Look familiar?

Conspiracy! Clearly the government was involved! Hear those sounds? Clearly explosives! That building never even got hit by a plane!

Building demolition is one of those jobs where it either goes REALLY right or REALLY wrong.

From rougy
Look familiar?

I hope you were joking.

This clip serves as fairly compelling evidence against the 9/11 conspiracy theories; it shows how a controlled demolition should look. The blasting is appreciably divided into distinctive yet tightly consecutive stages. The individual explosions and their ejecta are numerous, very clearly visible, observably sequential and are accompanied by distinctive patterns of ear-splitting sounds that would have been audible for miles around.

There is neither any video or photographic evidence nor any compelling witness testimony of anything of the kind happening on 9/11. All such evidence is compatible with a non-conspiratorial course of events.

We all live in our own fantasy worlds, don't we...

Well, no, some of us live in a world of evidence, argument and reason -- a world it seems you have no interest in.

Pretty rude response. Interesting that you feel I was singling you out.

Singling me out? You said "we all." It's difficult not to feel targeted when someone says that. Further, you've expressed something rather less than enthusiasm for those principles in the past. However, you have my apologies for being somewhat brusque in my reply.

Actually most buildings (including the WTC). Are designed to implode in the case of a collapse. It just makes a demo teams job easier. Or in the case of 9/11. It was a safety precaution so that if the buildings were to fall they wouldn't destroy others on thier way to to ground. That's been code ever since the building of the Empire State building when concerns were brought up during construction about what to do if the weight of the building caused a collapse.

Par,

I did in fact say "We all", which includes myself. And in the past I have mentioned that other opinions exists which are also based on more trusted (knowledgable) individuals. I personally see the debate as healthy and do like it when sources for opinions are presented. Apology accepted with regards.

what bullshit. buildings are never "designed to implode". modern building demolition using implosion didn't even seriously start until the 40s.

Rotty:

Fair enough. I concur with much of what you say, but found other parts of your post to be a rather vague. Could you clarify, for example, which "other opinions" you're referring to, who these "individuals" are, in what ways they are "more trusted" or more "knowledgeable" and finally who they are "more trusted" or more "knowledgeable" than?

gluomim: Do your research. It's a safety precaution, all buildings over 4 stories tall are to be designed that in the case of earthquakes, explosions, etc. They will fall in on themselves So as to minimize casualties and damage to surrounding structures. As per Universal Building Code.

It would seem like a sensible engineering feature to me. I mean, I'm sure even back in 1930 they knew they didn't want a leaning tower of Pisa situation except with 120 stories, with a building destroying blocks of the city and killing everyone if it came down.

But hey, I'm no engineer.

I should probably point out that the discussion between Gorgonheap and Gluonium is an entirely unnecessary one.

Consider the following thought experiment: A suicidal man jumps from a high bridge. Now, his journey down to the water may closely resemble that of a man who has been pushed, but that fact is certainly not a good reason to think that he actually has been pushed.

I DARE you to find a single citation in any Universal Building Code that describes such a requirement for implosion. I don't know where you're doing YOU'RE research but I don't consider things like "loose change" to be any more reputable than the raving madman that panhandles down the street.

The "dare" (and other emblems of adolescent posturing) aside, the issue, as I've already pointed out, is irrelevant.

That's adorable that you think its irrelevant; but I am of the opinion that if someone is going to make an absurdly ridiculous claim, they'd better be ready to back it up with proof.

I'm so glad. So, do you have any proof to "back up" your "absurdly ridiculous claim" that it is relevant?

I don't give a toss if you think its relevant to anything at all or not. The claim that buildings are designed with eventual implosion in mind was false and that's all I particularly care about it.

Well, let me express myself a little more clearly. Asking Gorgonheap to provide evidence for his claim is a perfectly noble request; in principle, I support it. However, I wasn't suggesting that you should "give a toss" whether I think it's relevant to "anything at all" or not. I was merely pointing out that where this issue is concerned, it is objectively irrelevant.

this discussion clearly needs more pie.

21 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.