verinage requires prep and all the supports to be pulled simultaneously to induce global failure, hence you just proved a demolition.timing is critical, the higher the building the more critical timing is. you need to show that fire can simultaneously remove the supports to create a straight down verinage.
the Verinage technique conclusively disproves the assertion that such a thing is impossible without explosives, so "truther" claims based on that assertion are clearly invalid. WTC1 and 2 were similar to a Verinage, except there is no evidence to suggest that the occupied buildings were rigged with cables and giant hydraulic winches to yank out the support structure. Nor is any such thing necessary, given what we know about the initial damage from the planes and the subsequent effects of the fires. As Bazant demonstrated with quantitative analysis (which "truthers" have repeatedly failed to refute), after the collapses began, the buildings were doomed because they simply did not have the reserve capacity to absorb the energy released -- i.e. the exact reason that Verinage works.
The reason that WTC7 looks much like a conventional demolition -- at least, the part of it that we can actually see in the videos, which is just the upper half falling -- is because for that upper part of the building, the same basic thing is going on as in a conventional demolition: When the lower structure is no longer supporting the upper structure, gravity takes over and destroys the entire thing. Just watching the upper half, it could hardly look any different regardless of the initiating events, but the thing that irrefutably makes it different from a conventional demolition is that if explosives had been used to initiate the collapse, the distinctive sound that much explosives would produce would have easily been heard miles away and the shock waves would have shattered windows for blocks around. And again, no such explanation is required, given what we know about the effects of fire (i.e. it causes steel to expand) and the design of the building (i.e. it wasn't designed to withstand thermal expansion during a 7-hour unfought fire or the progressive failures that occurred after the initial column failure).
The absence of evidence of explosives in all three cases -- not in the quantity that would be required, anyway -- led frustrated but imaginative "truthers" to speculate that thermite was used instead. However, there is no credible evidence of thermite on the site, no credible evidence of thermite damage to the structures, and no credible evidence that such a demolition is even possible with current technology.
So, "truthers" claim that instead of simply planting some big-assed truck bombs and blaiming it on terrorists, the "perps" concocted a ridiculously complicated and unnecessarily risky hoax involving fake hijackings and demolitions using an unproven technology, then somehow managed to coerce hundreds of people into assisting and covering up, and then somehow managed to not only leave no evidence of what "really" happened but not a single participant willing to ruin the whole thing and send them to a probable execution by squealing. When you propose something that is that outrageously implausible on its face, you need some damn good evidence, and it just ain't there.
And that's all I intend to say on this thread, since the subject here is just the pathological epistemology of conspiracy theorists. If you want to continue the 9/11 argument, you know where that is supposed to happen.
No, not "incidents of a controlled demolition method called Verinage" (Reply #43) - Democratic Underground
