you think the CD charges did on 9/11. I'm asking you to explain your own beliefs here - the beliefs you've been forming for the past few years via countless hours of in-depth "research."

Tell me what you think the CD charges did! Seriously - how hard can this be for you?

Try again.

The answer is right there in front of you CHF. Now I'm not going to hold your hand and do this for you even though I'm pretty sure what believers of CD think CD charges were for. I demand you learn something here. So...

What, in your opinion, are controlled demolition charges designed to do?


Try again but don't hurt yourself. kay?

[Mel Odious]

LastChild, let me see if I can help you figure out the amount of energy involved in a 767 plane crash.

The "Boeing 767" page at WikiPedia gives the weight in kilograms for various makes of 767. The lightest model is the 767-200, which weighs in at 80,130 kg, and the heaviest is the 767-400ER, which weighs in at 103,870 kg. Note that those are both empty weights, which do not include fuel, passengers, etc. How much additional weight should we add? I'm not certain, but 12000 kg to 15000 kg seems like a good estimate. Let's go with the 12000 kg figure:

767-200= 92130 kg
767-400ER= 115870 kg

The jet that hit WTC1 was travelling at about 460 mph IIRC (about 206 meters per second), and the jet that hit WTC2 was travelling at about 540 mph (about 241 meters per second).

We can plug these into the kinetic energy equation

KE= 1/2 * mass * velocity-squared

to estimate the amount of kinetic energy involved. Here's the results:

For a 767-200:

KE= 1.95*10^9 Joules (460 mph)
KE= 2.68*10^9 Joules (540 mph)

For a 767-400ER

KE=2.45*10^9 Joules (460 mph)
KE=3.36*10^9 Joules (540 mph)

For comparison, the energy potential of 1 kg of TNT is 4.184*10^6 Joules. Dividing the above figures by that amount gives us an equivalent of between 466 kg and 640 kg of TNT for a 767-200 impact, and between 585 kg and 803 kg of TNT for a 767-400ER impact. If the 767 used in the attacks was one of the other models, the energy/TNT figures will fall somewhere between the ones I calculated.

Some of that energy will be used up destroying the plane; some will be used up destroying building contents, and some will be used up damaging the building itself. But that's a subject other posters here are much more competent to discuss than I!

[CHF]

What, in your opinion, are controlled demolition charges designed to do?

They are designed to blast key support columns (usually at the base of a structure) so that gravity does the rest.

And the ones on 9/11 did....what?

EDIT: let's make this as simple as possible, LC.

Did the CD charges....
- remove all resistance to the upper block? YES or NO.
- blast the towers into dust? YES or NO.
- eject massive beams horizontally? YES or NO.
- destroy the sub-levels and lobby? YES or NO.
- or did they just serve to get the collapse started (cuz a jet impact and a multi-floor inferno couldn't) before gravity took it from there? YES or NO.

You can answer the OP with FIVE words.

[LastChild]

LastChild, let me see if I can help you figure out the amount of energy involved in a 767 plane crash.

The "Boeing 767" page at WikiPedia gives the weight in kilograms for various makes of 767. The lightest model is the 767-200, which weighs in at 80,130 kg, and the heaviest is the 767-400ER, which weighs in at 103,870 kg. Note that those are both empty weights, which do not include fuel, passengers, etc. How much additional weight should we add? I'm not certain, but 12000 kg to 15000 kg seems like a good estimate. Let's go with the 12000 kg figure:

767-200= 92130 kg
767-400ER= 115870 kg

The jet that hit WTC1 was travelling at about 460 mph IIRC (about 206 meters per second), and the jet that hit WTC2 was travelling at about 540 mph (about 241 meters per second).

We can plug these into the kinetic energy equation

KE= 1/2 * mass * velocity-squared

to estimate the amount of kinetic energy involved. Here's the results:

For a 767-200:

KE= 1.95*10^9 Joules (460 mph)
KE= 2.68*10^9 Joules (540 mph)

For a 767-400ER

KE=2.45*10^9 Joules (460 mph)
KE=3.36*10^9 Joules (540 mph)

For comparison, the energy potential of 1 kg of TNT is 4.184*10^6 Joules. Dividing the above figures by that amount gives us an equivalent of between 466 kg and 640 kg of TNT for a 767-200 impact, and between 585 kg and 803 kg of TNT for a 767-400ER impact. If the 767 used in the attacks was one of the other models, the energy/TNT figures will fall somewhere between the ones I calculated.

Some of that energy will be used up destroying the plane; some will be used up destroying building contents, and some will be used up damaging the building itself. But that's a subject other posters here are much more competent to discuss than I!

Yeah so planes can do better then explosives at something explosives are designed for. I got that part.

You don't have to rub your good idea in. Stop bragging about your discovery I'm with you on this. Now how can we start up a demo/heating business? You're not going to cut me out are you? After all I thought of the heating part. I'm afraid Pomeroo already pointed out that someone has already cornered the Demo/Chimney sweeping business in another thread so we'll have to act fast before someone steals our thunder.

[LastChild]

They are designed to blast key support columns (usually at the base of a structure) so that gravity does the rest.

And the ones on 9/11 did....what?

EDIT: let's make this as simple as possible, LC.

