The science of why it had to be controlled demolition, in laymen's terms

page: 12
12
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Hate to butt in once again. Well actually I don't. But they did a GREAT amount of design on the towers to try to make sure they did exactly that. Once again a pre-9/11 documentary I saw. Collapse in on their footprints rather than, you know, smash a good part of NYC if they were to fall.
You have no proof for your allegations and it shows more and more.



Well GARSH DANG IT!! YOU WOULD THINK IT WOULD HAVE MADE SENSE TO STORE THE C4 AND VARIOUS CUTTER CHARGES "SANS THE DETONATORS" IN CONCRETE BOXES STEEL STRAPPED TO THE BEAMS TOO! I mean they knew it would have to come down sometime.

They aren't like cars where they weaken steel so that it will accordion in a crash. The only way they could have designed a BUILDING to fall that way is to use explosives packed in concrete. You are suggesting "crimps" were put into the I beams at strategic places. You won't find anyone to corroborate such a ridiculous idea.

NAME THE DOCUMENTARY WHAT CHANNEL.

- Con



[edit on 9-1-2008 by Conspiriology]




posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by OrionStars
 


How praytell?
ALL of the significant supports of the floors were along the EDGES of the floors (outside edge {otherwords the skin} and inside {otherwords the core}). Which is of course how they designed it so there would be no annoying supports to block the office space.


reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


You do not give the core any credit for primary load bearing. Perhaps that is why you do not comprehend what I was explaining.

I guarantee you I spent far more time studying the construction of the twin towers, than you mustered up just to take a peak at Wiki. But did you bother to read Wiki yourself and comprehend it?

I did not rely on Wiki. I did read it, and then found online engineering journals telling me what I actually needed to know about those towers. Like details of construction - material specs, etc. in far more detail.

Just so you understand, the exterior walls were taking lateral load and only a lesser part of gravitational load assistance. The core was taking a great deal of lateral load and the greater majority of gravitational load. Guess what. That is the way it is in every building. Give the building you live in some actual thought, and see what you conclude on that. It should not be difficult for you. You have no problem telling your opponents you are so much more brilliant than they, when it concerns engineering design of buildings.

After all, you got everything you needed to know about the twin towers from "Popular Mechanics" and the Bush administration, with not one design engineer between the lot of them.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


But don't cha understand? Sheesh. A Boeing 767 plowed through there and did all that "core crimping".



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar




Anyone find any blasting caps at the WTC site? Anyone find any "det cord"? Anyone find any explosives tags? Anyone find any thermite residue on the structure?


A controlled demolition doesn't require any of those items.



Not one person out of the thousands involved in the clean up operation? Not in the 10 months it took to clear away the major debris? They are still finding bone fragments six years later but not one shred of evidence to support a CD?


Sure there is,, just watch the buildings when they come down. As demolished buildings go,, you couldn't get more control then the way all three of them came down.


Thanks for the funny video clip. However, that doesn't address anything I asked you. Lets forget the other questions; lets just take your forensic credentials for now. So, can you answer my questions around your qualifications to make forensic assertions?


If his assertions are correct IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT HIS QUALIFICATIONS ARE. Rather then "qualify" him for whatever is required to meet your approval, he isn't here to seek your approval in the first place. Why don't you tell us what the minimum requirements are to avoid being automatically disqualified as "worthy" enough to make his arguments. I would submit that whatever they are, as long as you see the label "truther" ,, you are only here to repeat the lyrics of that broken record of yours " Do yo have any proof" "That's only an idiot from some place we probably never heard of" "You call that proof" "You haven't shown an iota of proof" yata yata yata

If he is a buffoon,, then let him hang himself, if he is educated in the field then let him prove he isn't just an educated idiot. I don't want you to decide his theory doesn't hold up merely by a technicality that he didn't graduate from MIT or the University of Chicago Medicine. Those certifications can add to ones presumed credibility for research one has done in that field however that is only in the case of deciding whether one is an expert witness. He has just as much right to prove his theory without prejudice and subject to having his testimony impeached in cross examination. You keep giving him a reputation to live up to but won't allow him to make his reputation known.

Lets see if he can back up his bravado.

He no more has to show you his License then he does his social security number because frankly,, it isn't any of your business for one and two that is how far you'd take it IF HE DID SAY YES HE IS CERTIFIED.

NOTHING he says, you are going to look at objectively much less impartially regardless of his experience and you have made that quite clear and is anyone testimony, expert or not that shouldn't be taken seriously, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE YOURS. I don't care if you have twenty years experience debunking truthers, your demeanor, your attitude and your sarcasm would indicate you took your first years experience and repeated for the next 19 years.

Jeeez man this is a FORUM on the Internet, it isn't congressional inquest. I know you are passionate about this issue and I know that you mean well,, but seriously,,, this thread was not started with formal rules and protocols for inductive arguments or any formal debate.

