another kook for you guys to 'debunk'

[grandmastershek]

Corrected that for you

1. power outage

2. a miracle happens.

3. building are blown up

4. profit/invade other countries/take away rights/imprison the populace

 

[ergo]

None, because the fire and impact damage was enough. That's the point.

Right. That's what I thought. Just a few floors, then, and just a few columns on those few floors. Like about 15%?

What happened to your argument from incredulity?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

What happened to your argument from incredulity?

Progressive collapse has been a topic of discussion for more than 30 years with one of the most prominent examples continuing to be a subject of this ongoing debate today. You need to stop abusing the word "incredulity" in situations where it doesn't apply

 

[Sam.I.Am]

And here's where you hit the brick wall... Show me any type of explosive device that can simultaneously withstand a high speed airliner crash and the ensuing fires for an hour or more and then function as intended. Keep in mind that these devices cannot be noticed by the general public as they work around them.

 

[Dave Rogers]

What happened to your argument from incredulity?

Since it only ever existed in your imagination, you're better able to answer that than me.

Dave

 

[ergo]

And here's where you hit the brick wall... Show me any type of explosive device that can simultaneously withstand a high speed airliner crash and the ensuing fires for an hour or more and then function as intended. Keep in mind that these devices cannot be noticed by the general public as they work around them.

Why would it need to withstand the crash?

 

[ergo]

The bee dunker argument from incredulity goes like this:

Twoofers have never been able explain how two 110-storey towers could be rigged with explosives (enough to cause their complete destruction) without being detected.

Then in almost the next breath they'll call you stupid for questioning how a 110-storey tower can completely "collapse" from a few minor upper floor failures.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The bee dunker argument from incredulity goes like this:

Twoofers have never been able explain how two 110-storey towers could be rigged with explosives (enough to cause their complete destruction) without being detected.

No, that's not an argument from incredulity. It's simply an observation. The improbability of undetected installation of demolition explosives is really just a minor point; explosives leave evidence, and this evidence was conspicuously absent from the events and results of 9/11.

Then in almost the next breath they'll call you stupid for questioning how a 110-storey tower can completely "collapse" from a few minor upper floor failures.

After having pointed out engineering analyses that demonstrate that these were neither few, nor minor, nor floor failures, we might also call you a liar.

Dave

 

[ergo]

[/I]

The improbability of undetected installation of demolition explosives is really just a minor point;

Oh, okay.

explosives leave evidence, and this evidence was conspicuously absent from the events and results of 9/11.

What evidence of explosives would be found, and where does NIST discuss where it rules out such evidence? Thanks.

After having pointed out engineering analyses that demonstrate that these were neither few, nor minor, nor floor failures, we might also call you a liar.

Please share these analyses with us that showed that the damage from the plane crashes and fires involved more than a few upper floors. Thanks.

 

[TruthersLie]

How many floors do you think would need to be rigged, AJM? For your one-way crush down?

I'll happily explain to you how many floors would need to be rigged for the towers to have had a progressive collapse.

Just as soon as you explain to me how that water managed to crush that car, or how loose particles of water can destroy solid things... or even how a ton of sand falling wouldn't manage to do the same amount of damage as a ton of bricks or a ton block of marble. (provide it with the physics to show it.)

Feel free. I've been waiting for those answers for months now.

 

[ergo]

I'll happily explain to you how many floors would need to be rigged for the towers to have had a progressive collapse.

Just as soon as you explain to me how that water managed to crush that car, or how loose particles of water can destroy solid things... or even how a ton of sand falling wouldn't manage to do the same amount of damage as a ton of bricks or a ton block of marble. (provide it with the physics to show it.)

Feel free. I've been waiting for those answers for months now.

The questions were posed to Dave Rogers, but thanks for your interest. If you're concerned about the powers of your ton of sand I would suggest you go ahead and do your own analysis. It's already been shown that particulate matter cannot have the same impact on an object as another solid object would. That part of the argument is over. You have been asked to model a rubble-driven collapse. You have not yet done so.

 

[dc1971]

The questions were posed to Dave Rogers, but thanks for your interest. If you're concerned about the powers of your ton of sand I would suggest you go ahead and do your own analysis. It's already been shown that particulate matter cannot have the same impact on an object as another solid object would. That part of the argument is over. You have been asked to model a rubble-driven collapse. You have not yet done so.

So, in other words, you have no clue when it comes to physics?