Did the CD charges....
- remove all resistance to the upper block? YES or NO.
- blast the towers into dust? YES or NO.
- eject massive beams horizontally? YES or NO.
- destroy the sub-levels and lobby? YES or NO.
- or did they just serve to get the collapse started (cuz a jet impact and a multi-floor inferno couldn't) before gravity took it from there? YES or NO.

You can answer the OP with FIVE words.

I would imagine that if someone believes CD they would believe that they were for blasting key support columns (usually at the base of a structure) so that gravity does the rest.

Did I really need to tell you that? But don't take my word for it try to find someone who actually claims the WTC was a traditional CD and ask them.

BTW would that make them also a no-planer?

[pomeroo]

You know what? I just though of something. Next time they demo a building in New York they should use half a tank of jet-fuel like on 9/11 and do it in the beginning of the winter. Then they can pump the heat from the rubble into everyone’s apartment.

FREE HEAT FOR THE WHOLE WINTER!

FOR EVERYBODY!

Wow that Jet Fuel is the greatest discovery since pretend economic stimulus tax rebate checks.

You guys are good.


Attempts at irony require an IQ of at least 100.

[Mel Odious]

LastChild:

How does the use of explosives or thermite on September 11th account for the heat in the rubble pile weeks later?

[pomeroo]

Yeah so planes can do better then explosives at something explosives are designed for. I got that part.

You don't have to rub your good idea in. Stop bragging about your discovery I'm with you on this. Now how can we start up a demo/heating business? You're not going to cut me out are you? After all I thought of the heating part. I'm afraid Pomeroo already pointed out that someone has already cornered the Demo/Chimney sweeping business in another thread so we'll have to act fast before someone steals our thunder.


Your mindlessness is grating on everyone. Planes are not better than explosives for bringing down a structure in a controlled manner, which is what demolition companies get paid to do.

A hydrogen bomb will destroy a building more thoroughly than conventional shaped charges, but the demolition industry, you may or may not have noticed, does not use such devices.

Your comment about the chimney sweeping business is typically incoherent. I assume it means nothing.

[DC]

So to recap so far....

LastChild has proven himself as useless as ever by refusing to answer the question posed by the OP. Instead he has tried to side-track the issue with irrelevant nonsense like "What are explosives for? What are planes for? Planes can do better then explosives at something explosives are made for?"

theauthor has also refused to answer the OP, preferring instead to complain about the NIST report.

Dictator Cheney, meanwhile, claimed "the core columns of floor 85, 75 and 55 was "cut" once the collapse was initiated" which also didn't answer the question.

So let's try again, shall we?

What, in your opinion, did the controlled demolition charges do?

Did they....
- remove all resistance to the upper block?
- blast the towers into dust?
- eject massive beams horizontally?
- destroy the sub-levels and lobby?
- or did they just serve to get the collapse started (cuz a jet impact and a multi-floor inferno couldn't) before gravity took it from there?

This has nothing to do with NIST, and nothing to do with whether or not you think airliners and fires could take down the WTC. We already know that you think the OS is impossible by virtue of the fact that you think the buildings fell via CD!

This has only to do with what you think the CD charges did on 9/11. I'm asking you to explain your own beliefs here - the beliefs you've been forming for the past few years via countless hours of in-depth "research."

Tell me what you think the CD charges did! Seriously - how hard can this be for you?

Try again.

i especially wrote , i think, cause i didnt claim it, ok?

i think, it was to make sure the collapse will not be arrested by the reinforced floors like the mechanical floors and skylobys. and it also kept the collapse symetric. i also gave a quantitive answer.

[CHF]

I would imagine that if someone believes CD they would believe that they were for blasting key support columns (usually at the base of a structure) so that gravity does the rest.

Did I really need to tell you that? But don't take my word for it try to find someone who actually claims the WTC was a traditionalCD and ask them.

BTW would that make them also a no-planer?

What's the matter, LC? Are you stalling for time?

Let's have one last go at it: What, in your warped opinion, did the CD charges do?

- remove all resistance to the upper block? YES or NO.
- blast the towers into dust? YES or NO.
- eject massive beams horizontally? YES or NO.
- destroy the sub-levels and lobby? YES or NO.
- or did they just serve to get the collapse started (cuz a jet impact and a multi-floor inferno couldn't) before gravity took it from there? YES or NO.

Tell us what you think happened, LC. Why is this such a problem for you?

[pomeroo]

What's the matter, LC? Are you stalling for time?

Let's have one last go at it: What, in your warped opinion, did the CD charges do?

- remove all resistance to the upper block? YES or NO.
- blast the towers into dust? YES or NO.
- eject massive beams horizontally? YES or NO.
- destroy the sub-levels and lobby? YES or NO.
- or did they just serve to get the collapse started (cuz a jet impact and a multi-floor inferno couldn't) before gravity took it from there? YES or NO.


Tell us what you think happened, LC. Why is this such a problem for you?


I have provided a clue that explains why it is such a problem.

[CHF]

i especially wrote , i think, cause i didnt claim it, ok?

i think, it was to make sure the collapse will not be arrested by the reinforced floors like the mechanical floors and skylobys. and it also kept the collapse symetric. i also gave a quantitive answer.

