Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

brazenlilraisin said:
Yes but none of that matters if debunkers' statements appear to contradict one another.
Click to expand...

twinstead said:
Debunker's statements are irrelevant; the commonly-held narrative of 9-11 has been in the public record for all to see and scrutinize for years.
Click to expand...

Indeed, if a debunker gets a detail wrong and is corrected by others who cite references then all is well. The particular debunker may be incorrect or simply have worded his post oddly.

I agree with Oystein, yes, other methods could have mimiced the results of aircraft crash and almost immediate large area, multifloor office fires on structures built using long span open floor concepts.

However, there is ample evidence of aircraft crashes and of almost immediate, large area, multifloor office fires in the structures in question, whereas there is scant if any evidence of any other methods having been prepared or utilised.
 
Oystein said:
Was it possible to bring down the twin towers with explosive charges strategically placed and attached to the core columns? Of course, yes.
Click to expand...

Good to know, Oystein. Can you tell me why NoahFence insists this would be impossible?
 
Clayton Moore said:
Whatever it was it was state of the art military.
Click to expand...

So you are claiming:
CM: "The twin towers were brought down by state of the art military explosives"​
Right? How do you know this? What is state of the art military?

The question "How much?" can be answered in terms of conventional high explosives such as RDX. You see, all explosives work by creating a shock wave (supersonic propagation of force) that is able to break the material in question - steel in this case.
This must by definition and necessity also hold for state of the art military explosives: No shockwave - no steel cut.
It is the very same shockwave that also creates a very lout BANG!!! - you know, the insanely loud sound that makes controlled demolitions so frighteningly awesome.
In other words: No explosion without BANG!!!. Even if the military has state of the art military explosives that are able to do the same work with less material than conventional explosives, they must still create the same insanely loud, awesome BANG!!!s (many of them in fact), or they would not break the steel.
So you can give us your estimate of the amount in pounds of TNT or RDX, and we'll know that maybe they maybe used less of that super secret state of the art military explosive.

And oh please don't forget the question I posed above:

How do you know this?​

In case you don't get it: I am asking for evidence!
 
ergo said:
4) The sound of the several explosions from the inner core would be different depending on where people are. And we I don't know how even traditional CD detonations coming from the inner core of a fully furnished building would sound on the outside - or on the inside.
Click to expand...

ftfy
 
ergo said:
Good to know, Oystein. Can you tell me why NoahFence insists this would be impossible?
Click to expand...

May I suggest that NoahFence is referring to the actual events in Manhattan and how there was no evidence to suggest that this was done. In particular that there was no way to prepare the structure , load the explosives/incindiary, and that there is ample evidence that aircraft impacts and almost immediate, large area , multifloor office fires thus indicating great probability that this is what took the structures down and a very low probability that any other sequence of events did it.
 
ergo said:
Good to know, Oystein. Can you tell me why NoahFence insists this would be impossible?
Click to expand...

Probably has something to do with this:

wtc-Impact_4.JPG
 
ergo said:
Good to know, Oystein. Can you tell me why NoahFence insists this would be impossible?
Click to expand...

Any supposition that this is what might have happened on 9/11 violates the Fundamental Truther Dogma that gravity couldn't have caused structural failures, since you are left with gravity breaking up those parts of the structure not cut up by the "explosives". If you are going to abandon that central axiom, then you may be left facing the possibility that damaging a bunch of columns with an airplane and softening them with fires could bring about the same ultimate result.

In addition, the truther contention that it would be necessary to CD the core columns floor-by-floor in order for the structure to collapse does not match with the reality that parts of both cores stood after the main collapses, which obviously proceeded through some 50 stories without taking the cores along or being preceeded by the core columns first, and with little resistance therefrom.
 
sylvan8798 said:
Any supposition that this is what might have happened on 9/11 violates the Fundamental Truther Dogma that gravity couldn't have caused structural failures, since you are left with gravity breaking up those parts of the structure not cut up by the "explosives". If you are going to abandon that central axiom, then you may be left facing the possibility that damaging a bunch of columns with an airplane and softening them with fires could bring about the same ultimate result.
Click to expand...

Why don't you let me worry about that.

In addition, the truther contention that it would be necessary to CD the core columns floor-by-floor
Click to expand...

This is neither a truther contention nor a counter-argument. However, your very own NoahFence claims that this would be necessary, but hasn't bothered to explain why yet.
 
NoahFence said:
Probably has something to do with this:

[qimg]http://no757.0catch.com/_webimages/wtc-Impact_4.JPG[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Noah, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, give you an opportunity to explain your theory, but all you can do is post junk links. Can you try explaining things in your own words? Thanks.

PS: my guess is the page Noah linked to is contaminated.
 
ergo said:
Noah, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, give you an opportunity to explain your theory, but all you can do is post junk links. Can you try explaining things in your own words? Thanks.

PS: my guess is the page Noah linked to is contaminated.
Click to expand...
No one at 60 minutes interested in your moronic delusions?

How much does the size of the moon rubble weigh you say would not crush the WTC towers?
 
ergo said:
Why don't you let me worry about that.
Click to expand...

If you aren't worried about being seen as a tiny cult member falsely accusing people of mass murder on the slimmest and most ridiculous of evidence then more power to you.
 
ergo said:
Why don't you let me worry about that.
Click to expand...

Will you ever begin worrying about that?

This is neither a truther contention nor a counter-argument. However, your very own NoahFence claims that this would be necessary, but hasn't bothered to explain why yet.
Click to expand...

Well, yes it has been said, if not by you then by others who try to counter the accepted history of the events of 0/11/01.

In fact If a person says that the duration took too long they are in fact stating that explosives were used throughout the structure, up to and including the idea that every floor had to be destroyed by explosives.
If a person claims that the core collapsed first this runs against the video evidence that the core collapsed after the rest of the structure had fallen.

Start worrying ergo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom