Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
Well duh... I know the routine... but I am not buying THEIR explanation. I don't need to repeat myself.
It is possible to construct reasoned on topic arguments without discussing or seeking to support your alternate scheme of initiation.Mick I will say it again you need to know the movements and the structure before plausibility of CD can be considered.
im pretty sure you need a "claim" to start an argument or debate.what kind of logic is that? noone needs to claim anything to give his or her 2 cents to a topic...imo
So called "Early Motion" of the façade has been identified minutes before the rapid collapse. And as noted many times on this topic under discussion elsewhere "early motion is incompatible with any 'event >> immediate collapse' scenario." We do not have either delayed effect explosives OR delayed effect gravity.
So the rapid fall of the façade was not triggered by explosive cutting - provided we accept the analyses which show the early movement.
And - if we consider explosive cutting of interior columns as the primary cause - how do we account for the same delays "early motion..global collapse"? Two stages of explosive use deliberately preplanned to confuse debunkers of CTs years later? Highly improbable IMO.'
And, whilst that does not demolish ( ) the full range of claims for CD - it puts a big hole in most of them.
The issue then becomes is it FEASIBLE to do?
Which is similar to what I (thought I) said....Ergo I would argo that a proper READ of the movements indicate that a CD involving 81 columns over 8 floors did NOT take place... BUT this does not rule out a DIFFERENT CD as being plausible.
It seems hard to imagine, but if a single point failure can begin the unwinding of the structure why rule it out as not feasible? Feasible is not the topic of the tread. Although I don't find the column 79 initiation location compelling... why couldn't this be the location of some place device to accomplish what NIST claims office fires did?
It also appears that there is no evidence of bombs...such as loud percussive explosions. But as we know, for example, from the Miamus River Bridge collapse.. a huge structure can fail from corrosion of a single pin! No explosion... no ship slamming into the bridge pylon etc.
Is a silent form or CD plausible or feasible?
Which is similar to what I (thought I) said.
Ah the perils of being too brief and too subtle.
The hints about delayed action should have given the clue.
I part with you on this. I suspect that because the structures have reserve capacity there would likely not be a single point failure leading to an instant total collapse. The bridge pin case may be very special.. I am not sure. What happens when one cable in a suspension bridge snaps?
If you get early motion anywhere in a structural frame AND it is caused by explosive cutting BUT the main collapse occurs minutes later - you are dealing with one very sophisticated CD OR multi stage use of explosives. Probably has to be both. Better brains than me at engineering may be able to do it BUT I cannot conceive of a successful CD plan which starts motion at minute scale and builds into a cascading global collapse failure over a time-frame of many minutes.
Unless it is a two stage scheme as I already identified - tongue in cheek - as intended to fool debunkers years later.
Certainly the two identified as plausible single element failing CD schemes - either Col 79 OR transfer truss cutting - would result in near instant failure. No slow build up over many minutes.
.
(you messed up the quoting Jeffrey.)I part with you on this. I suspect that because the structures have reserve capacity there would likely not be a single point failure leading to an instant total collapse. The bridge pin case may be very special.. I am not sure. What happens when one cable in a suspension bridge snaps?
Feasible, plausible, practical etc - what would be the point?
I suppose if I only had to remove a single column there are various methods I could do that, but why would this be necessary?
You start off with the concept of the conspiracy in the first place, in which the conspirators plan to kill thousands of their fellow citizens for reasons unknown - the first layer of improbability.
Then they conclude in their planning that the planes hitting some iconic buildings in NYC, guaranteeing worldwide coverage and no doubt causing the buildings to be condemned even if they do not collapse is simply not enough: They MUST collapse, again for reasons not fully clear - the second layer of improbability.
Then to solve this problem they decide that they will place a device of some sort inside a building that was not hit by a plane, and one which they could not readily predict would even be affected by either the planes or the neighbouring building collapse. To achieve this they develop an elaborate plan involving a silent demolition charge (unlikely) and position it inside a building without it being seen, adding an immeasurable likelihood of being discovered and the plot foiled, for an action which is irrelevant to the outcome of the event - third layer of improbability.
As a thought experiment, lets ignore all this improbable line of enquiry. If you simply want to cut a column with explosives (Id like the dimensions) that for arguments sake with 'burn' at 8000,m/s (they vary, Im just giving an example) keeping it quiet is impossible, or you give yourself a new problem of soundproofing, which I don't think even the Alex Jones' of this world are claiming.
In sum, Im sticking with implausible.
(you messed up the quoting Jeffrey.)
Sure you part with me. I'm discussing WTC7. Specifically.
May I steal that phrase please?humpty dumpty phase.
We are drifting off topic, but this is an oversimplification. Some people appear to have drawn family trees from the Mujahideen to the Taliban, from the Free Syrian Army to ISIS - This is incorrect, Whilst it is true that some people were in the Mujahideen went on to the Taliban, they were completely different groups with opposing ideals in some cases.In fact the US trained these groups to fight to dislodge the soviets from Afghanistan.
Do you know the size of the columns? I could do a demolition calculation, though it might be rough and ready as I am not at work... But, for the sake of argument, obviously the building could be destroyed with a controlled demolition, a silent and undetectable one is more tricky...the mechanics of demolition could be plausible
We are drifting off topic, but this is an oversimplification. Some people appear to have drawn family trees from the Mujahideen to the Taliban, from the Free Syrian Army to ISIS - This is incorrect, Whilst it is true that some people were in the Mujahideen went on to the Taliban, they were completely different groups with opposing ideals in some cases.
Do you know the size of the columns? I could do a demolition calculation, though it might be rough and ready as I am not at work... But, for the sake of argument, obviously the building could be destroyed with a controlled demolition, a silent and undetectable one is more tricky...
Is it not equally plausible that if there were four Shanksvilles, or four jets simply crashing into the ground, it would have had the exact same unifying effect and clamour for war that the NWO/CIA were looking for?The plot thickens because the truther *thinking* sees it all as a massive PR slight of hand.... a big bad magic trick to pin the tail on the terrorist donkey who is not there! Enter Hollywood script writers...
Is it not equally plausible that if there were four Shanksvilles, or four jets simply crashing into the ground, it would have had the exact same unifying effect and clamour for war that the NWO/CIA were looking for?
1. Fake hijacking multiple plans
2. Use fake planes to slam into iconic targets
3. Have one taken down by heroic passengers... Good guys fight against all odds and have a victory!
4. Hijacking multiple planes won't cut it so we need to completely destroy this massive structures
5. blow up an relatively unoccupied section of the pentagon making it an act of war in no uncertain terms
6. haul away all the incriminating evidence
7. make sure the officials pin the tail on the made up terrorist donkey
This is an open thread for discussing the plausibility of demolishing WTC7 with explosives on 9/11
So, in summary:
- Demolishing WTC7 with explosives is very plausible given all analysis and scenarios on this thread
- Secretly demolishing WTC7 on 9/11 - VERY unlikely given all motive/means analysis and scenarios on this thread
Demolishing a building with a controlled demolition? Sure why not? Could a demo match the movements observed? Sure why not?
Perhaps the CD wasn't bombs? Perhaps they were high tech incendiaries?
Which gets us to the dozens of columns blown to effect free fall, did not happen. As you stated earlier.Perhaps the CD wasn't bombs? Perhaps they were high tech incendiaries?
I think this thread has about run its course.