So in your opinion the CD charges on 9/11 blasted columns on three floors, which somehow made the difference between the collapse being arrested or continuing?

Is that all they did?

[pomeroo]

i especially wrote , i think, cause i didnt claim it, ok?

i think, it was to make sure the collapse will not be arrested by the reinforced floors like the mechanical floors and skylobys. and it also kept the collapse symetric. i also gave a quantitive answer.



Another reminder that no conspiracy liar has commented on Arthur's paper:

http://scheuermanwtc7paper.googlepages.com/homehttp://i.ixnp.com/images/v3.29/t.gifhttp://i.ixnp.com/images/v3.29/t.gif (http://scheuermanwtc7paper.googlepages.com/home)

[DC]

Another reminder that no conspiracy liar has commented on Arthur's paper:

http://scheuermanwtc7paper.googlepages.com/homehttp://i.ixnp.com/images/v3.29/t.gifhttp://i.ixnp.com/images/v3.29/t.gif (http://scheuermanwtc7paper.googlepages.com/home)

after talking to the owner, the Fire Department decided to evacuate the building and not attempt to control the fires but to let them burn out.

what said de nigro? it was only his decission and he did not call LS.

[DC]

So in your opinion the CD charges on 9/11 blasted columns on three floors, which somehow made the difference between the collapse being arrested or continuing?

Is that all they did?

what else would they need to do?

[pomeroo]

what said de nigro? it was only his decission and he did not call LS.


I'm not sure what your comment means in English, but it's not important. We have established on several threads that Silverstein's conversation with the fire department commander who made the courtesy call to him had absolutely nothing to do with controlled demolition. This issue is stone-cold dead. Let's move on to Arthur's explanation for the collapse of WTC 7.

[CHF]

what else would they need to do?

Well a good chunk of the twoof movement (including the "experts" over at AE911) claim that the charges removed all resistance, blasted the towers into dust, ejected massive beams horizontally, destroy the sub-levels and lobby, and somehow produced a pyroclastic cloud at the same time.

I'm glad we can look forward to you never arguing in favour of any such stupid claims, DC.

[beachnut]

You know what? I just though of something. Next time they demo a building in New York they should use half a tank of jet-fuel like on 9/11 and do it in the beginning of the winter. Then they can pump the heat from the rubble into everyone’s apartment.

FREE HEAT FOR THE WHOLE WINTER!

FOR EVERYBODY!

Wow that Jet Fuel is the greatest discovery since pretend economic stimulus tax rebate checks.

You guys are good.
You are not good at energy and even worse at reality.

The fuel in the jets was equal in heat energy to 315 tons of TNT. Do you understand why we use gasoline instead of TNT to drive our cars? It has ten times the energy per pound. Why are people who fall for 9/11 truth so gullible and lacking basic knowledge?

1,320,000,000,000 joules = to the energy in 315 TONS of TNT = the fuel on the jets that impacted the WTC; but the buildings contained even more fuel to burn. Enough energy to run your car for 30 years were in each jet. Why are you making fun of energy you do not understand. Then the fuel in the WTC was even more. Are you a false information specialist or just someone who lacks knowledge?

[beachnut]

Just think how much better an old 767 would of out performed these very expensive US missiles that failed to take down this much smaller then the WTC building...
Dumb idea. At least you are maintaining the level of intellectual prowess expected.

[theauthor]

Well a good chunk of the twoof movement (including the "experts" over at AE911) claim that the charges removed all resistance, blasted the towers into dust, ejected massive beams horizontally, destroy the sub-levels and lobby, and somehow produced a pyroclastic cloud at the same time.

I'm glad we can look forward to you never arguing in favour of any such stupid claims, DC.

Aside from the pyroclastic cloud, are you denying that those things happened? There is ample evidence for all of them.

[Mel Odious]

Aside from the pyroclastic cloud, are you denying that those things happened? There is ample evidence for all of them.

Let's have it.

[CHF]

Aside from the pyroclastic cloud, are you denying that those things happened? There is ample evidence for all of them.

Ah now we're getting somewhere!

So in your opinion the CD charges used on 9/11 were strong enough to remove all resistance (that would be every single floor), blast the buildings into dust, eject beams in all directions, and blast the sub-levels as well?

If so I would love to see you reconcile this with your previous claim that not much explosives were needed.

[e^n]

Aside from the pyroclastic cloud, are you denying that those things happened? There is ample evidence for all of them.

In order
1. Resistance is clearly evident, the collapse times were well above freefall and have been calculated at 2/3 to 3/4g.
2. Even Steven Jones has abandoned the 'pulverized to dust' argument, are you contending this actually happened?
3. The only 'massive beams' ejected were well within acceptable parameters for speed, the majority of the elements pointed out were actually aluminium and quite light.
4. The lobby (and likely the sub levels) were damaged by the ignition and subsequent explosion of jet fuel, we have reports of this specifically in the lobby and basements, as well as most floors in both buildings.

If you doubt any of this we can discuss it in detail, suffice it to say these topics have been discussed extensively.

edit: I just noticed that this is theauthor, so lets collect the statements:
Debunkers try to claim that 1000's of demolition charges were needed. i even heard debunkers claiming it would be over half a million pounds of explosives.
BUT...
They also claim that gravity + fire + damage was enough to bring down the building, so why would so much explosive be needed?
With your first and second arguments as I have replied to them, you require thousands of explosives. Heck it is practically impossible to demolish concrete to the extent it has been claimed with explosives, it is your theory which requires so much explosives here.

