News Flash: There was no Controlled Demolition of any building on 9/11/2001 (1 Viewer)

[Bob0627]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Lmao... His analysis is no different than the standard debunker stance.

For example; drywall around columns does not go to the roof, it goes a couple inches above the ceiling. That gap provides likely 2-4 ft of room through which a tile could be displaced then you have access to the column, put the tile back and nobody would ever know the difference.

Here's an excerpt from "Reply to Protec's A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT".

Summary -- Blanchard's Methods

Blanchard uses a dozen paragraphs to establish his expertise, touting Protec as "one of the world's most knowledgeable independent authorities on explosive demolition." Showcasing his specialized knowledge of demolition and repeatedly referring to evidence unavailable to the public, Blanchard implies that his understanding about the destruction of the WTC towers outweighs that of non-experts.

However, because these events display so many obvious characteristics of controlled demolitions, many individuals reject the official story of gravity-driven collapses based on simple intuition. Blanchard avoids discussing most of those features (the thorough pulverization, explosiveness, and rapidity of the Twin Towers' destruction) and instead appears to address two of the features (symmetry and jets of dust) but with only muddled and convoluted explanations.

Despite his self-proclaimed expertise, Blanchard fails to debunk any substantial arguments for controlled demolition of the WTC towers. His arguments amount to a series of fallacies wrapped in appeals to authority and reinforced with pretentious language.

Reply to Brent Blanchard's 'A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7'

 

[Mark F]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Here's an excerpt from "Reply to Protec's A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT".

Summary -- Blanchard's Methods

Blanchard uses a dozen paragraphs to establish his expertise, touting Protec as "one of the world's most knowledgeable independent authorities on explosive demolition." Showcasing his specialized knowledge of demolition and repeatedly referring to evidence unavailable to the public, Blanchard implies that his understanding about the destruction of the WTC towers outweighs that of non-experts.

However, because these events display so many obvious characteristics of controlled demolitions, many individuals reject the official story of gravity-driven collapses based on simple intuition. Blanchard avoids discussing most of those features (the thorough pulverization, explosiveness, and rapidity of the Twin Towers' destruction) and instead appears to address two of the features (symmetry and jets of dust) but with only muddled and convoluted explanations.

Despite his self-proclaimed expertise, Blanchard fails to debunk any substantial arguments for controlled demolition of the WTC towers. His arguments amount to a series of fallacies wrapped in appeals to authority and reinforced with pretentious language.

Reply to Brent Blanchard's 'A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7'

Except that the "obvious characteristics of controlled demolitions" (like AE911T's silly list), aren't.

Good luck continuing to go about this the wrong way though. It has done 9/11 Woo so much good these last 13 years,...

 

[Mark F]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Lmao... His analysis is no different than the standard debunker stance.

For example; drywall around columns does not go to the roof, it goes a couple inches above the ceiling. That gap provides likely 2-4 ft of room through which a tile could be displaced then you have access to the column, put the tile back and nobody would ever know the difference.

Great.

Prove it.

 

[Bob0627]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Except that the "obvious characteristics of controlled demolitions" (like AE911T's silly list), aren't.

Yeah I know, just like a head violently lurching back doesn't OBVIOUSLY mean a shot from the front and free fall is not free fall and doesn't OBVIOUSLY mean NO RESISTANCE.

War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength. Orwell would be proud of you. You learn your lessons very well from your employers/masters.

 

[Mark F]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Yeah I know, just like a head violently lurching back doesn't OBVIOUSLY mean a shot from the front

It doesn't. Only CT's think like that. It is a fine example of the sort of single-anomaly-out-of-context-non-thinking that characterizes the CT approach to epic fail.

You keep getting your forensics and ballistics information from Geraldo Rivera and Ollie Stone if you like. I prefer to get mine from actual experts who have a clue and are not just pulling things out of their exit pipes.

...and free fall is not free fall and doesn't OBVIOUSLY mean NO RESISTANCE.

We have discussed free body physics many times. Not my fault if you don't get it. I do.

Now, would you care to present an evidence-based case that proves CD beyond reasonable doubt or shall we just expect more of the already well trodden path of fail we have seen so far?

 

[Bob0627]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Not my fault if you don't get it.

Yeah it is your fault, you failed to do your job properly. Or you haven't yet figured out you can't convince intelligent people that your upside down backwards "logic" is valid.

 

[Mark F]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Yeah it is your fault, you failed to do your job properly. Or you haven't yet figured out you can't convince intelligent people that your upside down backwards "logic" is valid.

You can start making your case for CD at any time Bob.

