News Flash: There was no Controlled Demolition of any building on 9/11/2001

[BmanMcfly]

And it is an accurate term in your case.... A zillion accusations with minimal or zero facts to back them.

OMFG, ROFL!!

You responded THAT, TO THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT (well, a scan of the document).

Seriously delusional.

 

[BmanMcfly]

right they presented it as a pejorative, 'hegelian dialectic' as it applies.

Exactly... These guys are now grasping so strongly at the thin veil remaining of what they consider to be the status quo.

Seriously, when fled starts becoming the one that's making the most intellectually demanding comments, it's a sad state of affairs in debunker land.

 

[NWO_Spook]

It definitely colors his idea of explosives....

Huge fireball = Explosives. Only in Hollywood.

Along with the cannons under the cars to launch them spinning into the air. (Watch for it when your favorite action movie shows a car flipping)

I've seen them and the hydraulic rams. I had a friend who was a stuntman and he used to let me onto the set at times.

 

[Fledermaus]

Every bit of it I backed up, you look at the evidence provided and and just say "no, that's crazy." (Or other equally nonsensical comment), and pretend that holds water...

The sad part is that almost everything on that list is not quite what I said...

Where did I use the word "crazy"?

Stupid perhaps, when it was. Ignorant definitely, when it was. But I don't remember "crazy".

And the wording was PARAPHRASED which does not change the ignorance of those claims.

 

[Fledermaus]

OMFG, ROFL!!

You responded THAT, TO THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT (well, a scan of the document).

Seriously delusional.

Maybe you don't comprende... No, I know you don't.

The term Conspiracy theory fits you to a tee.....

 

[Fledermaus]

Every bit of it I backed up, you look at the evidence provided and and just say "no, that's crazy." (Or other equally nonsensical comment), and pretend that holds water...

The sad part is that almost everything on that list is not quite what I said...

Oh, I guess you weren't there when we went over the details of how the FBI supplied the explosives, and did not arrest the group as planned. the FBI informant built the bomb for them. The only reason he's a free man is that he recorded the conversation.

Ignorant accusation.

The rest of those, are bin laden... Who you still try to deny is a cia asset, or would sock puppet be the more appropriate jargon?

Ignorant accusation.

Even saddam Hussein would not have got in power without cia influence... A trend of gathering allies to stab in the back later once they have outlived their usefulness.

Ignorant accusation.

No, it's completely relevant... Every major terrorist attack in recent time has been the result of cia / FBI / corporate interests. The same groups that also have the best capacity and resources to downplay, if not outright conceal involvement and push the narrative.

Ignorant accusation.

Hint: check for yourself what happened to the team that was involved in the bin laden raid and burial. You either won't get the point or won't admit it anyway.

Ignorant accusation.

The significant difference; one of the planes was used to hit the military (pentagon). So, it's treated as an act of war... What happened in New York ensures that the people will be enraged and push for military action.

Ignorant accusation.

(Without getting into the declaration of the trillion dollars the pentagon was missing on sept. 10, never to be discussed again)

Ignorant accusation.

 

[Fledermaus]

Exactly... These guys are now grasping so strongly at the thin veil remaining of what they consider to be the status quo.

Seriously, when fled starts becoming the one that's making the most intellectually demanding comments, it's a sad state of affairs in debunker land.

And yet you can't present any logical and cogent theory.... Pity.

 

[Mark F]

Exactly... These guys are now grasping so strongly at the thin veil remaining of what they consider to be the status quo.

Seriously, when fled starts becoming the one that's making the most intellectually demanding comments, it's a sad state of affairs in debunker land.

Said the guy who doesn't know the difference between the low constant rumble of an already collapsing building and the short, sharp series of 180-190db BANGS of high-explosives.