[DC]

Well a good chunk of the twoof movement (including the "experts" over at AE911) claim that the charges removed all resistance, blasted the towers into dust, ejected massive beams horizontally, destroy the sub-levels and lobby, and somehow produced a pyroclastic cloud at the same time.

I'm glad we can look forward to you never arguing in favour of any such stupid claims, DC.

ah the destruction of the lobby is a good point, its very very strange to see the lobby so heavy damaged.
and i wonder what caused this.

[DC]

Ah now we're getting somewhere!

So in your opinion the CD charges used on 9/11 were strong enough to remove all resistance (that would be every single floor), blast the buildings into dust, eject beams in all directions, and blast the sub-levels as well?

what resistance? i thaught officialy there was not much resistance anyway. according to Sander.

[CHF]

ah the destruction of the lobby is a good point, its very very strange to see the lobby so heavy damaged.
and i wonder what caused this.

Jet fuel down the elevator shafts. Been done to death on another thread.

what resistance? i thaught officialy there was not much resistance anyway. according to Sander.

Resistance was offered (hence debris falling faster than collapse) but was easily overcome by the massive dynamic load.

[theauthor]

Ah now we're getting somewhere!

So in your opinion the CD charges used on 9/11 were strong enough to remove all resistance (that would be every single floor), blast the buildings into dust, eject beams in all directions, and blast the sub-levels as well?

So you admit those things happened! Lastchild is right, you are making progress.

[DC]

Jet fuel down the elevator shafts. Been done to death on another thread.



Resistance was offered (hence debris falling faster than collapse) but was easily overcome by the massive dynamic load.

het fuel did cause the destruction of the lobby?
got evidence ? what elevator shafts exactly?

and according to NIST chief investigator there was not much resistance, thats why according to him, the building came down in only 11 and 8 seconds.

[gc051360]

Seriously, do you have any idea of what you're trying to argue?

It is quite an odd argument. Basically LastChild is trying to make the point that if an airplane crash could cause a structure to collapse, then someone would be using them to cause structures to collapse, instead of explosives.

It's pretty dumb. I understand you know what he's arguing. I just like repeating it, because I am amused by it. Annoyed, because this kind of aggressive stupidity annoys me. But, I can still find the humor in it.

[CHF]

So you admit those things happened! Lastchild is right, you are making progress.

Oh look, another loon with reading comprehension problems.

I asked if you thought CD charges removed all resistance, blasted the buildings into dust, ejected beams in all directions, and blasted the sub-levels as well.

Get it? I'm taking TM talking points and asking if you support them.

So...do you?

[CHF]

het fuel did cause the destruction of the lobby?
got evidence ? what elevator shafts exactly?

One of many (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=92099) threads on this subject.

and according to NIST chief investigator there was not much resistance, thats why according to him, the building came down in only 11 and 8 seconds.

Resistance was overcome, and the collapse time is how long it took for the first debris to hit the ground.

What's your take on the resistance, DC? Was the top block enough to overcome it? If not, what did?

[theauthor]

Oh look, another loon with reading comprehension problems.

I asked if you thought CD charges removed all resistance, blasted the buildings into dust, ejected beams in all directions, and blasted the sub-levels as well.

Get it? I'm taking TM talking points and asking if you support them.

So...do you?


You can't keep it civil can you? I have called you no names but you call me a loon. That's a sure sign of losing an argument.

All of the things you describe happened, unless you are calling the governor of new york a liar when he said that most of the concrete had turned to dust, and the witnesses in the basement liars who saw the destroyed machine shop and parking garage.

You got any pictures of macroscopic concrete? You failed to produce a photo of a flame of wtc7, so im not holding out much hope.

[DC]

One of many (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=92099) threads on this subject.



Resistance was overcome, and the collapse time is how long it took for the first debris to hit the ground.

What's your take on the resistance, DC? Was the top block enough to overcome it? If not, what did?

oh i thaught you got evidence :(

[CHF]

You can't keep it civil can you? I have called you no names but you call me a loon. That's a sure sign of losing an argument.

All of the things you describe happened, unless you are calling the governor of new york a liar when he said that most of the concrete had turned to dust, and the witnesses in the basement liars who saw the destroyed machine shop and parking garage.

You got any pictures of macroscopic concrete? You failed to produce a photo of a flame of wtc7, so im not holding out much hope.

So in your opinion CD charges blasted the building into dust, yes?

If so please reconcile this with your previous claim that not much explosives were needed.

[CHF]

oh i thaught you got evidence :(

Reading sucks, I know.

So much to comprehend....

[DC]

One of many (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=92099) threads on this subject.



Resistance was overcome, and the collapse time is how long it took for the first debris to hit the ground.

What's your take on the resistance, DC? Was the top block enough to overcome it? If not, what did?

when i think the collapse needed assistance with atleast 3 floors demos, i think its pretty clear that i think that the upper floors was not enough to keep the collapse ongoing. atleast in the north tower.

