ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 9/11 conspiracy theories

Reply
Old 27th September 2019, 08:06 PM   #1
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 3,156
Is the demolition scenario a vestige of early no-planer theories?

I might be conflating the conspiracy theory narratives myself, but I had an epiphany last week and like all good skeptics I tried to figure out how the available evidence fit into it.

I was wondering whether or not this whole superfluous "controlled demolition" idea sprang up from the no-plane theories of the early 2000s. No plane = no reason for the towers to collapse except by brute force demolition. Then the demolition scenario took on a life of its own, eventually standing alone as the main talking point while the other crazy theories quietly fizzled out.

For a reasonable skeptic, on its face, the controlled demolition claim is grossly superfluous. Why crash a jumbo jet into skyscrapers and THEN demolish them. It's simply not worth the effort.

My theory about the origins of the controlled demolition scenario may explain how truthers ended up in such an awkward spot.

Then again, it could have sprung up on it's own when truthers used their "common sense" to determine that any building collapsing is demolition .
Venom 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
Old 27th September 2019, 10:17 PM   #2
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,994
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
Then again, it could have sprung up on it's own when truthers used their "common sense" to determine that any building collapsing is demolition .
Pretty much this in a nutshell.

At first glance the collapses resembled a CD but with repeated viewing it is clear that there was nothing controlled in any of the collapses. Truthers back-engineered the CD nonsense to fit their claim that it was an inside job which is why all of the theories are stupid. Then they begin their argument with the claim that no highrise building has ever been brought down by an office fire (in the case of WTC7) which is not true, and fails to take the design of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 into consideration (because that involves engineering knowledge and most Truthers have problems with any kind of math that uses a weird alphabet).

The biggest problem with CD is that it makes zero sense to wire three buildings to be destroyed and then crash jumbo jets into two of them and let the third one burn for almost eight hours. Call me simple but just blowing three buildings up with no warning and killing up to 50,000 people seems much more frightening considering that not a single person since 2001 has ever reported any strange activity in any of the WTC complex. The ability to destroy buildings at will should be more than enough to terrorize a nation by itself. Bonus: You could blame anyone. But no, we get this half-witted Truther CT that couldn't hold water at any depth.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is online now   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
Old 28th September 2019, 01:43 AM   #3
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,999
I disagree.
I encounter plenty of no-planers. I don't think this theory has fizzled out at all.
That is contradicts other 9/11 CTs is, of course, conveniently glossed over, as we have seen here when truthers with differing theories pretend not to notice each other.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak 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
Old 28th September 2019, 03:23 AM   #4
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,948
All manner of crazy thinking is in play.

Office fires never caused a high rise to collapse... controlled demos do... ergo it must have been a CD

Planes were a decoy for the twin towers... which obviously didn't "knock them over"... then see above

Debris didn't cause other near by buildings to collapse... see above.

Destruction of the world trade center was need to "start a war"... as opposed to severely damaged buildings which would have been a big yawn.

Collapses looked like a CD ergo they were a CD.

People heard loud noises... must have been CD explosions. ergo it was a CD.

These buildings were too strong to collapse as they did... ergo it was an intended demolition.

and the list goes on
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO 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
Old 28th September 2019, 07:02 AM   #5
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,800
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Pretty much this in a nutshell.

At first glance the collapses resembled a CD but with repeated viewing it is clear that there was nothing controlled in any of the collapses. Truthers back-engineered the CD nonsense to fit their claim that it was an inside job which is why all of the theories are stupid. Then they begin their argument with the claim that no highrise building has ever been brought down by an office fire (in the case of WTC7) which is not true, and fails to take the design of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 into consideration (because that involves engineering knowledge and most Truthers have problems with any kind of math that uses a weird alphabet).

The biggest problem with CD is that it makes zero sense to wire three buildings to be destroyed and then crash jumbo jets into two of them and let the third one burn for almost eight hours. Call me simple but just blowing three buildings up with no warning and killing up to 50,000 people seems much more frightening considering that not a single person since 2001 has ever reported any strange activity in any of the WTC complex. The ability to destroy buildings at will should be more than enough to terrorize a nation by itself. Bonus: You could blame anyone. But no, we get this half-witted Truther CT that couldn't hold water at any depth.
IIRC at 2001/9/11 there had been no steel constructed building collapsed due to fire, but that was negated, even disallowing WTC7, afterward.
bknight 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
Old 28th September 2019, 07:51 AM   #6
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 25,399
'Vestige' would mean no-plane theories came first. It's my distinct recollection that CD theories came along quite soon after 9/11 and that no-plane theories were added on later by nutcases who didn't feel special enough proposing plain CD.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB 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
Old 8th October 2019, 06:46 PM   #7
tanabear
Critical Thinker
 
