A thread just for Algebra

[Macgyver1968]

As I stated earlier, I take a common sense approach to discussing 9/11. Many of the theories I hear from those in the TM, to me, violate KISS...not the rock band..but "Keep it Simple Stupid"

Algebra, you have stated that you believe that explosives were used to bring down the towers. To me, this is anti-kiss. There's no way anyone could have known that the initial impacts of the planes would not have caused an immediate collapse of the towers. So if the "insiders" were planning these events ahead of time, why didn't they set off their charges when the planes hit?....when the explosions from the fuel and impact would mask the sound and shockwaves of the demolition devices? More people would have been killed...why did they wait almost an hour to set off the charges?

Why not just replicate the 93 attack by placing strategic charges in the basement and bring the entire tower down without bothering with planes? There was already precedent for this type of attack...why use both planes and bombs, when one or the other would have accomplished the goal...to piss off Americans enough to go to war?

[Algebra34]

As I stated earlier, I take a common sense approach to discussing 9/11. Many of the theories I hear from those in the TM, to me, violate KISS...not the rock band..but "Keep it Simple Stupid"

Algebra, you have stated that you believe that explosives were used to bring down the towers.

No. I don't believe it's been investigated enough.

To me, this is anti-kiss. There's no way anyone could have known that the initial impacts of the planes would not have caused an immediate collapse of the towers.

There's no way anyone could have known that the initial impacts of the planes would have caused an immediate collapse of the towers.

Even in the oficial version I don't think the hijackers expected to level the entire WTC complex.

So if the "insiders" were planning these events ahead of time, why didn't they set off their charges when the planes hit?....when the explosions from the fuel and impact would mask the sound and shockwaves of the demolition devices? More people would have been killed...why did they wait almost an hour to set off the charges?

I don't know. Maybe they did set something off to comprimise the structure at that point and it still took awhile for the entire thing to collapse. I have no idea. I do know there are claims of exlosions in the basement either at or near the time of the impacts.

Why not just replicate the 93 attack by placing strategic charges in the basement and bring the entire tower down without bothering with planes? There was already precedent for this type of attack...why use both planes and bombs, when one or the other would have accomplished the goal...to piss off Americans enough to go to war?

I don't know. I do know though that the PANY/NJ was sued for the 93 attacks and found more liable than the terrorists themselves. This was because the jury thought the explosives should have never got near the building. It was a security breach. No one at the WTC could have protected from planes though. No one liable at the WTC.

[Orphia Nay]

I don't know.


I don't know.

Ah, the good old Argument from Ignorance fallacy. A great start to your thread. ;)

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

"An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence."

Maybe they did set something off to comprimise the structure at that point and it still took awhile for the entire thing to collapse. I have no idea. I do know there are claims of exlosions in the basement either at or near the time of the impacts.

So if there were bombs in the basement, why did the towers fall from the top down? What on earth was the point of blowing up the basement?

Oh, and "explosions" does not equal "bombs", especially when there's fire and jet fuel involved.

[Algebra34]

Ah, the good old Argument from Ignorance fallacy. A great start to your thread. ;)

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

"An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence."



So if there were bombs in the basement, why did the towers fall from the top down? What on earth was the point of blowing up the basement?

Oh, and "explosions" does not equal "bombs", especially when there's fire and jet fuel involved.

Oh man. Here we go. I'm not ignorant. Thank you

The bombs (if there were bombs) would be I guess to compromise the core and any resistance it might give during the collapse.

[Macgyver1968]

No. I don't believe it's been investigated enough.

Then I apologize for assuming your position


There's no way anyone could have known that the initial impacts of the planes would have caused an immediate collapse of the towers.


So we agree that no one could have known that the initial impacts would have caused a collapse or not. So why wait an hour? Why risk it and wait an hour when setting off the charges at impact would cause greater destruction and less risk of the charges being discovered? If the planes did in fact cause a collapse at impact and the charges weren't set off, all of the explosive material would have been left behind to discover.

Even in the oficial version I don't think the hijackers expected to level the entire WTC complex.


I agree with you on this point. I think they hoped to bring down the towers, but were unsure that they would. I'm sure they were very happy to see the fruits of their labor were successful.


I don't know. Maybe they did set something off to comprimise the structure at that point and it still took awhile for the entire thing to collapse. I have no idea. I do know there are claims of exlosions in the basement either at or near the time of the impacts.


But what could you set off an hour ahead of time that compromise the structure? I know of no device that could do that. The colapse started at the impact point, so explosions in the basement mean nothing, if the collapse didn't start in the basement.


I don't know. I do know though that the PANY/NJ was sued for the 93 attacks and found more liable than the terrorists themselves. This was because the jury thought the explosives should have never got near the building. It was a security breach. No one at the WTC could have protected from planes though. No one liable at the WTC.

"insiders" could have easily breached the security at the WTC...with their resources, a faked chemical spill could have covered the planting of the bombs. No one wants to come close to a chemical spill.

Why would the insiders intentionally plan something that was far more complex than it had to be, why would the create this Rube Goldberg of plan, when much simpler options where available?

[Orphia Nay]

Oh man. Here we go. I'm not ignorant. Thank you

Please don't think I was calling you ignorant. You were using an "Argument from Ignorance" which is something completely different.

The bombs (if there were bombs) would be I guess to compromise the core and any resistance it might give during the collapse.

What resistance can the basement give?

[Algebra34]

Then I apologize for assuming your position

No offense takin.

So we agree that no one could have known that the initial impacts would have caused a collapse or not. So why wait an hour?

What do you mean? Should the buildings have collapsed the second the planes hit them? When I first saw it on the news I thought it was a little plane. Those buildings were massive. It looked like a little hole in the tower. The newscasters didn't even realize it was a jetliner at first. It looked like a stupid accident.

If it was an inside job. Which I have absolutely no proof of. Why make it look anymore ridiculous than it already is. You need to sell it. A building the size of one of the towers isn't going to completely collapse on impact from one plane.

Why risk it and wait an hour when setting off the charges at impact would cause greater destruction and less risk of the charges being discovered?

I think I answered this. Who would believe that the second a plane, no matter what size, would collapse the tower on impact? This is a plan? Am I not understanding your question?

If the planes did in fact cause a collapse at impact and the charges weren't set off, all of the explosive material would have been left behind to discover.

Do you know that there are still over 1,000 victims remains still not accounted for? And everyone was looking for them. Who was looking for explosives evidence?

[Orphia Nay]

The other day I went into the laundry. I was looking for pestilence, but I immediately saw a huge cockroach. How on earth did I see it if I "wasn't looking for it"???

[TruthersLie]

What do you mean? Should the buildings have collapsed the second the planes hit them? When I first saw it on the news I thought it was a little plane. Those buildings were massive. It looked like a little hole in the tower. The newscasters didn't even realize it was a jetliner at first. It looked like a stupid accident.


There are quite a few structural engineers who thought it could have happened. Reports from the survivors state they thought it just might tip over.

The force exerted on the towers was immense.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Energy911.jpg


If it was an inside job. Which I have absolutely no proof of. Why make it look anymore ridiculous than it already is. You need to sell it. A building the size of one of the towers isn't going to completely collapse on impact from one plane.

You are correct there is NO proof of an inside job. Zip.
Just like there is NO proof of any explosives used on the towers or wtc7

The idea of using explosives when the JETs struck is an intersting one... and would make MUCH more sense as the impact of the jets would partially mask explosives... but then the towers would have collapsed immediately.

what kind of explosives surivive huge fires for up to an hour, and then explode silently?


Do you know that there are still over 1,000 victims remains still not accounted for? And everyone was looking for them. Who was looking for explosives evidence?
Yup. You know HI I explained this to you before... and so did others.
1. There are literally thousands of unidentified body parts/dna recovered. Why were they unidentified? Oh becaues they were too burned, or too degraded to gain viable DNA.

what would you expect to find after thousands of tons of debris fell on them? AFter they were in the underground FIRES for up to 3 months? In temperatures above 500C for 3 months? Oh can't forget the water either...

2. Your ignorance of CD explosives is noted. There would literally be MILES of det cord in the debris which were being sifted by hand looking for body parts. There would be literally unexploded demolitons packs, blasting caps, and the rest.

3. Yet again, please show us any explosive powerful enough to cut the structural steel that explodes silently. We will wait for it.

[Algebra34]

The other day I went into the laundry. I was looking for pestilence, but I immediately saw a huge cockroach. How on earth did I see it if I "wasn't looking for it"???

Why would you look for pestilence at the laundry? Was it dirty? is this a riddle? maybe you should have looked for pesticide.

[Algebra34]

4What resistance can the basement give?

The part where the core was. What did the 93 attackers target but couldn't park the car in the right spot?

[Orphia Nay]

The other day I went into the laundry. I was looking for pestilence, but I immediately saw a huge cockroach. How on earth did I see it if I "wasn't looking for it"???

Why would you look for pestilence at the laundry? Was it dirty? is this a riddle? maybe you should have looked for pesticide.

Oops, typo. I meant I wasn't looking for pestilence.

The cockroach stuck out like the proverbial dogs' bits. Just like det cord etc would do in the rubble.

[Algebra34]

Oops, typo. I meant I wasn't looking for pestilence.

The cockroach stuck out like the proverbial dogs' bits. Just like det cord etc would do in the rubble.

Those typos are gonna kill me. I'm drinkin here. Can I be reported for that?

who said anything about det cord? Even if there was any who was looking for it? The same people who didn't find black boxes and over 1,000 victims?

[lionking]

Can any CT'er please explain how collapsing towers would be any more horrific than towers burning for day after day?

[TokenMac]

solve for x

2x+2=8

[Algebra34]

So...

The other day I went into the laundry. I wasn't looking for pestilence, but I immediately saw a huge cockroach. How on earth did I see it if I "wasn't looking for it"???