I am curious, if the low rumble type noise you keep claiming is from explosives are in fact explosives, what does the collapse of the building sound like? I only ask because we should be hearing two very distinctly different series of sounds, not one. There should be one series of sounds for the BOOM, BOOM, BOOM part with the explosives, and the second series being the low rumble of collapsing rubble. For your explanation of the sound to work - using your own sources - either the collapse of millions of tons of debris is utterly silent, the explosives are utterly silent, or there are no explosives and the sound we hear is what 110 stories of building sounds like when it is collapsing.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Said the guy who doesn't know the difference between the low constant rumble of an already collapsing building and the short, sharp series of 180-190db BANGS of high-explosives.

RDX is not the only type of explosive that could be used to do the job... But knowing exactly what was used is much less relevant than finally accepting the fact that there were explosives in the building to take it down,

I am curious, if the low rumble type noise you keep claiming is from explosives are in fact explosives, what does the collapse of the building sound like? I only ask because we should be hearing two very distinctly different series of sounds, not one. There should be one series of sounds for the BOOM, BOOM, BOOM part with the explosives, and the second series being the low rumble of collapsing rubble. For your explanation of the sound to work - using your own sources - either the collapse of millions of tons of debris is utterly silent, the explosives are utterly silent, or there are no explosives and the sound we hear is what 110 stories of building sounds like when it is collapsing.

Go back to the audio analysis... There were 7 explosions in the 14 seconds before the first tower collapsed, then the sound of collapse endured for about 18 seconds.

The sound of the collapsing structure drowns out the sounds of explosives, and so the sound heard is a loud rumble (or like a train).

 

[ozeco41]

RDX is not the only type of explosive that could be used to do the job... But knowing exactly what was used is much less relevant than finally accepting the fact that there were explosives in the building to take it down,

Since there was no need for explosives what did the explosives (if any) actually achieve?

The sound of the collapsing structure drowns out the sounds of explosives,....

Well that, stand alone, is self rebutting...BUT

....what did those explosives achieve if "the sound of the collapsing structure drowns out the sounds.."????

 

[Fledermaus]

RDX is not the only type of explosive that could be used to do the job... But knowing exactly what was used is much less relevant than finally accepting the fact that there were explosives in the building to take it down,

Go back to the audio analysis... There were 7 explosions in the 14 seconds before the first tower collapsed, then the sound of collapse endured for about 18 seconds.

The sound of the collapsing structure drowns out the sounds of explosives, and so the sound heard is a loud rumble (or like a train).

RDX is representative of explosives used in REAL controlled demolitions.

And there is STILL ZERO EVIDENCE of ANY explosives.

And the explosions are consistent with REAL CONTROLLED DEMOLITION how exactly?

And your fantasy of explosives going off AFTER collapse begins is ridiculous.

 

[Mark F]

....what did those explosives achieve if "the sound of the collapsing structure drowns out the sounds.."????

Indeed. This is no Chicken vs. Egg scenario.

By definition, in order to have initiated the collapse the any explosives would have to go off before the building falls. If the short, sharp, high-frequency and deafeningly loud sounds of explosions are being drowned out by the dull, low-frequency rumble of collapsing building that means collapse came before explosion which of course means the explosions can not be responsible for the collapse. And of course, so much for looks like explosive CD since you will be very hard pressed indeed to find another example of this in known explosive CD's.

But of course we can always fall back on first time in history,... :bolt

But then, we know why Bman is using this claim - he has to rationalize the very obvious absence of explosive blasts. This means he is either aware of the problem and rather than modifying his hypothesis to fit the evidence he is doing the reverse OR this very elementary (one might say Fisher-Price even) logic that collapse sounds must follow BOOM BOOM sounds seems to have completely escaped Bman. Either way he is either being deceptive, being delusional or just doesn't get it on a fundamental level. No matter, the end result is the same whichever way the verdict falls.

:failpail:

 

[BmanMcfly]

Since there was no need for explosives what did the explosives (if any) actually achieve?

Ok, you should go back a couple pages, I already showed how there was explosives...

