Latest Breaking News

TrogL

(32,828 posts)

197. The problem is, there are exceptions

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 06:49 PM

Apr 2013

So then I don't need to produce evidence that the investigation of this by the officials is a cover up, just show that their evidence is not exclusive then

That sentence doesn't even make any sense, which leaves me to believe you STILL don't understand the issue.

I have not eliminated controlled demolition. You are saying the only possible conclusion is controlled demolition. That is NOT the same thing. To discount what you're saying, I need only come up with another conclusion that uses the same set of known facts.

The rest of your statement is laughable. The official story is full of holes. I'm a LIHOPer which is hardly "orthodox".

Occams Razor is useful here. One (too short) version is "the simplest explanation is best". A version more in lines of what Occam was actually after is "the explanation that makes the fewest assumptions is the place to start".

Controlled demolition requires a huge number of assumptions, how to plant the explosives etc. etc. etc. in a building that was so unstable it didn't even need that much umph to bring it down. I'd rather go with...

-gravity goes down (apples)
-unstable building gets hit with big thing (plenty of video, some people couldn't work upper floors due to seasickness)
-unstable building falls apart from point of impact (plenty of video, none of it showing collapse starting from bottom)
-building goes down from point of failure (more video), squishing anything below with the combined weight of everything above, making it more unstable
-and so on and so on all the way to the ground (building obscured by smoke, but can be derived that it fell primarily in its own footprint)

Now you've got me watching demolition videos (it's a break from Russian car crashes) and they all seem to start from the bottom. What was different with the Towers?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

248 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Luxury skyscraper hotel completely engulfed by fire in Grozny, Chechnya (VIDEO, PHOTOS) [View all] global1 Apr 2013 OP

Only if they use "nano-thermite." Archae Apr 2013 #1

+ 1,000 Berlum Apr 2013 #226

Probably won't implode if the material fueling the fire closeupready Apr 2013 #2

Probably not zeemike Apr 2013 #3

No steel building has ever been hit by a fully loaded 767 - until 9/11 hack89 Apr 2013 #9

I don't recall WTC 7 being hit by a 767, or any aircraft for that matter. olddad56 Apr 2013 #10

WTC 7 had WTC 1 fall on top of it hack89 Apr 2013 #13

Unfought by humans with hoses OR automated sprinklers because the mains were cut. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #17

But the FDNY was in on it - don't you know? nt hack89 Apr 2013 #18

Zounds! Foiled again! AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #20

here is something else you won't believe, those Mother Goose stories, they are not true either. olddad56 Apr 2013 #26

And no jet fueled fire has ever melted steel ether. zeemike Apr 2013 #19

No has ever claimed that the steel was melted hack89 Apr 2013 #21

Basic physics?....lets get real. zeemike Apr 2013 #23

It was not the jet fuel producing that black smoke hack89 Apr 2013 #24

Yep...not the truther charge comes out. zeemike Apr 2013 #29

Why do you think we have fire codes and sprinklers for high rise buildings? hack89 Apr 2013 #31

If I provided you with lots of evidence zeemike Apr 2013 #38

I know this issue inside and out hack89 Apr 2013 #39

So do I. zeemike Apr 2013 #41

If you knew this issue inside & out.... wildbilln864 Apr 2013 #162

It was loaded with enough fuel to fly across country hack89 Apr 2013 #164

that's not fully loaded though! wildbilln864 Apr 2013 #165

200 tons of steel, 60 tons of jet fuel and an impact speed of 500 knots hack89 Apr 2013 #166

we can.... wildbilln864 Apr 2013 #241

But I corrected my post - are those new facts correct? nt hack89 Apr 2013 #242

not really... wildbilln864 Apr 2013 #243

No - they were not hack89 Apr 2013 #244

You have zero experience. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #47

I have a lot more experience than you might think. zeemike Apr 2013 #50

Enough experience you can't answer a simple question. Good day! AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #52

Right after 9/11 I attended a forum of folks wanting to find answers... KansDem Apr 2013 #112

And I am no expert ether... zeemike Apr 2013 #115

And have these NYPD firefighter comments been explained? KansDem Apr 2013 #116

They just ignore it. zeemike Apr 2013 #118

Yawn. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #120

Sorry. I'm not seeing what you described at 7'00" KansDem Apr 2013 #133

6:58 precisely. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #134

He can do a chemical analysis by looking at dust? TrogL Apr 2013 #142

The dust contained iron spheres and nanoparticles zeemike Apr 2013 #146

and there's the logical fallacy TrogL Apr 2013 #141

but no one is usng that exact simple logic to claim demolition NoMoreWarNow Apr 2013 #207