Hmmm... You weren't looking for something but it was showed up regardless? What does it matter if you were looking for it or not? Is this irony for you?

spit it out.

[Algebra34]

Can any CT'er please explain how collapsing towers would be any more horrific than towers burning for day after day?

why? who said this?

[Algebra34]

solve for x

2x+2=8

I don't know. 9?

[Orphia Nay]

Hmmm... You weren't looking for something but it was showed up regardless? What does it matter if you were looking for it or not? Is this irony for you?

spit it out.

It was in reply to your question:

Who was looking for explosives evidence?

Explosive evidence would show up regardless of whether it was being "looked for".

[Algebra34]

The other day I went into the laundry. I was looking for pestilence, but I immediately saw a huge cockroach. How on earth did I see it if I "wasn't looking for it"???

okay I get it now. I had to read my last post before this first. duhhhhhh
You weren't looking for it but it was obviously there. Okay.

I don't think much could be made out in the mess that was groundzero. People were looking for survivors. That's it. Most of these people wouldn't know a det cord if there was one. Det cord? really?

[dtugg]

I don't know. 9?

lol

[Algebra34]

I am a twoofer for sure according to this place and if anyone has any 9/11 questions for me just ask. I will try to respond when I can. Good Night.

[Orphia Nay]

okay I get it now. I had to read my last post before this first. duhhhhhh
You weren't looking for it but it was obviously there. Okay.

I don't think much could be made out in the mess that was groundzero. People were looking for survivors. That's it. Most of these people wouldn't know a det cord if there was one. Det cord? really?

Some would recognise det cord. Most would go "WTF?" if they saw steel blown apart by explosives, instead of steel weakened by the fires. No?

[Björn Toulouse]

I am a twoofer for sure according to this place and if anyone has any 9/11 questions for me just ask. I will try to respond when I can. Good Night.


Should we ask those questions here or on your blog?

[GlennB]

I don't think much could be made out in the mess that was groundzero. People were looking for survivors. That's it. Most of these people wouldn't know a det cord if there was one. Det cord? really?

That's plain wrong, so please educate yourself on the subject before venturing such strong opinions. The debris was meticulously examined down to small items (such as keys) by trained and experienced personel. Not at GZ itself, of course.

Here (http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/wtc/recovery/sortingprocess.html)is but one site that describes the process.

[JAStewart]

I don't know. 9?
Nominated for a stundie.

[triforcharity]

okay I get it now. I had to read my last post before this first. duhhhhhh
You weren't looking for it but it was obviously there. Okay.

I don't think much could be made out in the mess that was groundzero. People were looking for survivors. That's it. Most of these people wouldn't know a det cord if there was one. Det cord? really?


The FIREFIGHTERS possibly wouldn't know, but the FBI, ATF, and NYPD agents sifting through the debris at Fresh Kills landfill would have certainly found it.

But, I wanted to tell you something kid. I was there. I was looking for my friend in that pile. Sure, we were looking for survivors/victims. But, along the way, I also found parts to a keyboard, an ashtray, a desk lamp, some guys foot, and a half a pack of Newports. Now, even though I wasn't LOOKING for those Newports, I still found them.

You ignorace is staggering.

[twinstead]

Perhaps the building was brought down by menthol cigarettes...

[Gaspode]

Some posts moved to AAH (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=58).

Enough of the sock puppet accusations please. Such posts are off-topic and may in future be infracted for breach of rule 11.

[Algebra34]

That's plain wrong, so please educate yourself on the subject before venturing such strong opinions. The debris was meticulously examined down to small items (such as keys) by trained and experienced personel. Not at GZ itself, of course.

No it's not wrong. Where are the black boxes? Where are over 1,000 victims. And why not at GZ itself?

[Algebra34]

The FIREFIGHTERS possibly wouldn't know, but the FBI, ATF, and NYPD agents sifting through the debris at Fresh Kills landfill would have certainly found it.

But, I wanted to tell you something kid. I was there. I was looking for my friend in that pile. Sure, we were looking for survivors/victims. But, along the way, I also found parts to a keyboard, an ashtray, a desk lamp, some guys foot, and a half a pack of Newports. Now, even though I wasn't LOOKING for those Newports, I still found them.

You ignorace is staggering.

"You have two 110 story office buildings.
You don't find a desk, you don't find a chair, you don't find a telephone, a computer. The biggest piece of a telephone i found was half of the keypad.
The building collapsed to dust."-- Joe Casaliggi, firefighter

[BigAl]

"You have two 110 story office buildings.
You don't find a desk, you don't find a chair, you don't find a telephone, a computer. The biggest piece of a telephone i found was half of the keypad.
The building collapsed to dust."-- Joe Casaliggi, firefighter

You've been fed a cherry-picked quote. If you had seen it in the film it's mined from (*), you'd know that fireman Joe was sitting on a pile consisting of office debris exactly like he says doesn't exist.

Hyperbole and physical and emotional exhaustion explains much of the Twoofer quotes better than man-made demolition does.

* The Naudet 9/11 film.

[Algebra34]

You've been fed a cherry-picked quote. If you had seen it in the film it's mined from (*), you'd know that fireman Joe was sitting on a pile consisting of office debris exactly like he says doesn't exist.

Hyperbole and physical and emotional exhaustion explains much of the Twoofer quotes better than man-made demolition does.

* The Naudet 9/11 film.

I haven't been fed anything. Where are the blackboxes if the search was so meticulous?

[WildCat]

The bombs (if there were bombs) would be I guess to compromise the core and any resistance it might give during the collapse.
So you don't think the floor system failed before the cores did? Then why does the video evidence clearly show the core columns standing briefly after the building collapsed around them?

[Travis]

So, wait, now your claiming that everything was reduced to dust?

And, let's back up here, why do you think it was impossible for the plane impacts to initiate events that would lead to the collapse?

[WildCat]

I don't know. 9?
Was this serious?

[WildCat]

"You have two 110 story office buildings.
You don't find a desk, you don't find a chair, you don't find a telephone, a computer. The biggest piece of a telephone i found was half of the keypad.
The building collapsed to dust."-- Joe Casaliggi, firefighter
So it is your contention that the WTC was so packed with explosives/therm*te/space beams/whatever from basement to roof that it turned everything to dust? :jaw-dropp

[Travis]

I haven't been fed anything. Where are the blackboxes if the search was so meticulous?

The black boxes were but four items that may have been pulverized into pieces so small as to be unrecognizable as such. Alternatively they may have gotten lodged in a space in the debris pile that was particularly hot and then melted (the weren't designed, after all, to have to sit in fires for days upon days after a crash).


That could happen to four small boxes. You are alleging there were thousands of miles of detcord, thousands of detonators and thousands of steel pieces with the telltale signs of explosive jet severing that were, for some reason, not found.

[Algebra34]

Was this serious?

I don't know what that is. I just threw out a random number. 2x+2=8 would mean to me that 2x = 6. So does x =3? Do you multiply it? I have no idea. So what?

[Algebra34]

The black boxes were but four items that may have been pulverized into pieces so small as to be unrecognizable as such. Alternatively they may have gotten lodged in a space in the debris pile that was particularly hot and then melted (the weren't designed, after all, to have to sit in fires for days upon days after a crash).


That could happen to four small boxes. You are alleging there were thousands of miles of detcord, thousands of detonators and thousands of steel pieces with the telltale signs of explosive jet severing that were, for some reason, not found.

So these four items were the only things not found in the meticulous search? how inconvienent. and where did I even alledge detcord was used a all?

[TruthersLie]

bump for algebra since you dodged it.
There are quite a few structural engineers who thought it could have happened. Reports from the survivors state they thought it just might tip over.

The force exerted on the towers was immense.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Energy911.jpg


You are correct there is NO proof of an inside job. Zip.
Just like there is NO proof of any explosives used on the towers or wtc7

The idea of using explosives when the JETs struck is an intersting one... and would make MUCH more sense as the impact of the jets would partially mask explosives... but then the towers would have collapsed immediately.

what kind of explosives surivive huge fires for up to an hour, and then explode silently?


Yup. You know I explained this to you before... and so did others.
1. There are literally thousands of unidentified body parts/dna recovered. Why were they unidentified? Oh becaues they were too burned, or too degraded to gain viable DNA.

what would you expect to find after thousands of tons of debris fell on them? AFter they were in the underground FIRES for up to 3 months? In temperatures above 500C for 3 months? Oh can't forget the water either...

2. Your ignorance of CD explosives is noted. There would literally be MILES of det cord in the debris which were being sifted by hand looking for body parts. There would be literally unexploded demolitons packs, blasting caps, and the rest.

3. Yet again, please show us any explosive powerful enough to cut the structural steel that explodes silently. We will wait for it.

[Algebra34]

So it is your contention that the WTC was so packed with explosives/therm*te/space beams/whatever from basement to roof that it turned everything to dust? :jaw-dropp

It's my contention that everything that was there befoe wasn't found afterwards. So just claiming because something wasn't found means it was never there is wrong. And I never even claimed it to be there in the first place.

[Algebra34]

fyi TruthersLie

I have 3 people on ignore. You are one of them. don't bother.

[Algebra34]

So you don't think the floor system failed before the cores did? Then why does the video evidence clearly show the core columns standing briefly after the building collapsed around them?

One part of the core was shown to be standing for a few seconds. not the entire core. no one even knows for sure the exact mechanisms of the collapses. You can't see it.

[Unsecured Coins]

and you don't understand that because the cores still stood it means CD is moot?

[Algebra34]

and you don't understand that because the cores still stood it means CD is moot?

the cores didn't stand.

[~enigma~]

the cores didn't stand.
2 posts above you said...

One part of the core was shown to be standing for a few seconds. not the entire core. no one even knows for sure the exact mechanisms of the collapses. You can't see it.


Did you forget already?

[Algebra34]

2 posts above you said...




Did you forget already?

one part isn't the entire core. The core was gone when the collapse completed. Just because one piece of it might have been standing last proves what?