tanabear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Lion's Den
Posts: 368
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
I was wondering whether or not this whole superfluous "controlled demolition" idea sprang up from the no-plane theories of the early 2000s. No plane = no reason for the towers to collapse except by brute force demolition. Then the demolition scenario took on a life of its own, eventually standing alone as the main talking point while the other crazy theories quietly fizzled out.

For a reasonable skeptic, on its face, the controlled demolition claim is grossly superfluous. Why crash a jumbo jet into skyscrapers and THEN demolish them. It's simply not worth the effort.

My theory about the origins of the controlled demolition scenario may explain how truthers ended up in such an awkward spot.

Then again, it could have sprung up on it's own when truthers used their "common sense" to determine that any building collapsing is demolition .
Well, there wasn't any plane that hit World Trade Tower 7 and it came down just like a controlled demolition. So the demolition theory comes from "no planes" I suppose because in the case of WTC7 there was no plane. Many people that day described WTC1,2,and 7 as looking like a controlled demolition. So no.
__________________
pomeroo: "Mark, where did this guy get the idea that you talked about holding aluminum in your hand?"

Undesired Walrus: "Why, Ron, Mark mentioned this on your very own show!"
tanabear 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
Old 8th October 2019, 08:44 PM   #8
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,926
I have always maintained that most 9-11 Truthers are no-planers at heart. The planes and the passengers are terribly inconvenient for the movement, because they are so hard to explain away. Absent 19 suicidal Muslims, who is going to steer 3 airplanes into large buildings and another into the ground? Loose Change's early editions tried to cast doubt as to whether any of the planes had in fact reached their supposed destinations.

That said, controlled demolition was an early theory as well. Eric Hufschmid was the first American to publish a 9-11 Denial tract, called Painful Questions, after hearing about the supposed wild success Thierry Meyssan's book had been in France. Hufschmid's book spends a couple of chapters on the collapses, which he finds very suspicious.

But after Jones published his crazy "Why Indeed," paper, and especially after Gage started his all-clown circus, there began a push to focus on CD and lay off the Pentagon stuff, and especially to expel some of the more problematic members, like Nico Haupt and more spectacularly Uncle Fetzer. In the heady early days of his Trutherism, Jones had partnered with Fetzer on the "Scholars for 9-11 Truth." Now that group had to be split in two only a year or so after its initial formation.

And it was at that point that the real insane no-planer stuff began to appear--the TV fakery claims. Up to that point, you could say most Truthers, while arguing that the planes that had hit the WTC were not AA11 and UA175, at least generally acknowledged that planes of some type (military drones, for example) had hit the buildings. The first real no-planer movie I can recall was September Clues, which came out in 2007.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster 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
Old 9th October 2019, 02:01 AM   #9
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,999
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
Well, there wasn't any plane that hit World Trade Tower 7 and it came down just like a controlled demolition.
If it had come down as a result of fire damage and damage from the debris of the other two towers, how would you expect it to have looked different?
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak 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
Old 9th October 2019, 04:54 PM   #10
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 3,156
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
If it had come down as a result of fire damage and damage from the debris of the other two towers, how would you expect it to have looked different?
I'd like to hear as well.

Though I don't expect new talking points.
Venom 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
Old 9th October 2019, 09:33 PM   #11
tanabear
Critical Thinker
 
tanabear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Lion's Den
Posts: 368
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
If it had come down as a result of fire damage and damage from the debris of the other two towers, how would you expect it to have looked different?
If WTC7 came down because of a thunder shower how would it have looked different?

Someone needs to give an explanation as to how debris damage and fire could've caused the collapse. NIST, in their investigation, said that debris damage had nothing to with the cause of collapse. It is a fire explanation. The NIST model does not account for the 2.25 free-fall descent and the visualizations look nothing like the actual collapse. The NIST report, like every other explanation, save an engineered demolition, is just BS.
__________________
pomeroo: "Mark, where did this guy get the idea that you talked about holding aluminum in your hand?"

Undesired Walrus: "Why, Ron, Mark mentioned this on your very own show!"
tanabear 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
Old 9th October 2019, 09:47 PM   #12
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 3,156
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
If WTC7 came down because of a thunder shower how would it have looked different?

Someone needs to give an explanation as to how debris damage and fire could've caused the collapse. NIST, in their investigation, said that debris damage had nothing to with the cause of collapse. It is a fire explanation. The NIST model does not account for the 2.25 free-fall descent and the visualizations look nothing like the actual collapse. The NIST report, like every other explanation, save an engineered demolition, is just BS.
How do you think the fire started, other than the obvious inference of debris damage?

If you want to retreat to WTC7 as the last fort like most other truthers have done, you need something big and that makes sense. Maybe NIST is wrong, sure, but what else can you do but modify their theory in good faith?
Venom 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
Old 10th October 2019, 12:26 AM   #13
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,474
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
Someone needs to give an explanation as to how debris damage and fire could've caused the collapse.
Someone who? Weidlinger Associates already did.
pgimeno 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
Old 10th October 2019, 12:45 AM   #14
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,474
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
How do you think the fire started, other than the obvious inference of debris damage?
There's a witness, Mike Catalano who said that the dust from WTC2 clogged the air intake of the generators, causing a fire before WTC1 collapsed.

http://research.archives.gov/description/2609722

Of course, the extra ventilation provided by the gash that the WTC1 debris opened, must have been a factor in the propagation of the fire.
pgimeno 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
Old 10th October 2019, 02:25 AM   #15
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,999
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
Well, there wasn't any plane that hit World Trade Tower 7 and it came down just like a controlled demolition.
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
If it had come down as a result of fire damage and damage from the debris of the other two towers, how would you expect it to have looked different?
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
If WTC7 came down because of a thunder shower how would it have looked different?
Nope. You don't get to dodge this.
Your claim, your burden of proof.
How would a collapse triggered by controlled demolition differ from one caused by fire damage?
If you cannot state any meaningful difference, then your claim is invalid.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak 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
Old 10th October 2019, 04:42 AM   #16
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,948
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
If WTC7 came down because of a thunder shower how would it have looked different?

Someone needs to give an explanation as to how debris damage and fire could've caused the collapse. NIST, in their investigation, said that debris damage had nothing to with the cause of collapse. It is a fire explanation. The NIST model does not account for the 2.25 free-fall descent and the visualizations look nothing like the actual collapse. The NIST report, like every other explanation, save an engineered demolition, is just BS.
There are perfectly sensible explanation for the timing and form of the collapse. Several engineers and others have set this out.

Basically there was a structural failure in the NE quadrant. This led to the collapse of the axial support all the way to the EPH which dropped down inside the perimeter with perhaps 40 partial floor slabs in that region. This collapse set off a rapid chain reaction of failures of the massive transfer structures on floors 5-7 (mech floors)... which led to the remaining interior to collapse and underline the structure supporting the moment frame below it leading to the perimeter moment frame and attached curtain wall collapsing. This is what is visible and it descended un impeded for 7 floors or 104 feet or so on 2.25 seconds. NIST assumed the initial failure was at col 79... but it could have involved other nearby columns and it could have been on a lower or even higher floor. No one can know precisely how this unfolded because there were no data of what was happening inside the building. All educated guesses!
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO 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
Old 10th October 2019, 06:36 PM   #17
tanabear
Critical Thinker
 
tanabear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Lion's Den
Posts: 368
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Nope. You don't get to dodge this.
Your claim, your burden of proof.
How would a collapse triggered by controlled demolition differ from one caused by fire damage?
If you cannot state any meaningful difference, then your claim is invalid.
I did state one thing, the 2.25 second free-fall descent of WTC7. However, even by answering that question I'm ceding too much. I consider it to be an illegitimate question to begin with. Let's take another scenario:

Two people come across some animal tracks.
One person(person A) states, "Look, these are the footprints of a silverback gorilla."
The other person(person B) says, "No, these are the footprints of Bigfoot."
Person A: "That is preposterous. We know what the prints of a silverback gorilla look like and these match perfectly."
Person B: "Well, unless you can tell me any meaningful difference between the footprints of a silverback gorilla and Bigfoot, I'm going with Bigfoot."

The issue is that the person who believes the footprints were made by Bigfoot has to provide a real world example of what the footprints of Bigfoot actually look like, otherwise he can make-up anything he wants.* If Person A even began to answer the question he would in some ways be admitting that Bigfoot is an actual species like a gorilla. It isn't.

So I will state the difference between the collapse of WTC7 and a steel-framed high-rise destroyed by fire. But you have to provide a real world example of this. If you can't do this then you are in the same realm as Bigfoot believers.

What is the difference between the footprint of a gorilla and a lion is a valid discussion; the difference between a gorilla and Bigfoot isn't.

* See the post JSanderO above. It is just a word salad with no experimental data or evidence to support anything he says.
__________________
pomeroo: "Mark, where did this guy get the idea that you talked about holding aluminum in your hand?"

Undesired Walrus: "Why, Ron, Mark mentioned this on your very own show!"
tanabear 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
Old 10th October 2019, 08:50 PM   #18
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,511
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
I did state one thing, the 2.25 second free-fall descent of WTC7.
There are (at least) two fatal errors in that response to Cosmic Yak's challenge which was:
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
How would a collapse triggered by controlled demolition differ from one caused by fire damage?
If you cannot state any meaningful difference, then your claim is invalid.
And the irony is that in your false analogy you actually self rebutted your claim. Here is why: The main point of your analogy was "Don't base argument on something that is wrong" - i.e. in your analogy argument based on the existence of Bigfoot is wrong. Agreed. Your assertion of that point of logic is correct. BUT you make a claim that relies on "2.25 second free-fall descent" when there was no proven 2.75 second free-fall. So the 2.75 seconds free-fall - like the existence of BigFoot is false. And your argument fails. That is fatal error #1

Fatal Error #2 is that you appear to be assuming that somehow "free-fall" distinguishes collapse triggered by controlled demolition from collapse triggered by fire damage. That assumption is wrong. And, yes, it is a common false meme of truther lore.

So two fatal errors and as correctly asserted by Cosmic Yak - the Burden of Proof is yours. And no amount of contrived poor analogies will remove your burden of proof from you. And neither Cosmic Yak nor any of us are under an obligation to "provide a real world example of this". Your assertion "If you can't do this then you are in the same realm as Bigfoot believers." is baseless.

Last edited by ozeco41; 10th October 2019 at 08:52 PM.
ozeco41 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
Old 11th October 2019, 01:36 AM   #19
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,474
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
The issue is that the person who believes the footprints were made by Bigfoot has to provide a real world example of what the footprints of Bigfoot actually look like,
This is wrong. The issue is that the person who believes the footprints were made by Bigfoot has to provide solid evidence that Bigfoot exists in the first place. If the existence of Bigfoot is assumed, rather than questioned, this person can falsely point at some footprints made by a silverback gorilla and claim that that's how the Bigfoot footprints look like. This is not a valid method for reaching the truth.

The analogy applies to this case in the other direction: there is ample evidence of fire in WTC7, and there is zero evidence for any kind of explosives or any other demolition material, therefore you need to provide solid evidence that demolition is a possibility in the first place.

But if you insist, we can go with your logic; however, don't skip the step, following your analogy, of showing that silverback gorillas can actually make footprints like those in the first place. Show us a demolition where the fašade falls in free fall as a block, where the same principle is applicable to WTC7. You don't get to say that the fact that the fašade fell at free fall (it didn't, but that's another matter) is evidence of controlled demolition whatsoever, because that's NOT how demolitions behave.

But keep in mind that such kind of indirect evidence just doesn't cut it in this case. Proving demolition requires direct, substantial evidence of explosives.

Last edited by pgimeno; 11th October 2019 at 01:37 AM.
pgimeno 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
Old 11th October 2019, 12:52 PM   #20
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,267
CD claims are like Bigfoot believe, both have the same evidence - Zero

Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
I did state one thing, the 2.25 second free-fall descent of WTC7. However, even by answering that question I'm ceding too much. I consider it to be an illegitimate question to begin with. Let's take another scenario:

Two people come across some animal tracks.
One person(person A) states, "Look, these are the footprints of a silverback gorilla."
The other person(person B) says, "No, these are the footprints of Bigfoot."
Person A: "That is preposterous. We know what the prints of a silverback gorilla look like and these match perfectly."
Person B: "Well, unless you can tell me any meaningful difference between the footprints of a silverback gorilla and Bigfoot, I'm going with Bigfoot."

The issue is that the person who believes the footprints were made by Bigfoot has to provide a real world example of what the footprints of Bigfoot actually look like, otherwise he can make-up anything he wants.* If Person A even began to answer the question he would in some ways be admitting that Bigfoot is an actual species like a gorilla. It isn't.

So I will state the difference between the collapse of WTC7 and a steel-framed high-rise destroyed by fire. But you have to provide a real world example of this. If you can't do this then you are in the same realm as Bigfoot believers.

What is the difference between the footprint of a gorilla and a lion is a valid discussion; the difference between a gorilla and Bigfoot isn't.

* See the post JSanderO above. It is just a word salad with no experimental data or evidence to support anything he says.
Yes, CD looks like a gravity collapse cause by fire, because CD is a gravity collapse started with explosives. E=mgh released (aka gravity) supplies the major part of the energy to destroy the building in CD.

Yes, Bigfoot believe is exactly like CD belief on 9/11, based on ignorance, simile, fantasy, and gullibility.

Simile is not evidence.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut 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
Old 11th October 2019, 09:07 PM   #21
The Common Potato
Scholar
 
The Common Potato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: The Scunthorpe Problem
Posts: 120
Many CTs wish desperately to be non-mainstream, in my view. Rejecting the planes, fire, collapse explanation and replacing it with anything else is what started the controlled demolition hypothesis. No evidence for explosives, well, let's move on to thermite.
The Common Potato 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
Old 11th October 2019, 09:16 PM   #22
The Common Potato
Scholar
 
The Common Potato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: The Scunthorpe Problem
Posts: 120
How about polar bear and a gorilla footprints - in the Arctic?

We saw planes hit the buildings on 9/11 so that would be a good starting point. We didn't see controlled demo ninjas packing explosives into the structures.
The Common Potato 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
Old 11th October 2019, 09:34 PM   #23
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 3,156
Originally Posted by The Common Potato View Post
Many CTs wish desperately to be non-mainstream, in my view. Rejecting the planes, fire, collapse explanation and replacing it with anything else is what started the controlled demolition hypothesis. No evidence for explosives, well, let's move on to thermite.
I think 9/11 conspiracy theorists started purging the more fringe elements of their movement actually. To be mainstream, in their eyes at least, they felt they needed a place where they could maintain some semblance of plausible deniability (literally). Of course the public falls for the type of superficial propaganda they push about WTC7 cause most of the public have no interest at all in how materials work.
Venom 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
Old 12th October 2019, 02:11 AM   #24
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,999
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
So I will state the difference between the collapse of WTC7 and a steel-framed high-rise destroyed by fire. But you have to provide a real world example of this. If you can't do this then you are in the same realm as Bigfoot believers.
You appear to be saying that it is impossible for fires to be able to bring down a steel-framed building.

Please show how you arrived at this conclusion.

Then we can move on to compare this with the actual cases of steel-framed buildings that have indeed been brought down by fire.

You have a good chance of learning something from this process.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak 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
Old 13th October 2019, 11:38 AM   #25
MrFliop
Thinker
 
MrFliop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 168
Nah, CD theories existed way back in 2001.

In fact on the afternoon of 9/11 a certain New York resident called in to local news to put forward his (false) theory that the towers were brought down by bombs.

Hmmm. Why does he seem familiar?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
MrFliop 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
Old 13th October 2019, 01:16 PM   #26
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,800
Originally Posted by MrFliop View Post
Nah, CD theories existed way back in 2001.

In fact on the afternoon of 9/11 a certain New York resident called in to local news to put forward his (false) theory that the towers were brought down by bombs.

Hmmm. Why does he seem familiar?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
All the tired incorrect assessments idea concerning building physics wrapped up in a few minute video.
bknight 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
Old 13th October 2019, 05:13 PM   #27
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,514
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
All the tired incorrect assessments idea concerning building physics wrapped up in a few minute video.
And the actual structural design of the Twin Towers.
Redwood 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
Old 14th October 2019, 08:17 AM   #28
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,682
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
...
Two people come across some animal tracks.
One person(person A) states, "Look, these are the footprints of a silverback gorilla."
The other person(person B) says, "No, these are the footprints of Bigfoot."
Person A: "That is preposterous. We know what the prints of a silverback gorilla look like and these match perfectly."
Person B: "Well, unless you can tell me any meaningful difference between the footprints of a silverback gorilla and Bigfoot, I'm going with Bigfoot."

The issue is that the person who believes the footprints were made by Bigfoot has to provide a real world example of what the footprints of Bigfoot actually look like, otherwise he can make-up anything he wants.* If Person A even began to answer the question he would in some ways be admitting that Bigfoot is an actual species like a gorilla. It isn't.
...
Can you please provide an exact translation of this analogy to the situation at the WTC7?