No, it was incendiaries that heated / cut the steel, and the explosives started as the first tower began to topple over a couple floors

Well that, stand alone, is self rebutting...BUT

....what did those explosives achieve if "the sound of the collapsing structure drowns out the sounds.."????

What do explosives usually do when they are used in a demolition ?

NIST addressed and considered ONLY RDX, that's why they made claims about the noise.

Again, go back a few pages, find the audio analysis video of the collapse. Then, look at the Suaret video, and see that the first explosion that synced to 14 seconds from collapse was the cause of the video to shake at 12 seconds before collapse (meaning that the Suaret video was taken from approximately 700 m from the source of the sound, where the audio across the river was around 2.5 km away)

I'll have to find a way to get the images to illustrate, simply describing what I noticed is not going to do any justice, as far as the rest goes...

 

[Fledermaus]

Ok, you should go back a couple pages, I already showed how there was explosives...

No, it was incendiaries that heated / cut the steel, and the explosives started as the first tower began to topple over a couple floors

Wow... Rube Goldberg...

CLUE: NO EVIDENCE OF PYROTECHNICS

What do explosives usually do when they are used in a demolition ?

NIST addressed and considered ONLY RDX, that's why they made claims about the noise.

Again, go back a few pages, find the audio analysis video of the collapse. Then, look at the Suaret video, and see that the first explosion that synced to 14 seconds from collapse was the cause of the video to shake at 12 seconds before collapse (meaning that the Suaret video was taken from approximately 700 m from the source of the sound, where the audio across the river was around 2.5 km away)

I'll have to find a way to get the images to illustrate, simply describing what I noticed is not going to do any justice, as far as the rest goes...

You STILL have no clue....

 

[Mark F]

RDX is not the only type of explosive that could be used to do the job... But knowing exactly what was used is much less relevant than finally accepting the fact that there were explosives in the building to take it down,

Go back to the audio analysis... There were 7 explosions in the 14 seconds before the first tower collapsed, then the sound of collapse endured for about 18 seconds.

The sound of the collapsing structure drowns out the sounds of explosives, and so the sound heard is a loud rumble (or like a train).

Perhaps you could explain how explosives made the columns of the South Tower bend then finally buckle as I showed in post #203?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...y-building-9-11-2001-a-21.html#post1063681248

 

[Fledermaus]

You keep babbling about RDX...

NIST used it as a representative example of explosives used in REAL Controlled Demolition.

Other REAL explosives used in REAL Controlled Demolition share the same traits. Namely similar explosives power with similar blast effect and audible signature.

You STILL can't understand that, right?

 

[ozeco41]

I usually don't chase this sort of deliberate derailing evasion but....I'm in a playful mood (waiting for a parcel to arrive by post ) so why shouldn't I whack a few simple moles to fill in the time??

Ok, you should go back a couple pages,[SUP]1[/SUP] I already showed how there was explosives...[SUP]2[/SUP]

No, it was incendiaries that heated / cut the steel,[SUP]3[/SUP] and the explosives started as the first tower began to topple over a couple floors [SUP]4, 5[/SUP]

1 Why should I go back. I asked a simple clearly stated and focussed question "...what did the explosives (if any) actually achieve?" That was in courteous response to YOUR claim. I don't do mind reading. I asked YOU to explain an aspect of YOUR claim.
2 There you go making a claim. It implies that you have presented a reasoned hypothesis. Recall I challenged you a couple of pages back to present ONE example where you have presented reasoned argument. This one will do. Please QUOTE for me what you claim is a reasoned argument - or in your words where you have PROVED there was explosives used.
3 An interesting tho' unsupported claim. It raises several problems of application but I'll let it stand as moot for the present.
4 So back to my first point "...what did the explosives (if any) actually achieve?" firing AFTER collapse was under way? I understood the claim the first time - that is why I asked the question. Your repeating the claim doesn't make it any more explicit OR answer my question.
AND - a side issue BUT
5 What sort of an idiot would do that? <<<Optional question (yes it is "more global" and accords with your favourite tactic of evasion but.... :mrgreen