ATS Forum guidlines and rules not withstanding, If you see someone is here speaking extemporaneously about what they think, or opinions they have, it is only because THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO IT AND DO IT THE WAY THEY WANT WHETHER YOU APPROVE OR NOT.

Chances are,, the rest of us see through the BS too without you having to dissect their every word, challenge their authority when yours is un-mitigated, make them jump through google hoops to substantiate the next item that you won't find "good enough".

You may as well tell them before they even look, that you will mock it, maked fun of it, then exchange barbs using words to effect the most ridiculous display of senseless circumloqution. All the while you display so much prejudice, it appears you are badgering and abusing people into attempting to prove something to you, when, YOU GOT YOUR MIND MADE UP, THE LAST THING I SEE YOU EVER DOING IS LETTING A TRUTHER CONFUSE YOU WITH THE FACTS.


I want you to know slightly,, that I am not saying this because I dislike you, I happen to think you got a lot to offer us here.

Only those who go too far,, know how far they can go.

I am just seeing a very intelligent man, making it harder and harder to recognise he is intelligent,,

when he is so belligerent.



- Love Con






[edit on 9-1-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 





A controlled demolition doesn't require any of those items.

Your kidding right?

This is going to just make your head explode but I have to say it: says who? In what type of demolition are you referring to? Where did you get your information from to draw that conclusion?

Before you tell me to prove your negative: I asked if any of those items were found. You made an assertion that they aren't needed in a controlled demo. I am asking for some outside evidence that your statement is correct. I have not made any assertions, only asked for clarification. You have made a statement in fact that blasting caps, det cord, etc are not needed for CD. Share with me how you came to that conclusion.




Sure there is,, just watch the buildings when they come down. As demolished buildings go,, you couldn't get more control then the way all three of them came down.

In your experience, this is the way it happens? What experience do you have to make such a claim?

Listen, I don't make assertions like this because I rely on third party works to draw my opinion from. When you make an assertion like this, that you are submitting as a basis for discussion, in this manner, you are making a statement of fact with yourself as the source. There is nothing overly complicated about this logic. If that's your opinion, that's great....but say so. The truth movement trys to substitute opinions and represent them as facts.

If the truth movement continues, in this thread, to make assertions as fact (which are nothing more than their opinions) I will keep pointing it out.


If his assertions are correct IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT HIS QUALIFICATIONS ARE.

Quite right. But, he's not. He, like you earlier, makes a claim with himself as the source for the conclusion and claim. With no outside works to reference, or even mentioned, Orion positions himself as drawing independent conclusions on his own. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable to qualify him to make such conclusions. Again, I am not making claiming that I am the original source for my opinions. Does that make sense?




you are only here to repeat the lyrics of that broken record of yours " Do yo have any proof" "That's only an idiot from some place we probably never heard of" "You call that proof" "You haven't shown an iota of proof" yata yata yata

Yes. See above. Also, read the actual post you are referring to. Actually watch the video clip. That video clip was presented by Orion as (seriously now) has having some relation to his argument. The idiot I was referring to was in the video clip, not Orion.

If he is a buffoon,, then let him hang himself
I don't believe him to be a buffoon or anything like that. I have been complimentary of him and made it public. I do think his thinking has much, much more to do with politics and a whole lot less to do with 9-11. I think that is self evident.

As for why I refute claims like his? Because to perpetuate the biggest myth in history is corrosive to our country IMO. It must be countered, even at ATS. That's my opinion and nothing more. It's also the answer to one of your questions.




You keep giving him a reputation to live up to but won't allow him to make his reputation known.

I see your point. Briefly; he is making claims positioning himself as the source for the conclusions. This is important. Opinions need to be clearly marked as such.




He no more has to show you his License then he does his social security number because frankly,, it isn't any of your business for one and two that is how far you'd take it IF HE DID SAY YES HE IS CERTIFIED

Drama! I have never asked for anything like what you try to portray. This is becoming a broken record; if he's going to make the assertion that he is somehow an expert in what he is talking about, at least enough to draw his own conclusions, it is entirely reasonable to ask what qualifications he posses to make such conclusions. Is it not?




NOTHING he says, you are going to look at objectively

Not true. Wild claims based on wild speculations presented as fact? Your right, I am going to require some outside, third party reference. That's an attempt to re frame my comments as being impossible to meet. IMO, I am not asking for anything unreasonable. It just irritates you guys to no end because I ask for the conversation to grounded in reality, not based off of conjecture. You're very upset because I am unyielding in that.




YOU GOT YOUR MIND MADE UP, THE LAST THING I SEE YOU EVER DOING IS LETTING A TRUTHER CONFUSE YOU WITH THE FACTS.

No, I wont let a truther confuse the discussion with their opinions, presented as facts.

The rest of the personal stuff I intentionally didn't answer


[edit on 10-1-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]





 
12
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join