My take would be this:
"Footprint" = "total collapse"
"that particular footprint" = "total collapse featuring a selected point on a subassembly descending at an average acceleration equivalent to g for a short period of time late into the collapse sequence aka 'free-fall'"
"gorilla" = explosives
"Bigfoot" = fully involved fires on multiple floors
"These are gorilla footprints" = "explosives can cause a total collapse featuring 'free-fall'"
"These are Bigfoot footprints" = "fully involved fires on multiple floors can cause a total collapse featuring 'free-fall'"

If that is how you see it, then I would offer the following annotations to your analogy:
  • Bigfoot was in fact observed at the scene for several hours right in the area where we later found the footprints
  • No gorillas were observed at the scene at all
  • Silverback gorillas, without fail, would make their presence known by beating their chests loudly immediately before prancing around and making footprints, a sound so loud and unmistakable, every video trap in the forest would have recorded it - yet none did
  • It is known that Bigfoots kill any gorillas that come too close, such that gorillas would tend to stay away from Bigfoots (translations: Fires would consume any explosive charges that are too close, and you can't install any CD devices while the building burns)
  • Bigfoot is known to make footprints, although there is scant data on the different ways they may look like
Now I think, by picking the label "Bigfoot" instead of, say, "female gorilla" or "large human", you wanted to invoke in our minds the idea that "fire can collapse" is generally considered to be unreal and at least unproven, but of course it is well known and understood that fire can cause structural collapses, AND that structural collapses can be progressive to the point of being total, such that there is nothing implausible about "Bigfoot" in the way the "real" Bigfoot is implausible.

With me so far?

The thing is, in your analogy, Bigfoot was observed to have been trampling all over the site, but no sign of any gorilla activity was observed. Even if, a priori, you had never spotted Bigfoot trampling around, the fact that we did now lends enormous weight to the "Bigfoot made these footprints" hypothesis, while the conspicuous absence of any gorilla sightings and sounds makes it highly dubious that gorillas would have caused these footprints.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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
Old 14th October 2019, 08:31 AM   #29
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,594
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
There are perfectly sensible explanation for the timing and form of the collapse. Several engineers and others have set this out.

Basically there was a structural failure in the NE quadrant. This led to the collapse of the axial support all the way to the EPH which dropped down inside the perimeter with perhaps 40 partial floor slabs in that region. This collapse set off a rapid chain reaction of failures of the massive transfer structures on floors 5-7 (mech floors)... which led to the remaining interior to collapse and underline the structure supporting the moment frame below it leading to the perimeter moment frame and attached curtain wall collapsing. This is what is visible and it descended un impeded for 7 floors or 104 feet or so on 2.25 seconds. NIST assumed the initial failure was at col 79... but it could have involved other nearby columns and it could have been on a lower or even higher floor. No one can know precisely how this unfolded because there were no data of what was happening inside the building. All educated guesses!
As I recall, this is basically correct and not at all a word salad.
Edit to add: As I recall the official explanation is that the fire caused the the long span beams attached to col 79 to expand imparting lateral force to the joints that they were not designed for. The joints failed, the beam fell with the floors attached. The lower connections weren't designed for the impact of most of a floor falling 10 feet and so on an so forth.

I think the CD theories started because WTC7 fell more or less straight done, this is superficially similar to a CD and for most people intuitively not at all how a tallish building should collapse. If you're inclined towards thinking it was an inside job its pretty much a straight line from, inside job to controlled demo of CD. It doesn't matter than it makes zero sense at all and most of the bits (like the free fall claim) used to support the CD theory aren't true.

Last edited by ahhell; 14th October 2019 at 08:33 AM.
ahhell is online now   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
Old 14th October 2019, 08:34 AM   #30
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
I saw CD theory espoused on Sept 13, 2001 on a forum I was on back then. I did not see no planes theory for several weeks or months. The ridiculous hologram projection nonsense.