Then you really get into the "drifting":

What do explosives usually do when they are used in a demolition ?[SUP]6[/SUP]
NIST addressed and considered ONLY RDX, that's why they made claims about the noise.[SUP]7[/SUP]

Again, go back a few pages, find the audio analysis video of the collapse. Then, look at the Suaret video, and see that the first explosion that synced to 14 seconds from collapse was the cause of the video to shake at 12 seconds before collapse (meaning that the Suaret video was taken from approximately 700 m from the source of the sound, where the audio across the river was around 2.5 km away)[SUP]8[/SUP]

I'll have to find a way to get the images to illustrate, simply describing what I noticed is not going to do any justice, as far as the rest goes...[SUP]9[/SUP]

6 If you don't know how come you are making claims? Sure - I'm the demolitions trained Military Engineer. I can help you to understand BUT set up a topic with a reasoned request for helpful explanation so we don't derail this thread. Other members may also be interested.

7 Did they? So what? we are discussing YOUR claim that explosives were used. And I asked "...what did the explosives (if any) actually achieve?". My reference was to the explosives YOU claimed were used. Not to assertions by NIST as to noise from explosives that were NOT used.

8 I'm familiar with the range of evidence available. I've also put it in context - opposing bits of evidence properly weighted - framed in reasoned argument. You are not the first person to quote mine anomalous bits of evidence which you cannot explain (or claim you cannot explain) THEN make false assertions based on your personal incredulity.

9 My advice is start from the big picture and the known facts at that level. THEN see where the bits of evidence fit and frame the NECESSARY reasoning matching evidence to known context linked by reasoned argument.

For the Twin Towers the big picture I prefer is to identify the main stages of collapse. There are about 5 - I see only two as critical to explaining the collapse whether or not you want to include CD in the discussion. Those two are "initiation" and "progression" which should need no further definition at this stage.

You may prefer to add in two more which could be:
a) - pre cutting of core columns near ground level - timed at or around the time of aircraft impact; AND
b) - a "transition" stage between "initiation" and "progression". I am convinced that there is no need for "transition" - if the truly 3 dimensional nature of the initiation cascade is understood.

However YOU are the one currently claiming that explosives were used. So tell us why they were used, what they achieved and put it in the context of the stages of collapse. If you don't like my stages then define your own. The bottom line remains the same - why use explosives to cause a collapse that was happening anyway and where the explosives had no evident effect. Especially when they were fired too late as per your claims as you have stated them.


That should be enough "Mole Whacking" - plus my final comments with the challenge to get into some serious discussion.

...and my parcel has arrived so cheers for now.

 

[BmanMcfly]

1 Why should I go back.

Because you came late to the party and I've already addressed the issue you raised... And if you are actually interested in "serious discussion", I would expect an interest in being on the same page as opposed to attempting to make me repeat myself.

 

[Mark F]

Because you came late to the party and I've already addressed the issue you raised... And if you are actually interested in "serious discussion", I would expect an interest in being on the same page as opposed to attempting to make me repeat myself.

So that means you will not answer the key question: What did the explosives actually achieve if they fired after the building had already started to collapse?

 

[BmanMcfly]

So that means you will not answer the key question: What did the explosives actually achieve if they fired after the building had already started to collapse?

I believe you would call that a 'fail-safe', but, I can only guess at the motivation.

This is one of those "if you don't know what they ate for breakfast then it's wrong" issues anyway.

 

[ozeco41]

I believe you would call that a 'fail-safe',...

Yes - that is a valid suggestion within the range of plausible scenarios which would include these three at the start of honest discussion:

1) No CD;
2) CD was performed even tho' not needed;
3) CD was performed and was needed.