[TruthersLie]

Well algebra, don't worry. I'll keep on replying to the BS you spew...

Of course as a newbie, I haven't done anything against you except call you on your BS... I wonder why you have me on ignore...

[~enigma~]

one part isn't the entire core. The core was gone when the collapse completed. Just because one piece of it might have been standing last proves what?
Did you even read UC's post or are you just disagreeing because your a truthotard?

ETA - I'm just asking questions.

[Algebra34]

Did you even read UC's post or are you just disagreeing because your a truthotard?

the core didn't stand. the core went down with the rest of the building. complete global collapse.

[funk de fino]

the core didn't stand. the core went down with the rest of the building. complete global collapse.

Liar.

[Algebra34]

Liar.

yeah okay

[GlennB]

the cores didn't stand.

Here's rather a lot of WTC1's core standing, several seconds after the collapse wave passed it by. If you want to see rather a lot of the WTC2 core still standing, just shout.

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/wtc1peelingcore.jpg

[Unsecured Coins]

don't forget the 5 D's when replying, Algebra

[~enigma~]

the core didn't stand. the core went down with the rest of the building. complete global collapse.
Bye

[Algebra34]

Here's rather a lot of WTC1's core standing,

rather a lot ? says you.

several seconds after the collapse wave passed it by.

The collapse isn't even complete yet in that picture.

If you want to see rather a lot of the WTC2 core still standing, just shout.

Not a lot. and only if I look quick and then it's gone with the rest of the building. There were also some portions of floor still standing near the bottom. So what?

[Unsecured Coins]

so... that kills your could be explosives scenario

[Furcifer]

There's very little to work with here. Algebra has neither the capacity nor the will to grasp simple concepts.

[tsig]

It's my contention that everything that was there befoe wasn't found afterwards. So just claiming because something wasn't found means it was never there is wrong. And I never even claimed it to be there in the first place.

I feel there's a meaning here but I just can't grasp it.:confused:

[GlennB]

The collapse isn't even complete yet in that picture.



That's because part of the core is still standing.

You are clearly either a troll or beyond logic. Have a nice life.

[Arus808]

Well then, here is his quote in context. You can't avoid the facts, so when painted into a corner, you cower


There are quite a few structural engineers who thought it could have happened. Reports from the survivors state they thought it just might tip over.

The force exerted on the towers was immense.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Energy911.jpg


You are correct there is NO proof of an inside job. Zip.
Just like there is NO proof of any explosives used on the towers or wtc7

The idea of using explosives when the JETs struck is an intersting one... and would make MUCH more sense as the impact of the jets would partially mask explosives... but then the towers would have collapsed immediately.

what kind of explosives surivive huge fires for up to an hour, and then explode silently?


Yup. You know HI I explained this to you before... and so did others.
1. There are literally thousands of unidentified body parts/dna recovered. Why were they unidentified? Oh becaues they were too burned, or too degraded to gain viable DNA.

what would you expect to find after thousands of tons of debris fell on them? AFter they were in the underground FIRES for up to 3 months? In temperatures above 500C for 3 months? Oh can't forget the water either...

2. Your ignorance of CD explosives is noted. There would literally be MILES of det cord in the debris which were being sifted by hand looking for body parts. There would be literally unexploded demolitons packs, blasting caps, and the rest.

3. Yet again, please show us any explosive powerful enough to cut the structural steel that explodes silently. We will wait for it.

[GlennB]

It's my contention that everything that was there befoe wasn't found afterwards. So just claiming because something wasn't found means it was never there is wrong. And I never even claimed it to be there in the first place.

I feel there's a meaning here but I just can't grasp it.:confused:

Yeah. I was going to Stundify it but couldn't quite work out whether the post might make sense. In an algebraic kind of way.

It's my contention that everything that was there befoe wasn't found afterwards.

True. Some things never showed up again in recognisable form. :(

So just claiming because something wasn't found means it was never there is wrong

Also true. This also seems to apply to his black boxes. They weren't found. Not sure what his point is, mind.

And I never even claimed it to be there in the first place.

Mysterious. The pronoun "it", here, seems to refer to "something" from above. But what ???? I call troll savant. This is deep stuff. Break out the black hecliopooters. He's on to us!

[WildCat]

It's my contention that everything that was there befoe wasn't found afterwards. So just claiming because something wasn't found means it was never there is wrong. And I never even claimed it to be there in the first place.
So you think the WTC may have been empty on 9/11?

[Algebra34]

I never claimed CD or Det cord. But just claiming Det cord wasn't found doesn't debunk anything. Thousands of victims still missing. Blackboxes still missing. So what? Should I claim now they were never there? Is that what you all call debunking?

[Retrograde]

No it's not wrong. Where are the black boxes? Where are over 1,000 victims. And why not at GZ itself?

Where the black boxes are is an interesting question, not that finding them is going to change anyone's views on why the planes crashed. As others have pointed out, possibly pulverized into random bits of electronics, or sandwiched in some of the "meteors" recovered from the site. Or they could have separated from the planes during the initial impacts and ended up on the roofs of nearby buildings, like some of the plane parts. Or they could have been picked up as a souvenir by a random person on the street, who's now afraid to return them. A lot of artifacts were recovered (see http://americanhistory.si.edu/SEPTEMBER11/collection/record.asp?ID=42 for some office items found in the wreckage - including a briefcase, melted coins and plane parts) but remember we're talking about 220 acres' worth of collapsed office space to search - and that's not counting WTC3-7.

[Algebra34]

...but remember we're talking about 220 acres' worth of collapsed office space to search - and that's not counting WTC3-7.

Oh I remember. It's the people here pointing to the so called meticulous cleanup that I'm addressing. In this meticulous cleanup victims and blackboxes were being search for but were never all found. My point IS that just because something wasn't found doesn't mean it was never there. And I never even claimed to know explosives were in the building in the first place. I was told that we know there weren't any just because no evidense of them was found when no one was even looking for that evidense. If this is the debunker logic stick to it across the board or don't bother.

[triforcharity]

No it's not wrong. Where are the black boxes? Where are over 1,000 victims. And why not at GZ itself?

Well, I am sure if we could glue the dust that became those items, or the bits of crap that it was bashed into, we could tell you.

[triforcharity]

"You have two 110 story office buildings.
You don't find a desk, you don't find a chair, you don't find a telephone, a computer. The biggest piece of a telephone i found was half of the keypad.
The building collapsed to dust."-- Joe Casaliggi, firefighter

So, what you're saying is that just because one person, who might have only been there one, two, maybe three days, didn't find anything, that means NONE of us found anything?? I found a car.

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/concreteremains2.jpg

[triforcharity]

Oh I remember. It's the people here pointing to the so called meticulous cleanup that I'm addressing. In this meticulous cleanup victims and blackboxes were being search for but were never all found. My point IS that just because something wasn't found doesn't mean it was never there. And I never even claimed to know explosives were in the building in the first place. I was told that we know there weren't any just because no evidense of them was found when no one was even looking for that evidense. If this is the debunker logic stick to it across the board or don't bother.

You're woo is showing.

[Algebra34]

So, what you're saying is that just because one person, who might have only been there one, two, maybe three days, didn't find anything, that means NONE of us found anything?? I found a car.


I know things were there and were found later. I also know things were there but were never found afterwards. That's MY point. Don't tell me just because something wasn't found means it was never there especially when no one was looking for it. They were looking for victims. That was the priority and rightfully so. It was a big frigging mess. How meticulous could they be with no time to waste?

[Algebra34]

You're woo is showing.

What woo?

[triforcharity]

I know things were there and were found later. I also know things were there but were never found afterwards. That's MY point. Don't tell me just because something wasn't found means it was never there especially when no one was looking for it. They were looking for victims. That was the priority and rightfully so. It was a big frigging mess. How meticulous could they be with no time to waste?

You seem to not remember Fresh Kills landfill. The firefighters moved stuff, and got to the victims and the survivors. After that, the guys at Fresh Kills were sorting through the debris.

Now, was I looking for that car?? No. Did I find it??? Yes.

**** the det cord. Who cares. There is no evidence of explosives. Aanywhere. At all.

[Algebra34]

You seem to not remember Fresh Kills landfill. The firefighters moved stuff, and got to the victims and the survivors. After that, the guys at Fresh Kills were sorting through the debris.

Now, was I looking for that car?? No. Did I find it??? Yes.

**** the det cord. Who cares. There is no evidence of explosives. Aanywhere. At all.

I didn't bring up det cord. Either the search at GZ or the Fresh Kills was so meticulous that everything that was there before hand could be accounted for afterwards, or it wasn't and somethings that we know were there were never seen again. I'm not the one trying to have it both ways.

[Macgyver1968]

I didn't bring up det cord. Either the search at GZ or the Fresh Kills was so meticulous that everything that was there before hand could be accounted for afterwards, or it wasn't and somethings that we know were there were never seen again. I'm not the one trying to have it both ways.

Hey, Algebra...did you get as drunk as I did last night? That was fun!

Could you please clarify the point your making here. I'm not understanding where you're going with this. Thanks.

[Furcifer]

I'm not saying they didn't or did find pastrami on pumpernickel with hot mustard. I'm saying that if those tasty sandwiches were there before then they were there after. They didn't find everything so you can't rule out anything. If you can't rule out anything then everything is possible, especially pastrami on pumpernickel with hot mustard.

[Macgyver1968]

Hmmm....pastrami on pumpernickel with hot mustard....I'm hungry now. :)

[Algebra34]

Hey, Algebra...did you get as drunk as I did last night? That was fun!

Could you please clarify the point your making here. I'm not understanding where you're going with this. Thanks.

Heck yeah!

It was put to me that if there were explosives in the building (which I never claimed to know in the first place) that evidense of said explosives would have been discovered in the cleanup even though no one was looking for it.
I came back with all the things that weren't found in cleanup according to the official version (blackboxes, some victims, etc.) that were being looked for but were never found. My point is that just because something wasn't found afterwards doesn't prove it was never there.