I had been told to go to pilots for 911 Truth (Nonsense) for an in depth destruction of the idea that planes hit the towers/Pentagon. On said expert forum one self espoused pilot calculated the descent rate to the Pentagon and noted it was ridiculously rapid. I had to point out his number was 60 times tol high as he seemed to forget that a minute contains 60 seconds. ��

Last edited by jaydeehess; 14th October 2019 at 08:38 AM.
jaydeehess 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
Old 14th October 2019, 08:37 AM   #31
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: 29,687
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
I think the CD theories started because WTC7 fell more or less straight done, this is superficially similar to a CD and for most people intuitively not at all how a tallish building should collapse.
I think you're being over-generous. I think the WTC7 CD theories started because, as people started looking at the WTC1 and WTC2 collapses, it became painfully obvious that neither resembled any controlled demolition ever seen other than in that the buildings were standing before the collapses and reduced to rubble afterwards. This left the conspiracy theorists with too little of a convenient hook to hang their conspiracies on. Since their aim is not to find out what really happened but rather to demonstrate that they are the only ones privy to secret knowledge that the sheeple are too stupid and docile to fathom, they had to come up with a new talking point, and WTC7 was convenient. They started with the answer, then re-framed the collapse of WTC7 so as to embody their preferred question.

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
Old 14th October 2019, 08:54 AM   #32
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
Yes Dave.
The thrust, as espoused by the latest truther in this thread, was no plane therefore demolition, as if an aircraft and thousands of gallons of fire accelerant are required to bring a steel building down. In fact that is ONE factor that caused towers to collapse so soon. WTC7 burned for many hours. As for mechanical damage having no effect... this is not what was said. It did not contribute to initiation of collapse , which began circ at the other end of the building, but only a fool would believe that a corner missing for several stores would not affect the manner by which the building came down once it began.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 14th October 2019 at 08:57 AM.
jaydeehess 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
Old 15th October 2019, 07:40 AM   #33
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,682
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
Originally Posted by JSanderO
...Basically there was a structural failure in the NE quadrant...
...As I recall the official explanation is that the fire caused the the long span beams attached to col 79 to expand imparting lateral force to the joints that they were not designed for. The joints failed, the beam fell with the floors attached. The lower connections weren't designed for the impact of most of a floor falling 10 feet and so on an so forth. ...
I think it is helpful to point out that, while the NIST "executive summary" collapse initiation narrative featured only 1 (one) connection to fail its vertical support, their analysis of the effects of fires on the larger structure revealed that quite a number of connections must already have failed by the time this particular girder (A2001) and particular bit of floor assembly (NE quadrant) on the 13th floor started to fall.

Also, keep in mind that the entire 3D steel frame had been warped by the differential fire scenarios on the various floors, such that beams were buckled, columns no longer as neatly in plumb as before, etcc, and steel was heated.

So when that floor assembly fell, it did not impact connections below that were "as designed". Rather, it hit an already damaged structure.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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
Old 15th October 2019, 07:49 AM   #34
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 21,106
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
Well, there wasn't any plane that hit World Trade Tower 7
It did however get hit my multi-hundred tonne chunks of other buildings moving a high speed.
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
and it came down just like a controlled demolition.
No it didn't. That's an outright lie.
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
Many people that day described WTC1,2,and 7 as looking like a controlled demolition. So no.
Another lie.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate 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
Old 16th October 2019, 04:35 AM   #35
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,948
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I think it is helpful to point out that, while the NIST "executive summary" collapse initiation narrative featured only 1 (one) connection to fail its vertical support, their analysis of the effects of fires on the larger structure revealed that quite a number of connections must already have failed by the time this particular girder (A2001) and particular bit of floor assembly (NE quadrant) on the 13th floor started to fall.

Also, keep in mind that the entire 3D steel frame had been warped by the differential fire scenarios on the various floors, such that beams were buckled, columns no longer as neatly in plumb as before, etcc, and steel was heated.

So when that floor assembly fell, it did not impact connections below that were "as designed". Rather, it hit an already damaged structure.
Understood... I used the "a" in the sense that the collapse as a structural failure in the general sense. But YES many individual structural failures played a role and added up to a condition where the structure could not perform.

NIST decided to focus on one connection on one beam on one floor. And they tried to suggest (correctly) that one thing would lead to another to another to another and then the whole thing falls down. They chose that region because I suspect they had some data related to fire/heat.

I suspect that the fires were more extensive but not as "visible"... and all the unchecked fires were "destroying" the frame... joints/connections, and beams which would warp, expand, twist and even collapse.

NIST didn't detail how the progression of a local failure(s) progressed to what they called global failure. The assumption was that the design was not able to isolate a failure saving the remainder of the structure. The assumption was that one failure leads to another. They did not demonstrate this on a "global" scale... how this leads to total collapse.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO 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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:25 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.