View Single Post
Old 20th November 2007, 04:11 AM   #268
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 30,108
Originally Posted by Mekt_Ranzz View Post
To this point, I can only say that the controlled demolition of the twin towers and Building 7 was not exclusively conventional and that the desired outcome would have been to ensure that no one questioned the resulting fire-induced collapse mechanism. One way to have accomplished that is to have applied mixtures of technologies, most of which were likely conventional, with others analogues of what is conventional and/or completely novel

Obviously, if the controlled demolitions in questions had explosives involved, their sound and flashes were suppressed when compared to typical controlled demolitions. So the evidence is in what we see and hear: A controlled demolition with limited instances of explosive sounds and flashes. How this was accomplished Iím not sure as Iím not an expert.
This is a classic example of the retreating conspiracist position. Let's look at a bit of history here. The original arguments about CD stemmed from quote-mined witness accounts of seeing flashes and hearing explosions, and this was taken as proof that the Twin Towers were demolished. As the evidence against Twin Towers CD's mounted - specifically, the complete lack of similarity in method to a CD, the absence of sufficiently loud explosions or any temporal correlation between the flashes and explosions reported and the actual initiation of the collapse, and the absence of any physical evidence for CD in debris that was painstakingly examined for months by literally thousands of first responders, cleanup workers and investigating law enforcement agents - the conspiracist position started to focus on WTC7, and the apparent similarity of its collapse to a CD using explosives. However, the evidence against CD for WTC7 is equally strong, in the form of the complete absence of visible explosions or sufficiently loud audible reports correlated with collapse initiation; there are, I believe, two reports of loud noises coinciding with the fall of the east mechanical penthouse into the building, and none of explosions just before this event, which is when demolition explosives would be required to be triggered. So now you need to invoke hush-a-boom[tm] technologies in order to justify the possibility of a CD.

But what, actually is your proof? It seems that the basis of your position is now that the collapse of WTC7 looked too much like a CD to be anything else. This has two basic flaws. Firstly, you have no control sample of a steel-framed building that has collapsed from a combination of fire and structural damage in order to establish that there is any expected difference between the two cases. Secondly, in the absence of this, you can only argue that it is unlikely for a collapse to display certain features of WTC7's collapse, not that it is impossible; it is fairly trivial to point out that a CD involves creating a pattern of structural damage that causes a building to fall near-vertically, and therefore that a sufficiently similar pattern could be created by random damage. Note in passing that the collapse of WTC7 was not symmetrical and did cause serious damage to surrounding buildings, therefore the pattern of damage was clearly less well-controlled than in a well-executed CD. In the absence of probability calculations that are any more sophisticated than pulling numbers out of thin air Kevin Ryan-style, you can't even say how unlikely it is for the collapse to look the way it did. And that's all you bring to the table.

So what about the silent, flash-free explosives? What you're trying to do there is explain away an unquantified improbability by invoking an impossibility. Patents relating to modified cutting torches, low-yield explosives for rock crushing and shaped thermite charges all have insurmountable drawbacks to them (specifically, the first needs a large installation or a human operator, the second is designed for low overpressure and hence won't cut steel, the third is a thermal melt approach which is too uncontrollable to give the precise fall characteristics which are the only piece of evidence you advance), but in any case are nothing but an attempt to shift the burden of proof. As others have said, patents are meaningless; I have patents on things that have never been made, and I suspect in one instance is impossible to make using the method given in the patent. There are no end of patents out there that will never be feasible; companies file patents as bargaining chips in intellectual property disputes, and often quantity is more important than quality. You're trying to invoke something whose feasibility has never been established to "prove" that something that may be unlikely didn't actually happen. It's a specious argument and is only evidence of how weak your case actually is.

And, of course, there is still no coherent suggestion as to what the conspirators could have gained by destroying WTC7, with the greatly increased risk involved in complicating the operation, nor as to how they could guarantee that WTC7 would be set on fire or struck by enough debris in the WTC1 collapse to make the collapse look feasible. In fact, I have yet to see a coherent suggestion as to the benefit derived from demolishing WTC1 and 2. Of course, by focusing on WTC7, you avoid answering that question, and all the other questions about the Twin Towers CD theories - yet there is not, and cannot be, any sane scenario which involves a demolition of WTC7 in the absence of certainty that WTC1 and 2 would fall, and it is the requirement for that certainty that informs all the CD theories.

Your argument, and your whole position, is a mess. You're doing a very good job within your movement of ignoring the monstrously large holes in it. Unfortunately, round here we're rather more able to see them.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top