Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

Grizzly Bear said:
Considering what I've already read on fire safety from the firefighters point of view, explosions are not particularly uncommon nor unusual during a large scale fire. The entire premise of the TM's explosive "evidence" is based on these reports, suggesting that the mere existence of them is unusual. Not a single one has explain why they think this even after repeated questioning.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely correct. It is NOT uncommon for firefighters to hear small and even large explosions in major incidents like the WTC fires.

Hence, why you don't hear the firefighters discussing the explosions at length either in the oral histories. They touch on the subject, then move on. No explanation necessary.
 
triforcharity said:
You're absolutely correct. It is NOT uncommon for firefighters to hear small and even large explosions in major incidents like the WTC fires.

Hence, why you don't hear the firefighters discussing the explosions at length either in the oral histories. They touch on the subject, then move on. No explanation necessary.
Click to expand...

Since it's become clear that there are still lurkers and new folks around, here are some links to background information regarding claims of hearing explosions:
 
Apart from some cherry picked quotes from witnesses. Has any other evidence of explosives been produced. Residue? Det Cord, timers, blasting caps, damaged beams or columns?

It's like Moon Hoaxers concentrating on some imagined problem with a shadow in one photograph and ignoring the Apollo Rocket behind them.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Explosives experts, bomb experts, demolition experts, military experts and earthquake design experts are not experts in assessing what caused an unusual building collapse? But anonymous 9/11 internet bedunkers are?
Click to expand...

Did you notice that the article you cite gives credit to a Nazi turd as an "expert."

I have better credentials than that ball of detritus Hufschmid. So do several others here on this forum, on the basis of being current or former fire fighters.

And don't even dare wave that imbecile MacQueen's work inb my face as "proof" of bombs. That he includes Karen Deshore's statement about explosions out in the street as proof of "bombs" tells those of us with more than room-temp IQs that he is talking out the wrong end of his torso.

Oh, yes, about the "pools of molten steel in the basement?" That one came out of a Nazi's butt, too.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Apart from some cherry picked quotes from witnesses. Has any other evidence of explosives been produced. Residue? Det Cord, timers, blasting caps, damaged beams or columns?

It's like Moon Hoaxers concentrating on some imagined problem with a shadow in one photograph and ignoring the Apollo Rocket behind them.
Click to expand...

"Flag waves" ignores that the flag only moves when someone touchs it or the flagpole.

"FF's said explosions" ignores that no FF ever made any statement or called for any action to indicate that they believed purposely installed explosives were responsible for said explosions.
 
NoahFence said:
So has anybody refuted and sourced a truther "lie" yet?

Anybody?
Click to expand...

Let's at it again then
Incorrect 9/11 Conspiracy contention: Gravity could not drive global collapse
Refutation by several experts including Bazant et al who showed that the first approximation is that the impact forces after the initial collapse would have been, IIRC, 30X the ability of the floors to arrest collapse.

But although I will take Bazant's expert calculation over the 'expert' contentions of a low rise unlicensed architect, some people will not trust anyone with a 'furrin' sounding name such as Bazant.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Explosives experts, bomb experts, demolition experts, military experts and earthquake design experts are not experts in assessing what caused an unusual building collapse? But anonymous 9/11 internet bedunkers are?

I see. This explains a lot. At least of what goes on here. :D
Click to expand...


So you wouldn't ignore arguments made by demolitions experts:

At no point during 9/11 were sudden or independent vibration “spikes” documented by any seismograph, and we are unaware of any entity possessing such data.

This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses. However, a detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presence of any unusual or abnormal vibration events.
Click to expand...


Or the folks at Implosion World:

DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS ACTUALLY “IMPLODE”?
No. They collapsed in an uncontrolled fashion, causing extensive damage to surrounding structures, roadways and utilities. Although when viewed from a distance the towers appeared to have telescoped almost straight down, a closer look at video replays reveal sizeable portions of each building breaking free during the collapse, with the largest sections--some as tall as 30 or 40 stories--actually “laying out” in several directions. The outward failure of these sections is believed to have caused much of the significant damage to adjacent structures, and smaller debris caused structural and cosmetic damage to hundreds of additional buildings around the perimeter of the site.
Click to expand...


And you'd respect the opinion of the folks at DemolitionForum.com:

I am sorry we do not allow discussion of 9/11. No matter how many times us demolition contractors explain that it was not a controlled demolition; there will always be conspiracy theorist that will debate it was.
Click to expand...


Plus recognize the views of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat:

The Council represents organizations with well more than 100,000 employees. I do not know anyone or organization in the Council that supports the controlled demolition theory. The ASCE has an engineering membership of 120,000 and they participated in the production of the NIST report. NIST itself employs about 2,900 scientists, engineers, technicians, and support and administrative personnel and hosts about 2,600 associates.
Click to expand...


Appeal to authority is a double-edged sword, ergo. ;)
 
slojoe said:
Appeal to authority is a double-edged sword, ergo. ;)
Click to expand...

Indeed it is, slojoe. Glad you can recognize this.

Half your links are to forum posts. These are not authoritative sources.

David Scott's connection with the "Freedom Tower" project has been discussed here before, and renders his comments a little less disinterested than they might pretend to be.
 
Why didn't they find any explosive residue, det chord, blasting caps or explosive damage on any beam or column steel if explosives were used?
 
ergo said:
Indeed it is, slojoe. Glad you can recognize this.

Half your links are to forum posts. These are not authoritative sources.

David Scott's connection with the "Freedom Tower" project has been discussed here before, and renders his comments a little less disinterested than they might pretend to be.
Click to expand...


But can you recognize that appeal to authority is a logical fallacy ergo, and that the argument's strength is not where it comes from, but its facts and reasoning?

I've seen no sign you can, or you'd address the facts and reasoning in these links instead of offering up more fallacious counters and ignoring the first link.

You keep running from that, so let me repeat it for your convenience:

At no point during 9/11 were sudden or independent vibration “spikes” documented by any seismograph, and we are unaware of any entity possessing such data.

This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses. However, a detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presence of any unusual or abnormal vibration events.
Click to expand...


I'm sure your response will be well reasoned. :rolleyes:
 
slojoe said:
But can you recognize that appeal to authority is a logical fallacy ergo, and that the argument's strength is not where it comes from, but its facts and reasoning?
Click to expand...

Expert opinion, using exact statements, in their context, is not a "logical fallacy", slojoe.

If you dislike appeals to authority so much you should stop using them yourself. 90% of bedunker arguments ("Because NIST/Dr. Bazant said so!") would have to find a new basis.

repeat it for your convenience:
Click to expand...

Your repetitive use of this quote has been noted. It has also already been noted that the seismic chart registered several different events on that day. There is a difference of opinion as to what part of the WTC timeline the waveforms refer to. There is also a difference of opinion as to the usefulness of the seismic record that day.

This is the last time I'm going to address your spamming of this quote from "Implosion World".
 
ergo said:
If you dislike appeals to authority so much you should stop using them yourself. 90% of bedunker arguments ("Because NIST/Dr. Bazant said so!") would have to find a new basis.
Click to expand...
It's not a logical fallacy when the authority is an actual expert on the subject.

Richard Gage's gaggle of landscape architects, software engineers, etc... there's your classic "appeal to authority" fallacy.
 
ergo said:
Expert opinion, using exact statements, in their context, is not a "logical fallacy", slojoe.

If you dislike appeals to authority so much you should stop using them yourself. 90% of bedunker arguments ("Because NIST/Dr. Bazant said so!") would have to find a new basis.



Your repetitive use of this quote has been noted. It has also already been noted that the seismic chart registered several different events on that day. There is a difference of opinion as to what part of the WTC timeline the waveforms refer to. There is also a difference of opinion as to the usefulness of the seismic record that day.

This is the last time I'm going to address your spamming of this quote from "Implosion World".
Click to expand...


Your continued ignoring of someone proving you wrong has been noted, too.

Why challenge someone to do something, then ignore them when they do? What's the point?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom