It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fatal Flaw of True Believer Argument

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 11:56 PM
link   
I've read dozens, if not hundreds, of posts that went something like this...

The WTC couldn't have been brought down by controlled demolition because of how many people it would have taken to plant the explosive and how much explosives that would necessary to bring down the buildings.

The implication is that since it would have been impossible to plant enough explosives to bring down the buildings, no explosives could have been planted. This is even what the State Department's website says in debunking the CD theory.

BUT... this makes no logical sense. This reminds me of a logic question on the SAT exam -except the official reasoning has no logic:

I.e., since it would have taken a lot of people planting a lot of explosives in the WTC buildings to bring them down with a controlled demolition, then, WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 all imploded with NO explosives.

How can it make sense to argue that it would have taken a lot of explosives to bring down the buildings, therefore no explosives were used? Does this make any sense at all?




posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 12:49 AM
link   
nick7261


another thing to note is the Stacey Loizeaux interview with Nova back in 1996. She is from Controlled Demolition.

www.pbs.org...



NOVA: I understand that you try to use the smallest amount of explosives possible.


SL: Right.


NOVA: Can you explain why?


SL: Well, the explosives are really just the catalyst. Largely what we use is gravity. And we're dealing with Class A explosives that are embedded into concrete—and that concrete flies. So, let's say your explosive is 17,000 feet per second—you've got a piece of concrete moving at that speed when you remove it from the structure. So we try to use the minimal amount to keep down the fly of debris for a safe operation. Other than that, it comes down to cost effectiveness. You know, the more holes you have to drill, it's more labor, more time, and it's more expensive. So, obviously, the smallest amount of work is best.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 12:57 AM
link   
They just had to put charges in the center collumns, and near the edges so it could collapse. The WTC was closed in severals levels for severals weeks in july 2001, that's probably when they planted the explosives.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 02:11 AM
link   
There are to many variables to say that that people couldn't have planted explosives in the Twin Towers. For example depending on the number , the weight and the size of the explosives a small team of people could have planted the explosive devices.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Yes, this question is prevalent with those who question CD and I believe it results from a lack of imagination. The first reason why large numbers of explosives would not have necessarily been required to bring down the 1,2or7 is as noted by Talisman that "explosives are the catalyst" and gravity is the finisher. Even the official story doesn't deny that it only took a few floors to weaken in order to initiate the collapse, so then why should more than one floor rigged with explosives be required to produce a collapse/implosion? The second issue about CD in my opinion is that we are not looking at a conventional CD, the sophistication of the technology utilized may well be beyond our cognizance.

Even though the above interesting in its own right, I believe that this was still somewhat of a conventional demo. The rationale for my stating this is because of the empirical evidence of squibs up to 50 floors below the collapse wave.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Philly911Truth The rationale for my stating this is because of the empirical evidence of squibs up to 50 floors below the collapse wave.


I saw a video of this once, but I couldn't find it again. Any links to this?



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Philly911Truth

Even though the above interesting in its own right, I believe that this was still somewhat of a conventional demo. The rationale for my stating this is because of the empirical evidence of squibs up to 50 floors below the collapse wave.


Empirical evidence? Try compressed air due to a very tall building falling down on it.

Has anyone ever seen or used a "Nerf" gun? Well it is a long tube (filled with air) When you force the day-glow, pump-action, plunger back it compresses the air in the tube, and voila, the little nerf ball comes flying out. Apply the Exact same principle to the WTC and you have a more feasible explaination of windows/debris popping outward...thus rendering rhetoric like "empiricle" false.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
Apply the Exact same principle to the WTC and you have a more feasible explaination of windows/debris popping outward...thus rendering rhetoric like "empiricle" false.


The WTC towers were not airtight cylinders and the top portions did not act like plungers. The building was crumbling into dust and ejecting it's facade horizontally as it collapsed, how does that create an airtight structure?
How did the air become compressed and eject out of windows before the collapse started?
How did the 'compressed air' decide to only exit certain spots way bellow the collapse level?
Where did all that dust come from that was blown out by the air pressure, were the buildings really that dirty inside?

Look at the collapse videos a bit closer, and put it all into context...


Yeah compressed air...LOL



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by GwionX
Apply the Exact same principle to the WTC and you have a more feasible explaination of windows/debris popping outward...thus rendering rhetoric like "empiricle" false.


The WTC towers were not airtight cylinders and the top portions did not act like plungers.


They didn't have to be airtight...Have you ever seen or used a *cracked* Nerf gun? Same principle applies.

The Top portions falling *did* act like plungers.


The building was crumbling into dust and ejecting it's facade horizontally as it collapsed, how does that create an airtight structure?

Large pieces of the facade were tumbling down (outside of the footprint) due to the same downward and outward pressure of a falling mass.


How did the air become compressed and eject out of windows before the collapse started?


It didn't, the collapse had begun. The collapse began slower at first and less dramatic; the compressed air was more localized to the point of failure, as the collapse built speed, the pressure became more intense and was able to blow window much further down, further away from the everchanging point of failure.


How did the 'compressed air' decide to only exit certain spots way bellow the collapse level?


Compressed air cannot decide to do anything because it has no active thought process, however, simple laws of diffusion will show the mass , be it rapidly-moving, debris-filled-air, or water, will go to the point of least resistance. ( the points where you see the windows blow)


Where did all that dust come from that was blown out by the air pressure, were the buildings really that dirty inside?


Crushed sheetrock... from the floors above landing on non-weight bearing partitions below...dusty-to-be-sure


Look at the collapse videos a bit closer, and put it all into context...


Why put a charge on a window? A concrete support would be a much better place to fire a charge.


Yeah compressed air...LOL

Dead Link for me...*Shrugs*

I realize this isn't as much fun as concocting a complex plan.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 12:47 AM
link   
BS the path of least resistance would be the open top of the building, including where the plane impacted.

There is no way pressure could have built up enough to cause 'dust', (that came from where?), to eject in that fashion.

How can the top be a plunger? It was falling apart! It was not a solid airtight container, that's just ridiculous and this whole theory is one of the biggest stretches to come from the official story yet.

Sry but you're 'gubernment physics' doesn't explain the 'squibs'

Watch this video, and then explain how compressed air travelled many floors down the building before finally deciding to exit...

And then explain all that outward ejection of debris and how it managed to stay airtight...


www.youtube.com...

[edit on 15/2/2007 by ANOK]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join