[DC]

Reading sucks, I know.

So much to comprehend....

you pointed me to a discussion of a theory, and i asked for evidence.
:/

[CHF]

when i think the collapse needed assistance with atleast 3 floors demos, i think its pretty clear that i think that the upper floors was not enough to keep the collapse ongoing. atleast in the north tower.

So in your opinion, were it not for a CD charge on floor 55 the collapse would have stopped dead in its tracks at that floor? :eek:

[CHF]

you pointed me to a discussion of a theory, and i asked for evidence.
:/

And I don't feel like doing your reading for you. Feel free to take your concerns to a thread dealing with the lobby.

This one is about what twoofer think CD charges did on 9/11 and how many would be needed to do it.

[DC]

And I don't feel like doing your reading for you. Feel free to take your concerns to a thread dealing with the lobby.

This one is about what twoofer think CD charges did on 9/11 and how many would be needed to do it.

i just had the impression you think it is fact, but now i understand, its what you think hapened ;) thats ok.

[e^n]

All of the things you describe happened, unless you are calling the governor of new york a liar when he said that most of the concrete had turned to dust, and the witnesses in the basement liars who saw the destroyed machine shop and parking garage.

Read my post, if you don't believe the governor of NY could be wrong, then you must believe Steven Jones is lying.

[DC]

So in your opinion, were it not for a CD charge on floor 55 the collapse would have stopped dead in its tracks at that floor? :eek:

not sure, but those are the floors where the no squibs was seen in the north tower,

[e^n]

not sure, but those are the floors where the no squibs was seen in the north tower,

Do you mean "where squibs were seen"? I really haven't a clue exactly what you're trying to say here.

[Mel Odious]

You can't keep it civil can you? I have called you no names but you call me a loon. That's a sure sign of losing an argument.

All of the things you describe happened, unless you are calling the governor of new york a liar when he said that most of the concrete had turned to dust, and the witnesses in the basement liars who saw the destroyed machine shop and parking garage.

You got any pictures of macroscopic concrete? You failed to produce a photo of a flame of wtc7, so im not holding out much hope.

Here's a page you might be interested in:

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics1.HTM

There's a picture about two-thirds of the way down the page in which I can see lots of concrete pieces. I'm going offline now, so I don't have any more time to look for more pictures right now, but I'm sure someone else here can find some for you.

[DC]

Do you mean "where squibs were seen"? I really haven't a clue exactly what you're trying to say here.

well i thaught JREFers say that are not squibs :)

but i can call them squibs if you want :)

[chillzero]

And I don't feel like doing your reading for you. Feel free to take your concerns to a thread dealing with the lobby.

This one is about what twoofer think CD charges did on 9/11 and how many would be needed to do it.

That seems to need repeating, repeatedly.

As a moderator, I will be happy to place this thread on moderated status if you guys can't stick to the topic as requested in the OP. Any posts not discussing the mechanics of what exactly the alleged CD charges were supposed to accomplish to bring down the towers would be rejected. Surely you can manage to filter your comments appropriately yourselves? I'll give you one more chance at it, or will set the thread for approvals.

[DC]

the destruction of the lobby could be connected to Explosions like Rodriguez and his coworkers reported. so it is perfectly on topic.

the Jetfuel theory doesnt hold water when you take a closer look.

[Dave Rogers]

Debunkers try to claim that 1000's of demolition charges were needed. i even heard debunkers claiming it would be over half a million pounds of explosives.

That wasn't a debunker, it was Jim Hoffman. He didn't make the claim directly, but he claimed that an extraordinary amount of energy was released in the collapses. If you do the maths from his energy calculations, you end up with about a quarter of a kiloton.

Dave

[CHF]

not sure, but those are the floors where the no squibs was seen in the north tower,

Wait a sec...

So every other floor has "squibs?"

What exactly do you think those squibs are?

[DC]

Wait a sec...

So every other floor has "squibs?"

What exactly do you think those squibs are?

no i ment those floors have "squibs"
they look like dust/air under high pressure that accelerated very fast.
i think they came from explosions below the collapse zone.
i think the theory of Dust/air pushed true elevator shafts is not plausible.

[CHF]

no i ment those floors have "squibs"
they look like dust/air under high pressure that accelerated very fast.
i think they came from explosions below the collapse zone.
i think the theory of Dust/air pushed true elevator shafts is not plausible.

So it looked like dust/air under high pressure.....but the force of a collapsing building couldn't possibly account for that so it had to be CD charges instead. :rolleyes:

Oh boy....

[DC]

So it looked like dust/air under high pressure.....but the force of a collapsing building couldn't possibly account for that so it had to be CD charges instead. :rolleyes:

Oh boy....

it could, but they was very far below the collapsing zone, and those squibs was very local, means only a few windows. not what i expect from air that was pushed true elevator shaft and then "traveled" from the core to the perimeter walls and escapes true a few windows.

also the time from collapse till first squib is very fast, faster than it would be possible the squibs could be from the collapse zone. also the symerty , we can clearly see 2 squibs on atleast 2 sides of the building on the same floor.

i dont think that it can be caused by the collapse.

[CHF]

it could, but they was very far below the collapsing zone, and those squibs was very local, means only a few windows. not what i expect from air that was pushed true elevator shaft and then "traveled" from the core to the perimeter walls and escapes true a few windows.

also the time from collapse till first squib is very fast, faster than it would be possible the squibs could be from the collapse zone. also the symerty , we can clearly see 2 squibs on atleast 2 sides of the building on the same floor.

i dont think that it can be caused by the collapse.

Just so we're clear on this....your opinion is that the only charges used in the towers were on the "squib" floors and that without those three floors being blasted the collapse would have stopped?

It's hilariously absurd, but thank you for answering the OP. It's more than your fellow twoofers have been willing to do.

Just remember not to contradict yourself later by supporting a CD talking point that is inconsistent with your position as outlined in this thread.

[DC]

well remember when i said, at least :)

there is still the lobby damage and sublevel explosions that was reported.
and the collapse initation.

[aggle-rithm]

ah the destruction of the lobby is a good point, its very very strange to see the lobby so heavy damaged.
and i wonder what caused this.

So, the purpose of the CD's were to destroy the lobby? To what end?

[aggle-rithm]

the destruction of the lobby could be connected to Explosions like Rodriguez and his coworkers reported. so it is perfectly on topic.

the Jetfuel theory doesnt hold water when you take a closer look.

Why were the injuries consistent with fire and not explosions?

Also, which account of Rodriguez's are you referring to? He changes his story with every telling.

ETA: Also, you have said that explosives were needed on at least three floors to keep the collapse going. Was the basement one of those floors?

[CHF]

well remember when i said, at least :)

there is still the lobby damage and sublevel explosions that was reported.
and the collapse initation.

Well let me know when you decide on what caused that.

Nice to see that you at least ruled out the notion that bombs blasted the towers into dust and ejected beams in all directions.

[Stellafane]

You know something? I've changed my mind...I now believe that WTCs 1, 2, and 7 may in fact have been brought down by CDs. And do you know who I think was behind it? AL QUEDA!!! Think about it -- they are the only group in this whole sorry mess that had anything remotely resembling a credible motivation to do this. Further, anyone who rigged the towers would have to know both when the planes would hit, and where (so the initial impact didn't prematurely cause the explosion, since whoever did this apparently wanted to prolong the spectacle for some reason). And quite apart from any other group, Al Queda has already confessed to the planes part of the conspiracy.

So this is the only remotely realistice scenario: Al Queda rigged the explosives, as part of their overall plan to bring down the towers. Any other theory would have to rely on coincidences and implausibilities so insane, that no one with a functioning brain cell could possibly believe it.

There you are, CTers -- you've convinced a skeptical JREFer that it was a CD. And I say Al Queda did it. So go ahead -- prove me wrong!!!!

[aggle-rithm]

well remember when i said, at least :)

there is still the lobby damage and sublevel explosions that was reported.
and the collapse initation.

But you said the purpose of the explosives was to keep the collapse going. What you're describing was well before the collapse.

This appears to be your line of reasoning:

1. The collapse initiated because of the fires and damage, but this was not sufficient to bring down the buildings.
2. Therefore, explosive charges were set off on three floors below the crash site.
3. We know there were explosive charges set off because dust and debris is seen shooting out of windows on these floors.
4. Further evidence can be found in the reports of explosions in the sublevels an hour before the collapse.

I think you should have stopped at number 3. You almost had a coherent argument going there.

This gets right back to the crux of the issue: Truthers want to believe in explosive charges because they are evidence that something suspicious was going on. People of a more rational bent are trying to get the truthers to look at the issue from a more logical standpoint: What were the explosive charges FOR? Item number 4 above seems to indicate that the purpose of the charges is to give truthers hope that there is something suspicious going on.

And so it goes, ad nauseum...

[DC]

You know something? I've changed my mind...I now believe that WTCs 1, 2, and 7 may in fact have been brought down by CDs. And do you know who I think was behind it? AL QUEDA!!! Think about it -- they are the only group in this whole sorry mess that had anything remotely resembling a credible motivation to do this. Further, anyone who rigged the towers would have to know both when the planes would hit, and where (so the initial impact didn't prematurely cause the explosion, since whoever did this apparently wanted to prolong the spectacle for some reason). And quite apart from any other group, Al Queda has already confessed to the planes part of the conspiracy.

So this is the only remotely realistice scenario: Al Queda rigged the explosives, as part of their overall plan to bring down the towers. Any other theory would have to rely on coincidences and implausibilities so insane, that no one with a functioning brain cell could possibly believe it.

There you are, CTers -- you've convinced a skeptical JREFer that it was a CD. And I say Al Queda did it. So go ahead -- prove me wrong!!!!

i think at least those CT's that say Al Queda = CIA, will agree with you :)

[chillzero]

As warned, this thread has been placed on moderated status for repeated derails.

A reminder from the OP of the topic:
What I'm looking for are specifics, not "the CDs took down the buildings!"

Laying out what exactly the CDs supposedly did would go a long way towards examining the plausibility of any demolition theory and would also help answer a question that the TM has (to the best of my knowledge) thus far left unanswered: how many CD charges would be needed to take down the WTC?

The answer to this depends entirely on what you claim the CDs did.

So I would like to open the floor for truthers to explain what they think the CDs were responsible for.