[Algebra34]

Hmmm....pastrami on pumpernickel with hot mustard....I'm hungry now. :)

auuuggg not me. hungover.

[triforcharity]

I didn't bring up det cord. Either the search at GZ or the Fresh Kills was so meticulous that everything that was there before hand could be accounted for afterwards, or it wasn't and somethings that we know were there were never seen again. I'm not the one trying to have it both ways.

Twoofie,

Why is this so hard for you to understand?? Why?? Somme things that were there before the collapse were never recovered.

A few reasons.

A-They were pulverized.
B-They were burned so bad that they couldn't have possibly been identified
C-It is inside one of the "meteorites".

Now, who is trying to have it both ways??? Nobody here. We are just saaying the possibility of no debt cord ever being recovered is slim to none, considering the AMOUNT of det cord that would have had to be used. The fact that there were only 4 of such an item, and none of them survived, is not suprising.

[BigAl]

Twoofie,

Why is this so hard for you to understand?? Why?? Somme things that were there before the collapse were never recovered.

A few reasons.

A-They were pulverized.
B-They were burned so bad that they couldn't have possibly been identified
C-It is inside one of the "meteorites".


Debris was scattered over maybe as much as 100 acres of rooftops and nooks and crevices between buildings.

[Algebra34]

Twoofie,

Why is this so hard for you to understand?? Why?? Somme things that were there before the collapse were never recovered.

A few reasons.

A-They were pulverized.
B-They were burned so bad that they couldn't have possibly been identified
C-It is inside one of the "meteorites".

Now, who is trying to have it both ways??? Nobody here. We are just saaying the possibility of no debt cord ever being recovered is slim to none, considering the AMOUNT of det cord that would have had to be used. The fact that there were only 4 of such an item, and none of them survived, is not suprising.

Sounds like you are trying to have it both ways to me. No matter how you try to word it. Twoofie? That's funny you make me laugh.

[Macgyver1968]

Heck yeah!

It was put to me that if there were explosives in the building (which I never claimed to know in the first place) that evidense of said explosives would have been discovered in the cleanup even though no one was looking for it.
I came back with all the things that weren't found in cleanup according to the official version (blackboxes, some victims, etc.) that were being looked for but were never found. My point is that just because something wasn't found afterwards doesn't prove it was never there.

Ahh..I see. That clears that up.

The only problem, there were only 4 black boxes (2 from each plane). If explosives were used, there would have been hundreds if not thousands of charges used. It only seems reasonable to me that at least some of them or parts of them would have been found. They used cadaver dogs to help look for the victims in the remains in the pile. At least some of the dogs were cross-trained to sniff explosives...but none of them alerted. Even a small residue of the explosive would have been detected by them.

[kookbreaker]

Heck yeah!

It was put to me that if there were explosives in the building (which I never claimed to know in the first place) that evidense of said explosives would have been discovered in the cleanup even though no one was looking for it.
I came back with all the things that weren't found in cleanup according to the official version (blackboxes, some victims, etc.) that were being looked for but were never found. My point is that just because something wasn't found afterwards doesn't prove it was never there.

So in short you were effectively comparing black boxes to detcord.

Thousands of miles of detcord, which is effectively squishproof and fairly fire resistant to a handful of objects that can be destroyed by fire and or impact. You want to say that because black boxes were not found, that detcord could be overlooked.

Yeah....

[Furcifer]

My point is that just because something wasn't found afterwords doesn't prove it was never there.

Like the unicorn that ate my pastrami on pumpernickel with hot mustard?

;)

(feel free to gloss over this post and never consider the ramifications)

[twinstead]

Half the threads in this subforum consist of truthers trying to spin the fact that absolutely no physical evidence of ANY type of explosives was found in a rubble pile that was gone through with a fine-toothed comb. This thread is no exception. How on Earth a theory with no physical evidence to support it manage to be considered more likely than one that has a HUGE amount of evidence, I'll never know, but here you have it.

[Algebra34]

Ahh..I see. That clears that up.

The only problem, there were only 4 black boxes (2 from each plane). If explosives were used, there would have been hundreds if not thousands of charges used. It only seems reasonable to me that at least some of them or parts of them would have been found. They used cadaver dogs to help look for the victims in the remains in the pile. At least some of the dogs were cross-trained to sniff explosives...but none of them alerted. Even a small residue of the explosive would have been detected by them.

This is another thing I don't understand. Why would "hundreds if not thousands of charges" have been needed? Is it not your contenton none were needed to collapse the building?

[Algebra34]

Debris was scattered over maybe as much as 100 acres of rooftops and nooks and crevices between buildings.


in a rubble pile that was gone through with a fine-toothed comb.

Back and forth, back and forth, blah blah blah

[Furcifer]

This is another thing I don't understand. Why would "hundreds if not thousands of charges" have been needed? Is it not your contenton none were needed to collapse the building?

Yah Mac? What gives? It could have been 2 M80's and a roman candle at just the right spot.

Algebra, you once again fail to understand the implications of your own questions. Do you think these things through before you ask them or what? Please take a moment and consider what you are asking here.

[Macgyver1968]

This is another thing I don't understand. Why would "hundreds if not thousands of charges" have been needed? Is it not your contenton none were needed to collapse the building?

Yes, it is my contention that none were needed. The impact damage, and the subsequent uncontrolled fires around unprotected steel caused the collapse. Once the collapse started at the impact area, gravity did the rest.

There are some in the TM (I'm not sure if you are included) that believe that the towers fell to fast. They believe this is evidence that demolition devices were used not only in the impact area to initiate the collapse, but all along the length of the structure to weaken it. They like to use the term "free fall speed". If this were true, then charges would have had to be placed on almost every floor. This would mean 100's if not 1000's of charges.

[Algebra34]

Yah Mac? What gives? It could have been 2 M80's and a roman candle at just the right spot.

Algebra, you once again fail to understand the implications of your own questions. Do you think these things through before you ask them or what? Please take a moment and consider what you are asking here.

I fail to understand your reply. Why are hundreds of thousands of explosives needed to bring down the towers? Even if someone believes there were any explosives in the building it's in addition to the plane crash and fire that debunkers claim was enough on its own. It's not either or.

[Furcifer]

Has anyone introduced Algebra to Occam's razor? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor)

He might be a noob and not have wrestled this demon yet.

[Algebra34]

Yes, it is my contention that none were needed. The impact damage, and the subsequent uncontrolled fires around unprotected steel caused the collapse. Once the collapse started at the impact area, gravity did the rest.

There are some in the TM (I'm not sure if you are included) that believe that the towers fell to fast. They believe this is evidence that demolition devices were used not only in the impact area to initiate the collapse, but all along the length of the structure to weaken it. They like to use the term "free fall speed". If this were true, then charges would have had to be placed on almost every floor. This would mean 100's if not 1000's of charges.

I don't believe in just two possible scenarios and nothing else. If you believe the plane crash and fires did it any amount of explosives at all would just be that much more assistance. If you believe that just damage and fire at the top can cause a global collapse of the entire structure just one strategically placed devise could do the same. And again it's not either/or. It's in addition to the initial plane and fire damage.

[stateofgrace]

I don't believe in just two possible scenarios and nothing else. If you believe the plane crash and fires did it any amount of explosives at all would just be that much more assistance. If you believe that just damage and fire at the top can cause a global collapse of the entire structure just one strategically placed devise could do the same. And again it's not either/or. It's in addition to the initial plane and fire damage.

Placed where?

[Algebra34]

Has anyone introduced Algebra to Occam's razor? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor)

He might be a noob and not have wrestled this demon yet.

Your version with all it's first time in histories doesn't stand up to that. Occam's razor is not your friend.

[Algebra34]

Placed where?

Lets start with your version. At the top. That's not enough now? Now how about anywhere else in addition to the crash and fires? Like on an elevator in the core? Or in the basement? This wouldn't help the crash/fire in collapsing the building? How many devises took that chunk out of the Murrah building? Was it wired on every floor with hundreds and thousands of explosives?

[stateofgrace]

Lets start with your version. At the top. That's not enough now? Now how about anywhere else in addition to the crash and fires? Like on an elevator in the core? Or in the basement? This wouldn't help the crash/fire in collapsing the building? How many devises took that chunk out of the Murrah building? Was it wired on every floor with hundreds and thousands of explosives?

One device : Placed where?

[Macgyver1968]

I don't believe in just two possible scenarios and nothing else. If you believe the plane crash and fires did it any amount of explosives at all would just be that much more assistance. If you believe that just damage and fire at the top can cause a global collapse of the entire structure just one strategically placed devise could do the same. And again it's not either/or. It's in addition to the initial plane and fire damage.

So do you believe that the tower's collapse happened too fast? I will agree that even a single strategically placed charge could have helped the start the collapse...but that would require fore-knowledge of exactly where the plane was going to hit the building, and which columns would be destroyed by the impact. How could they have possibly known where to put the charge? How could they have known that the impact of the plane would not have destroyed the charge? Why is it we don't hear any explosions BEFORE the initiation of the collapse?

[Furcifer]

I fail to understand your reply. Why are hundreds of thousands of explosives needed to bring down the towers? Even if someone believes there were any explosives in the building it's in addition to the plane crash and fire that debunkers claim was enough on its own. It's not either or.

OK, I'll walk you through it.

If you were doing a controlled demolition, it would take hundreds if not thousands of pounds of explosives and months of preparation to "git er' done"

That's how these things work. You do a job you do it Right. If your goal was to bring them down "in their own footprint" that's what you've got to do.

Your question implies that the perpetrators of the demolition knew before hand what damage would occur to the buildings, know how to shield the planted explosives from detonation by the plane impact, know exactly what was going to happen before it happened and make plans accordingly.