Here's one TrogL Apr 2013 #210

The key there is "virtually free-fall speed" NoMoreWarNow Apr 2013 #212

Yes, there WAS a lot of fuel in the building. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #46

And none of it that would burn hot enough to melt aluminum much less steel zeemike Apr 2013 #53

Wrong. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #56

Well I have to be wrong. zeemike Apr 2013 #57

One and two did not fall exactly, precicely straight down. Thegonagle Apr 2013 #64

Nothing that large can be done precicely strait down. zeemike Apr 2013 #66

Gravity goes down. What other direction would you like it to go? TrogL Apr 2013 #143

Take a box zeemike Apr 2013 #149

Perhaps you should actually try that experiment William Seger Apr 2013 #154

Don't need to do the experiment. zeemike Apr 2013 #160

So, steel isn't just impervious to fire, it's infinitely strong? Wow! William Seger Apr 2013 #171

It does not have to be infinitely strong to resist the force. zeemike Apr 2013 #172

If you weren't even aware of the lateral force of the rotation William Seger Apr 2013 #173

I was not aware of lateral forces?.... zeemike Apr 2013 #174

"How the fuck do you know that" ? William Seger Apr 2013 #175

You are making me dizzy with all that going round and round... zeemike Apr 2013 #176

"when I present someone equally qualified" William Seger Apr 2013 #177

The hell I haven't zeemike Apr 2013 #181

You have presented nothing of substance William Seger Apr 2013 #183

The response is always the same...You have NO evidence. zeemike Apr 2013 #184

False analogy TrogL Apr 2013 #168

It was not an analogy. zeemike Apr 2013 #169

"basics of it does not change with scale" cpwm17 Apr 2013 #178

And yet WTC7 behaved the same as the towers. zeemike Apr 2013 #179

An object's strength is approximately proportional to its cross-sectional area cpwm17 Apr 2013 #189

"WTC7 behaved very differently than the towers" zeemike Apr 2013 #191

"Except that they all fell strait down into their footprint" cpwm17 Apr 2013 #204

Apples and oranges. And the basics do change with scale TrogL Apr 2013 #185

And WTC7 was not built that way at all zeemike Apr 2013 #188

WTC7 fell asymmetrically cpwm17 Apr 2013 #190

And that is also how they demolish a building built like that. zeemike Apr 2013 #193

All the scenes show WTC7 collapsing in silence, unlike demolitions cpwm17 Apr 2013 #200

Which is precisely how you would do it in demolition. zeemike Apr 2013 #202

Multiple engineering teams, multiple universities, multiple insurance analysts. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #216

No you are going with the official story. zeemike Apr 2013 #219

None of that is true. Not a word you just said is true about me. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #220

Well want to know what I am angry about? zeemike Apr 2013 #221

I note you still have nothing technical to offer about the collapse. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #222

Seriously what good would that do? zeemike Apr 2013 #223

You keep saying I ignored this and that. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #224

Well I guarantee you that I can address anything you say zeemike Apr 2013 #225

I showed you one of multiple videos that shows it. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #227

We were done long before this. zeemike Apr 2013 #228

More evasions. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #229

I will never retreat from the truth. zeemike Apr 2013 #230

But you haven't. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #231

You made the claim that the center columns did not fall not me. zeemike Apr 2013 #232

I provided you the evidence. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #233

Just curious but. zeemike Apr 2013 #237

The inner core only holds up a certain percentage of the building's mass. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #239

Causing 2 BILLION in damage to surrounding structures is a "Big Success" AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #234

Exactly correct. Stick one end of a bent coat hanger into a camp fire sometime. Thegonagle Apr 2013 #65

WTC 3, 4, 5, 6, still standing even though Politicalboi Apr 2013 #151

The FDNY reported a 20 story gouge in the side of WTC 7 hack89 Apr 2013 #158

early on after 9/11, the standard claim was that the jet fuel melted the steel columns NoMoreWarNow Apr 2013 #180

There were many false claims early on - that is why we have investigations hack89 Apr 2013 #182

you wrote no one ever claimed the steel was melted, which was false NoMoreWarNow Apr 2013 #206

It is complicated hack89 Apr 2013 #208

I don't think it is clear that there was no demolition at all. NoMoreWarNow Apr 2013 #211

BAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #22

Yep...stage two...make out like it is so crazy you just have to laugh it off. zeemike Apr 2013 #25

molten metal was aluminum or copper, not steel kiri Apr 2013 #37

Have you ever seen molten aluminum or copper? zeemike Apr 2013 #40

Yes, I have seen molten aluminum. Heat it another 100 degrees. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #44

Raise that aluminium another 100 degrees, and tell me what color it is. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #73

Well that is true enough. zeemike Apr 2013 #77

Sure. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #87

Your efforts to persist with pertinent facts is admirable psychopomp Apr 2013 #131

Prove it was molten steel and not copper, aluminium or any other number of things that do melt at AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #42

Well don't wait cause I can't prove shit to you. zeemike Apr 2013 #54

So every time someone like you says 'it was molten steel' AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #55

And you can prove it was molten aluminum then? zeemike Apr 2013 #59

There had to be melted aluminum in the rubble pile hack89 Apr 2013 #68

what made it hot enough to melt it? zeemike Apr 2013 #69

Not true. Plenty of aircraft have burned in open air down to the steel members AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #71

And those aircraft melted the aluminum into a pool of red hot metal? zeemike Apr 2013 #81

I have seen pooled aluminium from such fires. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #88

All the burning consumables in the rubble pile melted the aluminum hack89 Apr 2013 #80

The core columns were 4 inches thick steel. zeemike Apr 2013 #83

The thermite would be gone in seconds hack89 Apr 2013 #84

Termite is not an explosive. zeemike Apr 2013 #86

You're describing tens of thousands of tons of thermite in special containers to direct cutting flow AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #90

Do you know how silly that sounds? zeemike Apr 2013 #94

You did. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #99

So you reject the nano-thermite argument? hack89 Apr 2013 #93

Now where did you get that idea? zeemike Apr 2013 #95

Nano-thermite is a popular truther argument hack89 Apr 2013 #97

And it is also a common item used in demolision... zeemike Apr 2013 #101

No it is not. hack89 Apr 2013 #102

With thermite? A LOT, because you'd have to do it around the entire beam. And in some cases AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #91

A good point. We would see burning thermite during the collapse AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #92

... zeemike Apr 2013 #96

And? AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #100

Most of the supports for that building were in the center. zeemike Apr 2013 #104

WRONG. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #105

Holy fuck... zeemike Apr 2013 #108

It's at about 1:30 in this video. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #110

That is not the center columns you see zeemike Apr 2013 #117

Wrong tower. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #121

that doesn't even look like metal TrogL Apr 2013 #144

That is what termite looks like burning. zeemike Apr 2013 #148

Awesome! DelusionDestroyer Apr 2013 #156

My feelings exactly....n/t zeemike Apr 2013 #159

Same logic fallacy TrogL Apr 2013 #167

It is not a logical fallacy it is a piece of evidence. zeemike Apr 2013 #170

I don't need to. I'm attacking the logical flaws in your argument. TrogL Apr 2013 #186

Your evidence is that stuff falls strait down zeemike Apr 2013 #187

That's why there's so many false convictions TrogL Apr 2013 #192

Here's how to run a properly constructed conspiracy theory TrogL Apr 2013 #194

Here's a video the Truthers might like TrogL Apr 2013 #196

How often is a critical piece of evidence is what it looks like? zeemike Apr 2013 #195

The problem is, there are exceptions TrogL Apr 2013 #197

Well I will try again to make you understand me. zeemike Apr 2013 #198

Ok that's more like it TrogL Apr 2013 #201

Well the fact is... zeemike Apr 2013 #203

I've already told you I don't give a shit for the official story TrogL Apr 2013 #205

I don't need to prove it was aluminium. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #70

Well the evidence is all gone now. zeemike Apr 2013 #75

Your linked video uses the term 'molten metal' and 'molten steel' interchangeably. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #89

So? zeemike Apr 2013 #98

There are lots of ways to test it. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #103

Well I don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. zeemike Apr 2013 #106

I am a welder as well. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #107

Well it is real simple. zeemike Apr 2013 #109

Perhaps not but if you don't want your welds to fail... AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #111

Also known as oxidation... zeemike Apr 2013 #113

Oxidation generates heat. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #114

It is your world Atheist Crusader, we are all just living in it. olddad56 Apr 2013 #28

Not my fault people are so gullible. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #45

Your faith is strong... LanternWaste Apr 2013 #78

WTC 7 was not hit by a 767 zeemike Apr 2013 #124

Because WTC 1 collapsed on it. hack89 Apr 2013 #126

See how easy it is to rationalize it? zeemike Apr 2013 #127

A single support collapse - after fires burned for seven hours hack89 Apr 2013 #128

Well it all comes down to this. zeemike Apr 2013 #130

No - it was not a standard steel structure hack89 Apr 2013 #132

Because it never before in the history of steel buildings happened? zeemike Apr 2013 #135

It didn't collapse strait(sic) down hack89 Apr 2013 #136

I could say the same about you. zeemike Apr 2013 #137

When's the last time a Pro caused two BILLION dollars in damage bringing down a building. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #236

When is the last time pros demolished a tall building zeemike Apr 2013 #238

2BN is a lot of money. We're not talking cosmetic damage here. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #240

If that were the case, the final bill for this collapse came to 2bn dollars. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #235

it wasn't a fully loaded 767.... wildbilln864 Apr 2013 #161

It was loaded with sufficient fuel to fly across country hack89 Apr 2013 #163

It was unique alright whatchamacallit Apr 2013 #199

Many steel buildings have collapsed from fire alone cpwm17 Apr 2013 #123

Really?....that is news to me zeemike Apr 2013 #125

References please? cbrer Apr 2013 #147

Here are a couple of examples: cpwm17 Apr 2013 #150

I wish I could get cbrer Apr 2013 #152

Here's the collapse on YouTube cpwm17 Apr 2013 #153

Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2013 #246

How is that possible if the building is up to standard? Renew Deal Apr 2013 #4

Only if hit by a Boeing filled with jet fuel tinrobot Apr 2013 #5

Local news is reporting the fire is on the plastic facsia of the building, not the interior structur AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #6

Post removed Post removed Apr 2013 #14

I call bullshit on a conspiracy theorist. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #15

Nothing wrong with being a conspiracy theorist AAO Apr 2013 #30

That's not a facade. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #48

Ummmm chief. Boardofools Apr 2013 #63

Ummmm 'chief', I already pointed that out. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #72

If steel buildings can't collapse from fire then why is structural steel required to be ... Hassin Bin Sober Apr 2013 #33

thermate and nano-thermite. AAO Apr 2013 #34

I use nano-thermite in my yard for the fucking fire ants.. snooper2 Apr 2013 #62

I feel sorry for you people that bought the 911 commission report AAO Apr 2013 #35

'You people" Earth_First Apr 2013 #51

Why is structural steel required to be treated with fire retardant coating? Boardofools Apr 2013 #61

Interesting. Hassin Bin Sober Apr 2013 #67

This is how I remember Grozny Paul E Ester Apr 2013 #7

chechen war? Blue_Tires Apr 2013 #36

The recovery is absolutely astonishing - as was its condition after the war. (nt) Posteritatis Apr 2013 #43

Only if the owner gives the order to "pull the building" Cheap_Trick Apr 2013 #8

Depends on whether the building is constructed like a house of cards TrogL Apr 2013 #11

....and the building DID NOT collapse! AAO Apr 2013 #12

Of course not. Some plastic siding caught fire. Big deal. Expensive cosmetic damage. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #16

You're denial is astoundingly horseshitty! AAO Apr 2013 #32

Because we know that all buildings should behave the same in fires cpwm17 Apr 2013 #245

Refusal to consider anything but what your master forces you to. DelusionDestroyer Apr 2013 #155

I missed the part where i said the government was blameless. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #157

Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2013 #213

Right here. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #215

Post removed Post removed Apr 2013 #217

Post removed Post removed Apr 2013 #247

I hope you enjoyed your stay. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #218

probably no evidence of nanothermite..nt xiamiam Apr 2013 #27

This message was self-deleted by its author Earth_First Apr 2013 #49

not real bright to envelop a bldg like that in plastic trim wordpix Apr 2013 #58

My thoughts as well. kentauros Apr 2013 #79

What's it waiting for? Boardofools Apr 2013 #60

Windsor did collapse. The upper sections of the building that fell down 3 hours into the fire were AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #74

So you understand buckling right? zipplewrath Apr 2013 #82

Been thoroughly debunked by several respectable publications. Comrade_McKenzie Apr 2013 #76

Of course it will implode on itself FiveGoodMen Apr 2013 #85

I know this personally becasue I have to buy a new oven librechik Apr 2013 #138

pooling molten steel? madrchsod Apr 2013 #119

Agree. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #122

And it didn't tip over yet?... TeeYiYi Apr 2013 #129

Length of time? DelusionDestroyer Apr 2013 #139

There's a lot of "loose change" on this thread Capt. Obvious Apr 2013 #140

Get Ready.. the tower will free-fall in a perfect footprint.... lib2DaBone Apr 2013 #145

You might want to joint the discussion up above TrogL Apr 2013 #214

"So Saddam Hussein did this?" KurtNYC Apr 2013 #209

wow at least they got every person out! wish they had done fast evac. with the WTC area. Sunlei Apr 2013 #248