I obviously would hold to "1" - no CD. I think you are into "3". Your identification of the "fail-safe" could be correct for either situation "2" or "3". My recent efforts to get you to adopt a specific and focussed path of reasoned discussion have been directed at moving us into "2". Because the two elements are separable. Viz (1) Engineering reality - no CD needed separated from (2) Was there CD anyway?

I can demonstrate the engineering reality of "CD not needed" - by pure engineering with one aspect subject to other considerations. Once I demonstrate that engineering fact THEN "3" is disproved (allow the lay person language) and we are firmly in "2" - CD happened but it was redundant.

..but, I can only guess at the motivation.

True - but again we are coming at the logic from the arse end. Or at least the "hard end to argue from". It's far easier to come at it from the other end. First deal with the reality that there was no need for CD which is amenable to objective technical reasoning based on adequate and sufficient available evidence. The "motivation" aspect is in the psychological domain. Always harder to argue in the socio-political-psychological domains and there is no need to argue in those foggy areas provided we can on technical grounds demonstrate that the issue is without basis. Which is the status if we demonstrate EITHER "no CD needed" as step one OR "no CD performed" which is the second step. (Again put both those in the rigorous language of the sceintific method if you prefer - I'm saving words by using lay person language AND omitting the disclaimers.)

This is one of those "if you don't know what they ate for breakfast then it's wrong" issues anyway.

No it isn't - your penchant for broader global claims based on bad analogies once again raising its ugly head. I could parse the statement and show where the analogy fails AND the logic is false but that would be falling for the derail. Let's stay focused.

 

[Fledermaus]

I believe you would call that a 'fail-safe', but, I can only guess at the motivation.

This is one of those "if you don't know what they ate for breakfast then it's wrong" issues anyway.

A "fail safe" for what?

If the explosives are too weak and poorly placed they will do nothing but make unneeded noise raise unwanted questions.

You REALLY aren't thinking this through.

You have Wile E. Coyote placing explosives. And not even the right type of explosives.

This is no "if you don't know what they ate for breakfast then it's wrong" issue. It cuts to the core. You obviously don't understand explosives at ANY level. And you aren't willing to learn.

 

[ozeco41]

A "fail safe" for what?

If I'm reading him correctly he means "Let's hit it with aircraft AND provide CD as a fail safe in case the plane impact and fires are not enough."

...that is a valid logical option. Note carefully what I said. I did not say I agreed with the assertion - only that it is a logically valid option. :mrgreen:

BUT it is a valid option within the framing I put in my previous post. Or any alternate framing he may care to suggest.

 

[Fledermaus]

To recap....

Bman has proposed:

Bombs/explosives in the basement.... That do not contribute materially to the collapse since the bottom failed after the upper structures. Nor do they contribute to the overall casualties.

Bombs/explosives in the stairwells..... That do not contribute materially to the collapse. Nor do they contribute to the overall casualties.

Bombs/explosives and/or pyrotechnics on the impact floors... That do not contribute materially to the collapse, due to the fact they did not "go off" until the collapse was under way. Nor do they contribute to the overall casualties.

Bombs/explosives on various floors.... That do not contribute materially to the collapse since the collapse is well under way. Nor do they contribute to the overall casualties.

Bombs/explosives made of things other than real demolition explosives.

Bombs/explosives that contribute nothing but noise and questions.

 

[Fledermaus]

If I'm reading him correctly he means "Let's hit it with aircraft AND provide CD as a fail safe in case the plane impact and fires are not enough."

...that is a valid logical option. Note carefully what I said. I did not say I agreed with the assertion - only that it is a logically valid option. :mrgreen:

BUT it is a valid option within the framing I put in my previous post. Or any alternate framing he may care to suggest.

As a concept it isn't bad. Like a "Hail Mary" pass he gets a reception.... But no touchdown. (US Football reference)

The execution of this supposed "fail safe" is a big fat fail.

To be a true fail safe it would help for the "explosives" to actually be able to do something. Planting individual kabooms on various floors is a recipe for fail.

As executed the "fail safe" had a whelks chance in a supernova.