 

[Bob0627]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

You can start making your case for CD at any time Bob.

I already have, many times. But in fact, I don't need and never needed to "make my case", the destruction of the 3 towers speak for themselves and they are incredibly OBVIOUS. As Sunder put it "the OBVIOUS stares you in the face". But it doesn't matter how many I did, you'll always claim I didn't so it's a waste of time.

 

[Mark F]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

I already have, many times. But in fact, I don't need and never needed to "make my case", the destruction of the 3 towers speak for themselves and they are incredibly OBVIOUS. As Sunder put it "the OBVIOUS stares you in the face". But it doesn't matter how many I did, you'll always claim I didn't so it's a waste of time.

Great. When will you be bringing this prima facie case to a prosecutor so they can present it to a Grand Jury?

 

[mike2810]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

I already have, many times. But in fact, I don't need and never needed to "make my case", the destruction of the 3 towers speak for themselves and they are incredibly OBVIOUS. As Sunder put it "the OBVIOUS stares you in the face". But it doesn't matter how many I did, you'll always claim I didn't so it's a waste of time.

It is so "obvious" that the failed nyc ballot measure left out wtc1 and 2.

It would be great if the CD folks would come up with one clear concise theory.

 

[Bob0627]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Great. When will you be bringing this prima facie case to a prosecutor so they can present it to a Grand Jury?

Regardless of the above drivel, the CD is obvious/self-evident from the point of view of a non-expert:



to an expert:

djde_zps95b90049.gif gif by mypbemotes | Photobucket

just by sheer observation.

 

[Bob0627]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

It is so "obvious" that the failed nyc ballot measure left out wtc1 and 2.

Irrelevant Mike.

It would be great if the CD folks would come up with one clear concise theory.

And why would that be "great"?

 

[mike2810]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Irrelevant Mike.



And why would that be "great"?

because the current state of the CD folks is adrift.

Those that dwell in specifics with the CD explanation the findings cannot all be true or factual.
Unless you believe that the towers were taken down by energy beam, nukes, neutron bomb,thermite, nanothermite, etc. all at the same time.

Even the CD crowd cannot agree.

 

[Bob0627]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

because the current state of the CD folks is adrift.

Those that dwell in specifics with the CD explanation the findings cannot all be true or factual.
Unless you believe that the towers were taken down by energy beam, nukes, neutron bomb,thermite, nanothermite, etc. all at the same time.

Even the CD crowd cannot agree.

None of that is relevant as it is putting the cart before the horse. People disagree mostly because we never had an investigation into 9/11. The FACT is that it was a CD, that's as clear as day and the people have been duped into believing these were natural collapses as a result of planes and/or fires. An investigation would be required to try to first establish that it truly was a CD (because no investigation begins with a preconception), then try to determine what, where, how, when, who and why.

 

[Mark F]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

None of that is relevant as it is putting the cart before the horse. People disagree mostly because we never had an investigation into 9/11. The FACT is that it was a CD, that's as clear as day and the people have been duped into believing these were natural collapses as a result of planes and/or fires. An investigation would be required to try to first establish that it truly was a CD (because no investigation begins with a preconception), then try to determine what, where, how, when, who and why.

So if I am reading this correctly you are saying it is a FACT it was a CD (and an obvious fact at that) yet we need an investigation to establish that it truly was a CD?!?!?!?!?

And you say the rest of us are the logic-challenged!

 

[BmanMcfly]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Great.

Prove it.

What's to prove?

 

[Bob0627]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

So if I am reading this correctly you are saying it is a FACT it was a CD (and an obvious fact at that) yet we need an investigation to establish that it truly was a CD?!?!?!?!?

And you say the rest of us are the logic-challenged!

"Us" meaning you're the head spokesman for the faithers or shills, I take it. Yeah you are, or at least you pretend to be. In any criminal investigation, they still first have to establish it was a murder, no matter how obvious. I'm sure you knew that but pretend you're baffled, it's your job. And an investigation is not just to establish it truly was a CD, that's only part of it. I'm sure you knew that too, never mind that that's what I posted.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

It doesn't. Only CT's think like that. It is a fine example of the sort of single-anomaly-out-of-context-non-thinking that characterizes the CT approach to epic fail.

You keep getting your forensics and ballistics information from Geraldo Rivera and Ollie Stone if you like. I prefer to get mine from actual experts who have a clue and are not just pulling things out of their exit pipes.



We have discussed free body physics many times. Not my fault if you don't get it. I do.

Now, would you care to present an evidence-based case that proves CD beyond reasonable doubt or shall we just expect more of the already well trodden path of fail we have seen so far?

No, you clearly do not get it... your "debunking" at best would add a couple percentage change in margin for error.

Which, at best, does not dispute that the outer shell collapsed through itself with virtually negligible resistance.

The only way that is accomplished is demolition.

Your attempted explanation leads to the result that nist found... which is NO POINT AT WHICH FREEFALL COULD NOT BE ACHEIVED AT ANY POINT. Never mind 8 floors worth.

 

[mike2810]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

None of that is relevant as it is putting the cart before the horse. People disagree mostly because we never had an investigation into 9/11. The FACT is that it was a CD, that's as clear as day and the people have been duped into believing these were natural collapses as a result of planes and/or fires. An investigation would be required to try to first establish that it truly was a CD (because no investigation begins with a preconception), then try to determine what, where, how, when, who and why.

same post bob.
there was an investigation. you choose to believe it was not.
Other independent researches support the fire induced collapse as highly probable.

It so funny how you give your CD authors a pass. They didn't print/post the claim of knowing what explosive was used as opinion. They posted/printed it as facts.
So your cart befor horse statement is just plain silly.

As you can expect, I reject your post as being nothing more than CT talking points.

 

[Bob0627]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

there was an investigation. you choose to believe it was not.

It's not a belief, it's a fact. NIST wasn't an investigation, it was a pretense designed to cover up the facts. The EVIDENCE shows that quite clearly.

Other independent researches support the fire induced collapse as highly probable.

And other independent researches support the CD is the ONLY possibility and the fire induced collapse is a fantasy.

So your cart befor horse statement is just plain silly.

It's not my cart before the horse, it's yours and it is silly.

I reject your post as being nothing more than CT talking points.

You can do as you please, it means nothing to me.

 

[Mark F]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Anyone care to discuss Prof. Clifton's findings on the WTC collapses or are we just going to keep endlessly JAQ'ing off over the same tired old crap?

undicisettembre: Why the World Trade Center collapsed: an interview with Charles Clifton, professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Auckland

 

[Bob0627]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Anyone care to discuss Prof. Clifton's findings on the WTC collapses or are we just going to keep endlessly JAQ'ing off over the same tired old crap?

undicisettembre: Why the World Trade Center collapsed: an interview with Charles Clifton, professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Auckland

It's discussed here:

Debunking the 9/11 Truth Debunkers

The first problem that immediately glares out at me is in the 2nd sentence of the article:

Proponents of conspiracy theories often back their arguments with claims that are apparently precise and scientific but are actually based on superficial and often incorrect knowledge.

This is covered quite well in the link I posted:

The question uses misleading rhetoric ('conspiracy theories') to discourage rational consideration of theories other than the official one. A conspiracy is an illegal or subversive act planned by two or more people. That has nothing to do with the laws of physics, which is what the question is about. "Bin Laden's 19 hijackers brought down the towers with jetliners" is a conspiracy theory, but "The World Trade Center Towers and building 7 collapsed in the manner of controlled demolitions" is a collapse theory, not a conspiracy theory.

So you bring up the same tired old crap for discussion because you don't want to discuss the same tired old crap. I completely understand (war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, etc.).

You can go through the rest yourself if you're really interested.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

No, you clearly do not get it... your "debunking" at best would add a couple percentage change in margin for error.

Which, at best, does not dispute that the outer shell collapsed through itself with virtually negligible resistance.

The only way that is accomplished is demolition.

Your attempted explanation leads to the result that nist found... which is NO POINT AT WHICH FREEFALL COULD NOT BE ACHEIVED AT ANY POINT. Never mind 8 floors worth.

And yet there were NO EXPLOSIVES......

None.

Zero.

Nada.

Not one trace.

Nothing.

Given those FACTS one might look to another cause.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Lmao... His analysis is no different than the standard debunker stance.

For example; drywall around columns does not go to the roof, it goes a couple inches above the ceiling. That gap provides likely 2-4 ft of room through which a tile could be displaced then you have access to the column, put the tile back and nobody would ever know the difference.

TRANSLATION: He bases his statements on EVIDENCE, FACTS and LOGIC.

Still trying to support the ignorant claims of explosives being planted?

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

None of that is relevant as it is putting the cart before the horse. People disagree mostly because we never had an investigation into 9/11. The FACT is that it was a CD, that's as clear as day and the people have been duped into believing these were natural collapses as a result of planes and/or fires. An investigation would be required to try to first establish that it truly was a CD (because no investigation begins with a preconception), then try to determine what, where, how, when, who and why.

Why lie Bob?