[Par]

Remember, you were talking about the demolition industry: The demolition industry doesn’t tend to retire old aircraft with any degree of frequency, no. Nor does it have much of an interest in illegal activity, unpredictable collapses, destroying surrounding buildings or killing lots of people. These are just some of the reasons that the demolition industry doesn’t destroy buildings by crashing airliners into them.
Good Point! But I wasn't ONLY talking about the CD industry.


But you were talking about the demolition industry: You were claiming that if buildings can collapse due to aircraft impacts and subsequent fires, then the demolition industry itself would use this method. I have pointed out that there are very good reasons that it would not.

[Par]

I’m just trying to help you with your discovery.


All right.

[Par]

And you forget in the demolition industry they don't usually attempt to demo buildings as large as the WTC. Or so debunkers are always reminding me anyway.


Remember, it was you and not I who chose to cite the destruction of the World Trade Center as a potentially preferable method of controlled demolition. If the World Trade Center was so large that its destruction cannot be compared to controlled demolitions, then the World Trade Center was so large that its destruction cannot be compared to controlled demolitions.

[Par]

I would suggest for a much smaller structure a plane the size of a 767 wouldn't be needed. They might even get away with just exploding a barrel of Jet fuel on a floor near the top. Don't forget the jet fuel! You debunkers are always bragging about it. (Though jet fuel is expensive these days huh?) Still one barrel, one stick of dynamite, and you should be good to go. That's got to be less expensive then a whole crew taking days to wire the entire building with very expensive explosives no? And if it's collateral damage you're worried about just lay back on the jet fuel a little.


You argument seems to be something along the lines of: If using a single stick of dynamite and barrel of jet fuel to destroy a smaller building does not represent a feasible method for prosaic controlled demolitions, then the World Trade Center buildings cannot have been destroyed by aircraft impacts and subsequent fires.

There’s nothing that I need to do with leaps of logic like these other than underline them.

[CHF]

Any other of our resident CTists want to take a crack at this?

Swing Dangler, RedIbis, Deep44, Heiwa, TC329...Or perhaps theauthor or LastChild would actually care to address the OP this time?

[LastChild]

You are not good at energy and even worse at reality.

The fuel in the jets was equal in heat energy to 315 tons of TNT. Do you understand why we use gasoline instead of TNT to drive our cars? It has ten times the energy per pound. Why are people who fall for 9/11 truth so gullible and lacking basic knowledge?

1,320,000,000,000 joules = to the energy in 315 TONS of TNT = the fuel on the jets that impacted the WTC; but the buildings contained even more fuel to burn. Enough energy to run your car for 30 years were in each jet. Why are you making fun of energy you do not understand. Then the fuel in the WTC was even more. Are you a false information specialist or just someone who lacks knowledge?

So planes and jet fuel pack more explosive power then explosives designed to take down a building. Yes I understand what you debunkers are claiming. But who told you this?

Let's see what your official version claims...

“Even with the airplane impact and jet-fuel-ignited multi-floor fires, which are not normal building fires, the buildings would likely not have collapsed had it not been for the fireproofing that had been dislodged,” - Shyam Sunder NIST

“The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components: core columns, floors, and perimeter columns. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multifloor fires.” - NIST

“the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure” - Thomas Eagar, an MIT professor who supports the official theory

“The plane impact did nothing to this building,”’ - Professor Astaneh-Asl of University of California

[chillzero]

I'm really not sure why people are finding it so tough to respond on topic for this thread. There are many other threads about the destruction of the WTC. This one specifically asked about how CD charges would be placed, how many would it take, what would those charges and their placing be designed to do?

Anyone want to try and actually respond to the OP?

[DC]

hey i did answer it :(

[LastChild]

Let me clarify how my points are relevant to the OP. The reasons given my the following experts as to why the plane impacts were not sufficient enough to bring down the towers is exactly what the explosive would be needed for. They just get wrong what that something else was.

So what exactly did the 9/11 demolitions do? What the impacts and the fires couldn't of done.

“Even with the airplane impact and jet-fuel-ignited multi-floor fires, which are not normal building fires, the buildings would likely not have collapsed had it not been for the fireproofing that had been dislodged,” - Shyam Sunder NIST

Because of the FACT that "Even with the airplane impact and jet-fuel-ignited multi-floor fires, which are not normal building fires, the buildings would likely not have collapsed" something else would have been needed to complete the job of collapsing the building. Explosive would be the obvious FIRST choice to investigate not some speculative story about dislodged fire-proofing. Especially given the fact that this exact location was the target for explosives before.

“The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components: core columns, floors, and perimeter columns. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multifloor fires.” - NIST[i]

Because the towers "withstood the impacts" something else was needed to bring the tower down. Since fire has never in the history of steel constructed high-rises caused a global collapse the obvious cause to investigate would be explosives.

[i]“the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure” - Thomas Eagar, an MIT professor who supports the official theory

Because “the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure” something else was needed to bring the tower down. What is usually used to take out columns of a steel constructed high-rise in need of removal? That's right only one answer here... EXPLOSIVES.

Because the plane impacts were not sufficient enough and according to at least one expert...