Your question begs a complexity that simply isn't feasible. It's beyond feasible, it's completely unrealistic. Once you cross into that unrealistic realm, anything is possible.

If you can have mastermind perpetrators with foreknowledge of the destruction, with sooper stealth and the ability to infiltrate buildings and plant hidden explosives in exactly the right places in exactly the right quantities then I can say it was a unicorn eating a pastrami on pumpernickel with hot mustard lighting his farts with a bic lighter.

I think perhaps the forum is being a little too harsh with you. You might not understand the implications of you JAQ'ing off here. When you ask a question here you need to fully consider the implications of that question, and be prepared to discuss and defend them.

[Algebra34]

So do you believe that the tower's collapse happened too fast?

I think it fell too easily period.

I will agree that even a single strategically placed charge could have helped the start the collapse...but that would require fore-knowledge of exactly where the plane was going to hit the building, and which columns would be destroyed by the impact.

Why? The different crashes didn't hit the same part of each building but they still both collapsed pretty much the same way.

How could they have possibly known where to put the charge? How could they have known that the impact of the plane would not have destroyed the charge? Why is it we don't hear any explosions BEFORE the initiation of the collapse?

There is only one core. It's all in the center. No brainer. If you believe that plane crashes at different floors can cause the same kind of collapse then why would an explosive device need to be more exact in it's location other than to compromise the core? Hear? Did no one claim to hear explosions?

[Macgyver1968]

Lets start with your version. At the top. That's not enough now? Now how about anywhere else in addition to the crash and fires? Like on an elevator in the core? Or in the basement? This wouldn't help the crash/fire in collapsing the building? How many devises took that chunk out of the Murrah building? Was it wired on every floor with hundreds and thousands of explosives?

There was only one device used at the Murrah building. But that one charge filled an entire Uhaul truck! So massive was the explosion that it blew out windows for blocks and deafened people close by, but even that huge explosion did not cause a complete collapse of the building. Again..if explosives were used to cause the collapse, they would have had to go off BEFORE the collapse started. There is no evidence at all that this happened. No loud sounds, no flashes of light, no high speed shock waves emanating from the impact area just before the collapse began. Why don't we see or hear anything before the collapse?

[stateofgrace]

There is only one core. It's all in the center. No brainer. If you believe that plane crashes at different floors can cause the same kind of collapse then why would an explosive device need to be more exact in it's location other than to compromise the core?

One device on the core, right?

[Algebra34]

One device on the core, right?

Who knows? Not you.

[Furcifer]

Your version with all it's first time in histories doesn't stand up to that. Occam's razor is not your friend.

Er, yah it does. You need to read for comprehension here. There's nothing in Occam's razor that prevents "first time in histories".

Care to explain how first time in histories has anything to do with the simplest explanation?

[twinstead]

Algebra, Occam is not YOUR friend.

[stateofgrace]

Who knows? Not you.

Actually you claimed to know.

Originally Posted by Algebra34 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5191205#post5191205)
I don't believe in just two possible scenarios and nothing else. If you believe the plane crash and fires did it any amount of explosives at all would just be that much more assistance. If you believe that just damage and fire at the top can cause a global collapse of the entire structure just one strategically placed devise could do the same. And again it's not either/or. It's in addition to the initial plane and fire damage.

Did you forget? So where, in your expert opinion, was it placed?

Can't quite figure out the fatal flaw in your single device theory can you pal ? Night all.

[Algebra34]

There was only one device used at the Murrah building. But that one charge filled an entire Uhaul truck! So massive was the explosion that it blew out windows for blocks and deafened people close by, but even that huge explosion did not cause a complete collapse of the building. Again..if explosives were used to cause the collapse, they would have had to go off BEFORE the collapse started. There is no evidence at all that this happened. No loud sounds, no flashes of light, no high speed shock waves emanating from the impact area just before the collapse began. Why don't we see or hear anything before the collapse?

I believe the Murrah bomb was 13 plastic barrels. The WTC was a whole lot bigger than a ryder truck. For that matter who is to say a Ryder truck wasn't in the basement next to the core? A freight elevator couldn't hold 13 plastic barrels and be put on "out of service"? This isn't the point though. I don't know there were explosives used to collapse the WTC. Just don't tell me the reason you know there weren't is because of how many would be needed on every floor and at the same time contend the plane and fires to a few floors got the job done.

[BigAl]

Just don't tell me the reason you know there weren't is because of how many would be needed on every floor and at the same time contend the plane and fires to a few floors got the job done.

Why do Twoofers always forget to mention the absence of effective firefighting and fireproofing.

Henry Guthard, engineer and one of [WTC designer] Yamasaki's original partners who also worked as the project manager at the [WTC] site, said, "To hit the building, to disappear, to have pieces come out the other side, it was amazing the building stood. To defend against 5,000 (sic) gallons of ignited fuel in a building of 1350 feet is just not possible.

http://snurl.com/j54gc (Report From Ground Zero page 188)

[Algebra34]

Actually you claimed to know.

Did you forget? So where, in your expert opinion, was it placed?

Can't quite figure out the fatal flaw in your single device theory can you pal ? Night all.

If you believe that just damage and fire at the top can cause a global collapse of the entire structure just one strategically placed devise could do the same.

[Macgyver1968]

I think it fell too easily period.



Why? The different crashes didn't hit the same part of each building but they still both collapsed pretty much the same way.



There is only one core. It's all in the center. No brainer. If you believe that plane crashes at different floors can cause the same kind of collapse then why would an explosive device need to be more exact in it's location other than to compromise the core? Hear? Did no one claim to hear explosions?

The core was made up of 47 individual columns. So technically, it isn't just one core. The towers collapsed in the same way because they were both damaged in the same way. The impact caused the fireproofing on the floor trusses to be knocked off. The fire heated these floor trusses to the point where they begin to sag in the middle, pulling on their connections on either end. When enough of the connections failed, there was insufficient lateral support for the perimeter columns, allowing them to buckle and fail.

People did hear what they likened to explosions...but no one describes hearing explosions in the few seconds right before collapse initiated, when the charged would have had to go off to cause the collapse. You don't even have to take their word for it. Watch a video of the collapse yourself. Watch and listen to everything going on in the last few seconds before the collapse started. There is nothing to indicate any kind of explosion going off.

[Algebra34]

Why do Twoofers always forget to mention the absence of effective firefighting and fireproofing.

The official version claims the jet fuel burned out in 15 to 20 minutes. The building was still there. Get with the times.

[Furcifer]

I don't know there were explosives used to collapse the WTC. Just don't tell me the reason you know there weren't is because of how many would be needed on every floor and at the same time contend the plane and fires to a few floors got the job done.

I don't know how they get the caramel into a caramel bar either. But I can say without a doubt they don't use explosives.

There's no reason for your ignorance.

[Macgyver1968]

I believe the Murrah bomb was 13 plastic barrels. The WTC was a whole lot bigger than a ryder truck. For that matter who is to say a Ryder truck wasn't in the basement next to the core? A freight elevator couldn't hold 13 plastic barrels and be put on "out of service"? This isn't the point though. I don't know there were explosives used to collapse the WTC. Just don't tell me the reason you know there weren't is because of how many would be needed on every floor and at the same time contend the plane and fires to a few floors got the job done.

The collapse started at the impact point. If you put a massive charge in the basement, then the collapse would have started at the bottom of the tower, not at the top. Any charge large enough to sever even one of the core columns would have been heard for blocks. Why don't we hear it?

[BigAl]

The official version claims the jet fuel burned out in 15 to 20 minutes. The building was still there. Get with the times.

Your point? The collapse started where the fire was most intense right up to the moment of collapse.

An ordinary house fire burns as hot as 1700F. Steel loses half it's strength at 800F.

[Algebra34]

The core was made up of 47 individual columns. So technically, it isn't just one core. The towers collapsed in the same way because they were both damaged in the same way. The impact caused the fireproofing on the floor trusses to be knocked off. The fire heated these floor trusses to the point where they begin to sag in the middle, pulling on their connections on either end. When enough of the connections failed, there was insufficient lateral support for the perimeter columns, allowing them to buckle and fail.

I know what the official version is. In any case how would an explosive devise not assist? If you believe the official version then why would every floor need to be wired? And not as an alternative but in addition?


People did hear what they likened to explosions...but no one describes hearing explosions in the few seconds right before collapse initiated, when the charged would have had to go off to cause the collapse. You don't even have to take their word for it. Watch a video of the collapse yourself. Watch and listen to everything going on in the last few seconds before the collapse started. There is nothing to indicate any kind of explosion going off.

Don't claim to know what people heard and what they didn't. There are witness accounts of explosions period. It wasn't followed up on or investigated.

[Furcifer]

If you believe that just damage and fire at the top can cause a global collapse of the entire structure just one strategically placed devise could do the same.

Yes. We all believe that. Every one here believes that Al.

What we are waiting for is someone to show us how they strategically placed the device.

Care to be the first?

[BigAl]

I know what the official version is. In any case how would an explosive devise not assist? If you believe the official version then why would every floor need to be wired? And not as an alternative but in addition?


People that propose "wiring the building" never worked in a large 24x7 high-security building. Some of us have.

It didn't happen.

[Macgyver1968]

I know what the official version is. In any case how would an explosive devise not assist? If you believe the official version then why would every floor need to be wired? And not as an alternative but in addition?




Don't claim to know what people heard and what they didn't. There are witness accounts of explosions period. It wasn't followed up on or investigated.

But WHEN were these explosions heard? I'm not claiming that people didn't hear sounds that sounded like explosions. Listen for yourself. Do you hear explosions going off right before the collapse started?

[Algebra34]

But WHEN were these explosions heard? I'm not claiming that people didn't hear sounds that sounded like explosions. Listen for yourself. Do you hear explosions going off right before the collapse started?

There are all different times. In any case when a witness after the fact claims they heard an explosion/explosions how do you or even they know the exact time they heard it?