 

[beachnut]

The questions were posed to Dave Rogers, but thanks for your interest. If you're concerned about the powers of your ton of sand I would suggest you go ahead and do your own analysis. It's already been shown that particulate matter cannot have the same impact on an object as another solid object would. That part of the argument is over. You have been asked to model a rubble-driven collapse. You have not yet done so.

You can't do physics, and you don't know what a shot gun is. You have been given big hints but you continue to spew nonsense. Do you have clue what the topic is?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Why would it need to withstand the crash?

Because the whole point of the thread (Per the OP) is that there was "Suspicious" activities just days prior to 9/11/01 on the upper floors of one of the towers. Truthers claim that someone was planting explosive devices. Therefore the explosive devices must have been there prior to the crashes in order for the "Suspicious" activities to have some meaning other than what was given. That means that they need to be able to withstand the crashes and fires and still be able to perform as intended.

So, please tell me what explosive devices are capable of withstanding the crashes and ensuing fires and then can function as intended. Keep in mind that these devices cannot be noticed by the general public as they work around them.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I know..its like they all think you just walk up take a strip of duct tape, stick it on, and walk away.

Because that's how they do it in all the movies. Tape a block of C4 to a few colums etc, press a button on the little box attached to the C4 so the little red LED comes on, retire to a safe distance and then press the button on your little remote control. Boom. no building.

 

[ergo]

Because the whole point of the thread (Per the OP) is that there was "Suspicious" activities just days prior to 9/11/01 on the upper floors of one of the towers. Truthers claim that someone was planting explosive devices. Therefore the explosive devices must have been there prior to the crashes in order for the "Suspicious" activities to have some meaning other than what was given. That means that they need to be able to withstand the crashes and fires and still be able to perform as intended.

What would happen to the explosives if they started burning? Might they detonate? Oh no!

The crash would presumably fulfill the purpose that any explosives that were destroyed by it would have. Other explosives on other floors would still be there. I don't see what the problem is, especially if you can get your mind out of the conventional CD thinking.

 

[TJM]

What would happen to the explosives if they started burning? Might they detonate? Oh no!

I don't believe anyone has ever explained how they could've got it into the buildings to begin with.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The crash would presumably fulfill the purpose that any explosives that were destroyed by it would have.

Uhh... then why the need for the explosives in the first place?

Other explosives on other floors would still be there.

But "on other floors" is not where the collapse initiated. If the explosives were meant to initiate the collapse, and a plane impact served the purpose of the explosives on the impacted floors, then it stands to reason that the buildings would have collapsed immediately.

But they didn't.

That means the physical damage to the supports on the impacted floors was not enough to initiate collapse. Some other factor would need to be involved on those floors. In this case... fire.

 

[Dave Rogers]

What evidence of explosives would be found, and where does NIST discuss where it rules out such evidence? Thanks.

Very loud bangs a few seconds before the initiation of collapse. I don't need to appeal to NIST's authority; these sounds are absent from the sound tracks of videos of the collapse, except for the ones where they've been edited in by lying truthers.

Please share these analyses with us that showed that the damage from the plane crashes and fires involved more than a few upper floors. Thanks.

Nice move of the goalposts there. You said a few upper floor failures, and as anyone can see from the NIST analysis the failures were neither few, nor minor, nor confined to the floors. But good luck with your quest to uncover the truth by playing cheap debating tricks.

It's already been shown that particulate matter cannot have the same impact on an object as another solid object would.

In your head, maybe. However, even if that had been established in all cases (which is impossible, because it's trivial to construct a pathological case in which a solid object has a less severe impact on another object than a collection of particulate matter of the same mass), you would still not have begun to investigate the question of whether the impact of the rubble was sufficiently destructive to cause the collapse. And that takes us back to the verinage videos, where you're blithely claiming that the top is crushing down at the same rate as the bottom, without realising that this would imply that the rubble from the top continued to crush down the bottom block even after no significant-sized solid block remained.

In short, whatever the relative rate of crush-up and crush-down, verinage proves that a smaller upper block can completely collapse a larger lower block. Case closed.

Dave

 

[ergo]

But "on other floors" is not where the collapse initiated. If the explosives were meant to initiate the collapse, and a plane impact served the purpose of the explosives on the impacted floors, then it stands to reason that the buildings would have collapsed immediately.

But they didn't.

That means the physical damage to the supports on the impacted floors was not enough to initiate collapse. Some other factor would need to be involved on those floors. In this case...

.. fire.

Arrgh! So close! And then, for reasons unknown, you pick the one answer that isn't supported by any historical precedents, passing by the other answer that is. A clear cut example of inability to use a scientific standard.