“The plane impact did nothing to this building,”’ - Professor Astaneh-Asl of University of California

EXPLOSIVES are the obvious choice to investigate as to what completed the WTC collapses.

[chillzero]

Nice try LastChild, however, I don't see anythign there that actually answers the OP.

Where do you think exposives needed to be placed?
How many of them?
What was that placement designed to do to the structure?

[A W Smith]

Expensive how? Don't we ever retire old airliners and send them to the scrap heap? Think of the money we could save. And destroying surrounding buildings is just an added bonus in a military situation isn't it? Just think... one plane could take out a nuclear facility AND a terrorist compound across the street. It might take a couple hours but you saw what happen on 9/11. Whatever is across the street from the plane crash is coming down you can bet on it!

Just think how much better an old 767 would of out performed these very expensive US missiles that failed to take down this much smaller then the WTC building...

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1124/701403445_93e028afce.jpg?v=0

You debunkers really have discovered something.

Congratulations.

kamikaze (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze

[LastChild]

Nice try LastChild, however, I don't see anythign there that actually answers the OP.

[QUOTE=chillzero;3692047]Where do you think exposives needed to be placed?

Well if there is any validity to the official version of the upper block pushing down on the lower structure initiating collapse I would guess that any position lower then then the impact would do it that much better. The lower the better.

How many of them?

The more the better. Even just one more then the impact itself would be that much better.

What was that placement designed to do to the structure?

Weakening of the core and/or the foundation/basement level would be the obvious targets.

[CHF]

LastChild,

Did the CD charges....
- remove all resistance to the upper block? YES or NO.
- blast the towers into dust? YES or NO.
- eject massive beams horizontally? YES or NO.
- destroy the sub-levels and lobby? YES or NO.
- or did they just serve to get the collapse started (cuz a jet impact and a multi-floor inferno couldn't) before gravity took it from there? YES or NO.

[theauthor]

Nice try LastChild, however, I don't see anythign there that actually answers the OP.

Where do you think exposives needed to be placed?
How many of them?
What was that placement designed to do to the structure?

The OP, and your post, are simply examples of number 14 on the list of 25 tactics of truth suppression:

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best items qualifying for rule 10.

Example: "Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is innocent as you claim, who really killed Martin Luther King, how was it planned and executed, how did they frame Ray and fool the FBI, and why?"


http://www.benfrank.net/disinfo/

The OP is, frankly, ridiculous.

[CHF]

The OP, and your post, are simply examples of number 14 on the list of 25 tactics of truth suppression:

Asking you to explain what you think the CD charges did is "truth suppression?" :eye-poppi

It's almost like you guys don't want your theories to advance beyond JAQ-off status.

[aggle-rithm]

The OP, and your post, are simply examples of number 14 on the list of 25 tactics of truth suppression:




http://www.benfrank.net/disinfo/

The OP is, frankly, ridiculous.

The difference is, we KNOW MLK was shot, but the use of CD charges is completely speculative. The OP asks that truthers back up with speculation with a little more detail on how it might have worked.

A better analogy would be this: You claim that MLK was indeed shot, but the bullet would not have killed him; he also had to have been poisoned. It would be perfectly reasonable for someone to ask how he was poisoned, who did it, and why it would have been necessary in addition to the shooting.

Also, in the absence of any evidence of poison, why would poison necessarily be the secondary cause of death if the bullet wound wasn't sufficient?

[Pardalis]

Bump for Dictator Cheney.

I'd like him/her to answer these please:

Claiming that the World Trade Center was a controlled demolition implies one of two things:

1. The perpetrators initiated the collapse with explosive devices.
2. The perpetrators knew that the planes would initiate the collapse, and therefore only used explosives to help it along.

For the first point, I would have to question how on Earth explosives could survive an airliner impact, being that the collapses began at the impact points.

For the second point, I would have to question how the perpetrators could be 100% sure that the planes would initiate a collapse. If they didn't, firefighters and clean up teams surely would have found the explosives during clean-up. Furthermore, I would also have to question why the buildings would even need to entirely collapse for the perpetrators to achieve their goals. It seems to me like two burning buildings would have been enough to go into Iraq/Afghanistan, and achieving a complete collapse merely added to the risk factor for those who planned such an operation.

Neither of these two theories makes any logical sense. The theory that terrorists flew planes into the buildings and got lucky by causing enough impact and fire damage to cause a collapse does, on the other hand, make sense.

But you said the purpose of the explosives was to keep the collapse going. What you're describing was well before the collapse.

This appears to be your line of reasoning:

1. The collapse initiated because of the fires and damage, but this was not sufficient to bring down the buildings.
2. Therefore, explosive charges were set off on three floors below the crash site.
3. We know there were explosive charges set off because dust and debris is seen shooting out of windows on these floors.
4. Further evidence can be found in the reports of explosions in the sublevels an hour before the collapse.

I think you should have stopped at number 3. You almost had a coherent argument going there.

This gets right back to the crux of the issue: Truthers want to believe in explosive charges because they are evidence that something suspicious was going on. People of a more rational bent are trying to get the truthers to look at the issue from a more logical standpoint: What were the explosive charges FOR? Item number 4 above seems to indicate that the purpose of the charges is to give truthers hope that there is something suspicious going on.

And so it goes, ad nauseum...