[Sam.I.Am]

Magical quiet explosive devices that suck in columns and can withstand an airplane smashing into them and the resulting fires without anybody noticing them don't exist. Well, except in the movies that is...

[BigAl]

There are all different times. In any case when a witness after the fact claims they heard an explosion/explosions how do you or even they know the exact time they heard it?

Any explosion loud enough to be man-made demolition would be caught on the sound track of every video camera in use for a mile around, and there were lots of cameras in use that day.

No such video exists.

[Furcifer]

Don't claim to know what people heard and what they didn't. There are witness accounts of explosions period. It wasn't followed up on or investigated.

I've got two witnesses that say they heard an explosion coming out of my bathroom this morning. Hit the bar, then grabbed a sack of ten from White Castle on the way home.

Luckily the police haven't done any follow up on them either.

When you make grandiose statements it's essential to quantify them.

[BigAl]

Don't claim to know what people heard and what they didn't. There are witness accounts of explosions period. It wasn't followed up on or investigated.

If you are going to cite the witness accounts, you have to read all of the testimonies in their entirety. I've read most of them by now.

When you do that, you will understand why there was no followup. None of them believe there was any man-made explosives.

Any quote you provide will be cherry-picked out of context.

[AJM8125]

Explosions can occur without pre-planted explosives. I was 100 feet from a transformer explosion last year. Buildings shook. People heard it all throughout the immediate area.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/25/BAOS11EGNF.DTL

[TruthersLie]

Lets start with your version. At the top. That's not enough now? Now how about anywhere else in addition to the crash and fires? Like on an elevator in the core? Or in the basement? This wouldn't help the crash/fire in collapsing the building? How many devises took that chunk out of the Murrah building? Was it wired on every floor with hundreds and thousands of explosives?

Thank you so much for bringing up the OKC bombing.

It is rather amazing you keep holding on to your delusions... again if it was explosives, then provide proof of a SILENT explosive.

it should be easy.

I mean we have this from the oklahoma city bombing
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Timothy_McVeigh%27s_movements_during_Oklahoma_City _bombing.svg/710px-Timothy_McVeigh%27s_movements_during_Oklahoma_City _bombing.svg.png

NOTICE the brown circle? That is the extent of the DAMAGE from the BOMB. Notice it says that many buildings inside the circle were damaged or collapsed DUE TO THE BOMB.

Now to see what that bomb did to nearby windows.
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGC/StaticFiles/Images/Show/34xx/341x/3415_oklahoma-city-bombing-1_04700300.jpg

Notice ALL OF THE WINDOWS ARE BROKEN in the background.

or
http://www.8thfire.net/images/Ok_city_bombing.jpg
Please notice that ALL of the windows in ALL of the cars have been blown out.

We can see (and have seen from numerous images) that the windows in buildings RIGHT next to the collapsed towers are intact. Why is that?

shall we continue? If explosives were used on the towers or wtc7 ALL of the windows in the area would have been blown out.

Lets continue with the oklahoma city bombing for reference. Now we will move on to the injuries of people who were caught in the blast area.
http://www.ok.gov/health/documents/OKC_Bombing.pdf


Over HALF of the people in the blast radius had ruptured eardrums and massive hearing loss. Please point out the firefighters with ruptured eardrums and massive hearing loss from 9/11. I'll wait. OR anyone who is near the collapses.

We also have numerous videos of the collapse where you CANNOT hear any explosives.

[TruthersLie]

If you believe that just damage and fire at the top can cause a global collapse of the entire structure just one strategically placed devise could do the same.

FINE.

Please show your math, engineering, load paths which back up your claim.

One strategically placed device could, maybe, if it was large enough.

1993 bombing had 1000lbs of explosives RIGHT NEXT to a column. It didn't buckle or cut it.

And everyone in the ENTIRE complex heard the explosion.

Please produce just one video which has clear distinct explosion on it right before the collapse of the towers or wtc7.

[TruthersLie]

There is only one core. It's all in the center. No brainer. If you believe that plane crashes at different floors can cause the same kind of collapse then why would an explosive device need to be more exact in it's location other than to compromise the core? Hear? Did no one claim to hear explosions?

Are you really going to go with the datamined quotes? REally?

Reading for comprehension is your friend. You should try to read the FULL quotes. They do not say what you think they say.

[TruthersLie]

I believe the Murrah bomb was 13 plastic barrels. The WTC was a whole lot bigger than a ryder truck. For that matter who is to say a Ryder truck wasn't in the basement next to the core? A freight elevator couldn't hold 13 plastic barrels and be put on "out of service"? This isn't the point though. I don't know there were explosives used to collapse the WTC. Just don't tell me the reason you know there weren't is because of how many would be needed on every floor and at the same time contend the plane and fires to a few floors got the job done.

The OKC bomb was estimated between 5000 and 7000lbs of explosives.

and it wasn't "fires on a few floors."

It was raging infernos on 3 to 5 floors at a time. Each floor was an ACRE with long spans that were UNSUPPORTED.

why is that so hard to understand?

[BigAl]

If you believe that just damage and fire at the top can cause a global collapse of the entire structure just one strategically placed devise could do the same.

Yes, it would have to have the momentum of a 140 ton aircraft doing 500MHP carrying 6,000 gallons of gas.

One of the principle engineers had no problem with the jet causing the collapse.

Henry Guthard, engineer and one of [WTC designer] Yamasaki's original partners who also worked as the project manager at the [WTC] site,
said, "To hit the building, to disappear, to have pieces come out the other side, it was amazing the building stood. To defend against 5,000 (sic) gallons of ignited fuel in a building of 1350 feet is just not possible.

http://snurl.com/j54gc (Report From Ground Zero page 188)

You are remarkably full of unsupported opinions and unencumbered by any facts or source citations.

[Furcifer]

Thank you so much for bringing up the OKC bombing.

It is rather amazing you keep holding on to your delusions... again if it was explosives, then provide proof of a SILENT explosive.

it should be easy.

I mean we have this from the oklahoma city bombing
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Timothy_McVeigh%27s_movements_during_Oklahoma_City _bombing.svg/710px-Timothy_McVeigh%27s_movements_during_Oklahoma_City _bombing.svg.png

NOTICE the brown circle? That is the extent of the DAMAGE from the BOMB. Notice it says that many buildings inside the circle were damaged or collapsed DUE TO THE BOMB.

Now to see what that bomb did to nearby windows.
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGC/StaticFiles/Images/Show/34xx/341x/3415_oklahoma-city-bombing-1_04700300.jpg

Notice ALL OF THE WINDOWS ARE BROKEN in the background.

or
http://www.8thfire.net/images/Ok_city_bombing.jpg
Please notice that ALL of the windows in ALL of the cars have been blown out.

We can see (and have seen from numerous images) that the windows in buildings RIGHT next to the collapsed towers are intact. Why is that?

shall we continue? If explosives were used on the towers or wtc7 ALL of the windows in the area would have been blown out.

Lets continue with the oklahoma city bombing for reference. Now we will move on to the injuries of people who were caught in the blast area.
http://www.ok.gov/health/documents/OKC_Bombing.pdf


Over HALF of the people in the blast radius had ruptured eardrums and massive hearing loss. Please point out the firefighters with ruptured eardrums and massive hearing loss from 9/11. I'll wait. OR anyone who is near the collapses.

We also have numerous videos of the collapse where you CANNOT hear any explosives.

I never said explosives dude. I er, um,well, I mean I did, but um, er.

Time to move the goal posts Al.

[The Platypus]

Gee, go figure... suddenly there is silence from Algebra... LOL

[sylvan8798]

Oh man. Here we go. I'm not ignorant. Thank you

The bombs (if there were bombs) would be I guess to compromise the core and any resistance it might give during the collapse.

All of us are ignorant in regard to many things. Unless you are claiming omniscience or something? And if you think that "compromising the core" at the level of the basement would have ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the observed collapse, you are obviously ignorant about structural engineering.

[BigAl]

There are all different times. In any case when a witness after the fact claims they heard an explosion/explosions how do you or even they know the exact time they heard it?

Essentially everyone was looking at the WTC towers, many with video cameras. If there was a man-made demolition, it would be seen to be followed by the onset of a collapse. People would see it and catch it on video with the explosion on audio.

Nobody saw any such thing.

It's not on any video.

[Macgyver1968]

Gee, go figure... suddenly there is silence from Algebra... LOL

Hey now..it is Saturday night...maybe he went out for a beer.

[Furcifer]

Hey now..it is Saturday night...maybe he went of for a beer.

Beer is pretty much a requirement with this thread. No worries though, with my smartphone I can bring stupidity to the beer.

[Comrade Raptor]

I don't believe in just two possible scenarios and nothing else. If you believe the plane crash and fires did it any amount of explosives at all would just be that much more assistance. If you believe that just damage and fire at the top can cause a global collapse of the entire structure just one strategically placed devise could do the same. And again it's not either/or. It's in addition to the initial plane and fire damage.

If I believe "just" damage and fire at the top is sufficient then I would also have to believe that any explosives are therefore redundant and unnecessary.

Which they are.

The only reason to suggest otherwise is to try and squeeze explosives in where there is no evidence to support them, which stems wholly from an inability to accept the existing evidence.

*You* cannot believe planes alone could do it, so you *must* fabricate an alternative. I, however, believe the planes were indeed sufficient, evidence confirms this, and therefore I need to construct nothing.

Plane impacts + fire = collapse. That is the answer to your question. Only your refusal to accept the answer results in your continued confusion, and fabricating alternative scenarios will bring you no closer to what actually happened.

[triforcharity]

Lets start with your version. At the top. That's not enough now? Now how about anywhere else in addition to the crash and fires? Like on an elevator in the core? Or in the basement? This wouldn't help the crash/fire in collapsing the building? How many devises took that chunk out of the Murrah building? Was it wired on every floor with hundreds and thousands of explosives?

Nope, it was a huge bomb sitting in the back of a U-haul truck, and everyone for at least a square mile heard it, and every window withing 1oo yards of the blast were blown out, and many people reported heaaring damage after the blast.

Were any of these things reported on or after 9/11??? Nope. You're trying to compare apples to cigarettes.

[triforcharity]

If you believe that just damage and fire at the top can cause a global collapse of the entire structure just one strategically placed devise could do the same.


Problem was, its was over MANY floors. Not just one area, but the equivilant of 5 ACRES of INSTANT FIRES!! Der.

[triforcharity]

Your point? The collapse started where the fire was most intense right up to the moment of collapse.

An ordinary house fire burns as hot as 1700F. Steel loses half it's strength at 800F.

I have personally seen house fires as hot as 1900 Deg. F.

[triforcharity]

There are all different times. In any case when a witness after the fact claims they heard an explosion/explosions how do you or even they know the exact time they heard it?

HI. How many things go BOOM in a fire?? I know of 10 different things that make VERY LOUD BOOMS.


Televisions
Commercial Toilets
Hot Water Tanks
CRT monitors
Electric motors
UPS power supplies
Elevators crashing to the bottom floors
Elevator cables snapping.
High Voltage transformers
Commercial cleaning supplies




Can you eliminate any of those things from the WTC?? In fact, they are all prevelant.

[stateofgrace]

If you believe that just damage and fire at the top can cause a global collapse of the entire structure just one strategically placed devise could do the same.

I see you are still struggling to figure it out. I will try to help you out. The problem with just one device being placed anywhere is this. If there was a single device, irrespective of where it was placed then you are in effect agreeing that the building was quite capable of global collapse. If, for example a device was somehow magically placed under the impact zone and magically survived the impact of the planes and the raging fires and then magically detonated then that is it. The collapse as been initiated, the building is now collapsing without any further aid from any other devices. Therefore everything that is seen and observed from that point is caused by the building collapsing and NOT a CD. This is something that most truthers claim cannot happen, that the building could globally collapse. So if you now agree that global collapse is actually possible what exactly was the point of placing a single device inside a building that was capable of global collapse? How could anybody possibly know that the buildings which by your own admittance could collapse would not start to collapse as soon as the planes struck? Who figured that one out?

Don’t believe me? Try it for yourself, try imagining a single device placed anywhere inside the building, on the core, in the basement, halfway up, at the top and simply work your way through the follow on events yourself. You will find that irrespective of where your single device was placed your theory will ultimately led you the same conclusion. That being that the buildings were quite capable of global collapse and that all the observed events were not a result of a CD but of a building collapsing under its own weight. What you are basically saying is that once the collapse as started then there is no stopping it.

Still go along with the single device theory?

[dtugg]

I'm sure one big ass bomb was capable of destroying one of the towers. But there is no possible way that this happened on 9/11. Such a device would have been very, very loud. Everybody within miles would have heard it and it would have been recorded on the audio tracks of every camera in the area. This didn't happen. HI, as always, you fail.

[Algebra34]

Sorry I went out last night. I see most of you still arguing the same thing.

I do think one devise could take down the building. Unlikly, but I think it could if placed in the right spot. And the top of the building would not be my first choice. I just don't think every floor would need to be wired. That's it. That's my point in countering anyone who claims otherwise. Don't shift it to me now. One thing at a time.

And I'm not going to get into a debate about what people really heard and didn't and how loud it was or when it was. There is no way to know now for sure.

So, to bring down a WTC tower would there need to be thousands of explosives on multiple floors? Yes or no?

[funk de fino]

Sorry I went out last night. I see most of you still arguing the same thing.

I do think one devise could take down the building. Unlikly, but I think it could if placed in the right spot. And the top of the building would not be my first choice. I just don't think every floor would need to be wired. That's it. That's my point in countering anyone who claims otherwise. Don't shift it to me now. One thing at a time.

And I'm not going to get into a debate about what people really heard and didn't and how loud it was or when it was. There is no way to know now for sure.

So, to bring down a WTC tower would there need to be thousands of explosives on multiple floors? Yes or no?

That depends which truther lies are being discussed.

[dtugg]

So, to bring down a WTC tower would there need to be thousands of explosives on multiple floors? Yes or no?

Not necessarily. But the fantasies of many twoofer morons require it.

[triforcharity]

Not if it was a nuke, no.

If it was a normal CD charge, yes. They are very specific. They will not magically cause a building collapse becaause of one single column being cut. Could you do it if all 47 core columns were cut?? Possibly. But, you cut 47 core columns, and someone is going to hear it.



Why do you refuse to discuss the "booms" people heard?? Why is that?? Is it because there are too many similies and hyperbole?? Or is it because none of the eyewitnesses say it most certainly was a bomb. That would be my guess.

[Furcifer]

So, to bring down a WTC tower would there need to be thousands of explosives on multiple floors? Yes or no?

None were needed as none were used and none were found and none were heard.

[triforcharity]

Well, except for a 767. And that was the equivalant to a HUGE amount of TNT. But, everyone heaard thata one.

[johnny karate]

And I'm not going to get into a debate about what people really heard and didn't and how loud it was or when it was. There is no way to know now for sure.

Of course there is. Examine the eyewitness testimony. Examine the audio recordings. The historical record of the that day gives a fairly comprehensive account of what happened, and it doesn't support any kind of controlled demolition scenario.

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by Algebra34
And I'm not going to get into a debate about what people really heard and didn't and how loud it was or when it was. There is no way to know now for sure.

Of course there is. Examine the eyewitness testimony. Examine the audio recordings. The historical record of the that day gives a fairly comprehensive account of what happened, and it doesn't support any kind of controlled demolition scenario.

And the seismic data that shows the plane impact and the buildings hitting the ground but has nothing that points to man-made demolition.

[defaultdotxbe]

If you believe that just damage and fire at the top can cause a global collapse of the entire structure just one strategically placed devise could do the same.
except truthers dont believe damage at the top can cause a global collapse, meaning truthers dont believe a single explosive devise could do the same, requiring truthers to beleive in a much larger amount of explosives

The official version claims the jet fuel burned out in 15 to 20 minutes. The building was still there. Get with the times.
and when i start my charcoal grill the lighter fluid only burns for a minute or two, i wonder how i cook my steak after that?

and before you drop the predicable truther comparison that my grill has never collapsed from fire, im sure if i heat the support structure (the legs) it would collapse

[WildCat]

For that matter who is to say a Ryder truck wasn't in the basement next to the core?
Who? Rational people. Only a complete idiot would think that a bomb in the basement caused a collapse 80 stories higher.

Don't you agree?

[BigAl]

I believe the Murrah bomb was 13 plastic barrels. The WTC was a whole lot bigger than a ryder truck. For that matter who is to say a Ryder truck wasn't in the basement next to the core?


WTC in 1993 was estimated to be about 1,000 pounds of TNT.

"Core" isn't singular. There are as I recall, 47 core columns and a Ryder truck (to use your terminology) would have to be parked next to each one. Double that to both towers.

We know that the 1,000 pounds of explosive used in 1993 was heard all over the 16 acres of the WTC plaza and by essentially all the occupants of the towers yet it wasn't large enough to do any catastrophic structural damage.

Nobody heard anything like that on 9/11.

I don't know there were explosives used to collapse the WTC.

So you are a no-claimer?

[Newtons Bit]

Sorry I went out last night. I see most of you still arguing the same thing.

I do think one devise could take down the building. Unlikly, but I think it could if placed in the right spot. And the top of the building would not be my first choice. I just don't think every floor would need to be wired. That's it. That's my point in countering anyone who claims otherwise. Don't shift it to me now. One thing at a time.

The WTC1&2 would not collapse from any one column being severed anywhere in the building. It is an exceptionally redundant structure. The hat structure at the top of the building and the

And I'm not going to get into a debate about what people really heard and didn't and how loud it was or when it was. There is no way to know now for sure.

It's not up for debate: it's definitive. There's no point in arguing it because truthers have zero evidence of any actual explosives.

So, to bring down a WTC tower would there need to be thousands of explosives on multiple floors? Yes or no?

No. All that would be necessary is to sever all* the core columns on one floor and then have large kicker charges to separate them from the lower stub.

*-not all core columns would need to be severed, but the fewer that are severed the more likely the chance that it would not collapse at all.

[Arus808]

I do think one devise could take down the building.

and this is where you are wrong from the start. If the Oklahoma bombing, couldn't take down the building and collapse totally ; then really, NO bomb in the WTC buildings could do the same, UNLESS it could do the same type of damage that the AIRPLANES did on 9/11


You might want to start on this opinion since it has no basis in reality.

[TruthersLie]

Sorry I went out last night. I see most of you still arguing the same thing.

I do think one devise could take down the building. Unlikly, but I think it could if placed in the right spot. And the top of the building would not be my first choice. I just don't think every floor would need to be wired. That's it. That's my point in countering anyone who claims otherwise. Don't shift it to me now. One thing at a time.


GREAT. Please provide the engineering which will agree with you. Include your math, your load paths, etc. It should be easy to prove.

As for one DEVICE taking down the building, prove it.


And I'm not going to get into a debate about what people really heard and didn't and how loud it was or when it was. There is no way to know now for sure.


You brought them up. You need to defend them. Go back and LOOK up the datamined quotes. Feel free. Here let me help you
2hBDXB6cifo

Please provide ONE non datamined quote where the full context shows explosives.

Please provide one video of the series of rapid fire detonations which would be heard on any video.

OKC? Want to compare yet again?


So, to bring down a WTC tower would there need to be thousands of explosives on multiple floors? Yes or no?

Not at all. Huge fires, damaged perimeter and damaged core was fine.

Any demolitions charges larger than 20lbs would register on the seismographs.. yet there is NOTHING.

so you have silent explosives that are NOT on any video. You have explosives which do not create any type of pressure waves (because there are unbroken windows in the buildings right next to the collapse and there are NO injuries from the overpressure of the explosives), and now it creates NO vibrations.

wow...

[GlennB]

And I'm not going to get into a debate about what people really heard and didn't and how loud it was or when it was.

Quite a pitiful way to try to avoid the crux of the issue. Sufficient explosive devices would be heard and would blow out every neighbouring window. Didn't happen.

Me : "Officer - I'm not prepared to get into a debate about my alcohol levels and whether my car really did smash into those other cars, and how many, and when <hic>"

Policeman: "You're under arrest".

[Macgyver1968]

And I'm not going to get into a debate about what people really heard and didn't and how loud it was or when it was. There is no way to know now for sure.


Dude...that's a total cop out. Of course there's a way to know...read their entire statements. High order explosives create shockwaves that travel greater than the speed of sound. They are loud. really loud. I asked you if YOU heard anything that sounded like an explosion in the moments leading up to the collapse on any one of the videos of the event?

So, to bring down a WTC tower would there need to be thousands of explosives on multiple floors? Yes or no?


And again....No..you put that much mass into motion, and gravity is all that is needed.

It's not us..but some in the TM that believe that the smaller top portion of the WTC could not have possibly done a "one way crush down" of the larger, lower portion. They propose that the only way this is possible is that the larger lower portion would have had to be rigged with explosives to weaken it and allow for a collapse at "freefall speeds". That's where you 1000's of charges comes in.

[The Platypus]

Hey now..it is Saturday night...maybe he went out for a beer.

Naww, no way. It couldn't possibly be that he suddenly stopped posting when he was so obviously cornered, and did what these cult types always do when confronted with too much evidence, run away...

Now he simply refuses to "debate" what he has been proven wrong about...

Gee he's not looking for a copout...

LMAO!

[tsig]

Naww, no way. It couldn't possibly be that he suddenly stopped posting when he was so obviously cornered, and did what these cult types always do when confronted with too much evidence, run away...

Now he simply refuses to "debate" what he has been proven wrong about...

Gee he's not looking for a copout...

LMAO!

Maybe one of these:

"A yard (or yard glass) is a very tall glass used for drinking beer; a yard (or yard of ale) also refers to the (variable) quantity of beer held by such a glass."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yard_(beer)


ETA: I'm sure that post read different wnen i quoted it??

[The Platypus]

Sorry I went out last night. I see most of you still arguing the same thing.

I do think one devise could take down the building. Unlikly, but I think it could if placed in the right spot. And the top of the building would not be my first choice. I just don't think every floor would need to be wired. That's it. That's my point in countering anyone who claims otherwise. Don't shift it to me now. One thing at a time.

And I'm not going to get into a debate about what people really heard and didn't and how loud it was or when it was. There is no way to know now for sure.

So, to bring down a WTC tower would there need to be thousands of explosives on multiple floors? Yes or no?

There is no debate about it... The reality of it is that there are plenty of videos with audio, and there are no controlled demolition detonations recorded in any of them, period.

[Algebra34]

So, to bring down a WTC tower would there need to be thousands of explosives on multiple floors? Yes or no?

I believe most of you answered no. I agree.

[AJM8125]

So, to bring down a WTC tower would there need to be thousands of explosives on multiple floors? Yes or no?

I believe most of you answered no. I agree.

What do you mean by "thousands of explosives"?

[Arus808]

Uh no, we didn't answer "no" since the question is rhetoric.


To bring down the WTC towers in the most effective, and not damage other buildings around would be to dismantle each floor like how they were built; level by level removing the windows, aluminum siding, steel girders, and concrete floors. IMPLOSION would be out off the question and even the french techqniue of using hydraulics would be out of the question.

So the answer is no to using explosives.


Now if I was a terrorist and knew that in our 93 attempt and trying to use a truck laden with explosives couldn't do it; then flying two airplanes in the chance that it may affect the buildings enough.....

Oh wait thats what they did.

[AJM8125]

Hmmm.... drive-by truthing...

[UNLoVedRebel]

So, to bring down a WTC tower would there need to be thousands of explosives on multiple floors? Yes or no?
Do you think it's possible that George Bush had people try to pass of a controlled demolition as a fire-induced progressive collapse?

[Algebra34]

Algebra, you have stated that you believe that explosives were used to bring down the towers.

No. I don't believe it's been investigated enough.

You are alleging there were thousands of miles of detcord, thousands of detonators and thousands of steel pieces with the telltale signs of explosive jet severing that were, for some reason, not found.

Ahh..If explosives were used, there would have been hundreds if not thousands of charges used.

I don't think every floor would need to be stacked with thousands of explosives to bring down a tower. What do all of you believe?

[UNLoVedRebel]

It's not a matter of belief but a matter of knowledge of physical laws.

[AJM8125]

What do you mean by "thousands of explosives"?

You seemed to have overlooked that.

[funk de fino]

I don't think every floor would need to be stacked with thousands of explosives to bring down a tower. What do all of you believe?

What do you believe?

[Algebra34]

You seemed to have overlooked that.

What Travis and Macgyver1968 stated.

[Algebra34]

What do you believe?

I think it could have come down with less.

[UNLoVedRebel]

*whoosh*

[Algebra34]

UNL you are on ignore with two others. don't bother.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Don't you want to hear more about Homeland Insurgency's fat wife?

[funk de fino]

I think it could have come down with less.

One really big one or a heap of slightly smaller ones?

[AJM8125]

What Travis and Macgyver1968 stated.

I'm sorry, that's not vague enough. Could you be a little more cryptic please?

[Arus808]

UNL you are on ignore with two others. don't bother.



yes, when people have shown you to be a hypocrite, you put them on ignore. you dont even bother backing up your claims with facts; just incredulity.

[Algebra34]

I'm sorry, that's not vague enough. Could you be a little more cryptic please?

If you don't understand post #167 I can't help you.

[Algebra34]

One really big one or a heap of slightly smaller ones?

I think one could possibly do it in the right position.

[UNLoVedRebel]

If you don't understand post #167 I can't help you.

Maybe by explaining what you mean by "thousands of explosives" - A term only used by you.

[AJM8125]

If you don't understand post #167 I can't help you.

perhaps if you QUOTED post #167 to begin with.

[Algebra34]

Post #167 is a quote of Macgyver1968 and Travis first bringing up "thousands of explosives" in this thread.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Post #167 is a quote of Macgyver1968 and Travis first bringing up "thousands of explosives" in this thread.

You quoted them saying "thousands of explosives" but neither of them said "thousand of explosives." Maybe you should take a break and learn a little about Homeland Insurgency's fat wife.

Liars bother me.:rolleyes:

[Algebra34]

Hmmm.... drive-by debunking...

[Furcifer]

Post #167 is a quote of Macgyver1968 and Travis first bringing up "thousands of explosives" in this thread.

There's no doubt 1 strategically placed explosive could have brought down the towers. In fact, 1 strategically placed butterfly could have done that. They were coming down anyways.

I'm getting the impression you think this tact is something new and fresh. It isn't. Most of the "movement" has abandoned this line of thought because it leads nowhere. Where you are going right now is into "magic non-detonating when a plane impacts it and spills gallons of fuel on it, super secret, strategically placed, never heard of before silent explosion, explosives"

Those who have gone before you have been proven wrong, and wanting. The hipsters have moved on to thermite. You need to catch up.

[Orphia Nay]

This is post #167.

I don't think every floor would need to be stacked with thousands of explosives to bring down a tower. What do all of you believe?

Where do you think the explosives needed to be placed?

[funk de fino]

I think one could possibly do it in the right position.

One big one would be placed where?

[Dave Rogers]

There is a big, and fairly fundamental, problem with this whole how-much-explosives-were-needed argument, which is that the truther position is founded on irrationality and goalpost-moving. It's an article of faith with some truthers that the WTC towers could not possibly have collapsed in the way they did without the use of explosives. When they are asked by the rational to explain what quantity of explosives would be required, so that we can explore the possibility of whether it is physically possible for such an amount to have been installed undetected, they reply that the official story is that no explosives were needed, so the minimum amount is zero. This is classic goalpost-shifting, because the truther is trying to defend his position, in effect, by abandoning it. Therefore, the rational debater is left with no other option than to point out the irrationality of the truther's argument, which is then characterised by the truther as a personal attack.

In order to have any defensible position at all, the truther needs to answer the following questions:

(1) Why could the collapses not have occurred as observed without the use of explosives?
(2) In the case of the hypothesis used to answer (1), what is the minimum amount of explosives that must have been present?

It is not an answer to say "Debunkers claim there didn't need to be any explosives", as this is changing the answer to (1). While we do, indeed, make that claim, its use by truthers to support a line of argument that explosives were needed is an immediate and irrevocable abandonment of even the merest pretence at rational argument.

Dave

[twinstead]

The first step is to prove the towers could not have collapsed the way the common narrative of the event says they did. Without this first step, any conjecture about alternative ways for this to happen is just mental gymnastics. Of course that would be fine if the implications of those gymnastics weren't to accuse innocent people of mass murder.

[triforcharity]

I think one could possibly do it in the right position.

Care to elaborate at all?? Like, for instance, how big the thing would have to be??

[triforcharity]

One big one would be placed where?

Oh, I would guess parked in about 5 floors at ~500 MPH would do the trick.

HOLY SNIKEYS BATMAN!! That is EXACLTY what they did!! Lol!!

[AJM8125]

Hmmm.... drive-by debunking...

Not at all. I got bored with you and went to sleep, rather than hear another argument from incredulity by you.

[Seymour Butz]

I don't believe in just two possible scenarios and nothing else. If you believe the plane crash and fires did it any amount of explosives at all would just be that much more assistance. If you believe that just damage and fire at the top can cause a global collapse of the entire structure just one strategically placed devise could do the same. And again it's not either/or. It's in addition to the initial plane and fire damage.

Griff?