Followers

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Reflecting on the Verinage demolition method

I recently came across debunker vids on YouTube, such as this that boast of the Verinage demolition technique used to bring down buildings without explosives. According to Wikipedia, “The technique. . .is used in France to weaken and buckle the supports of central floors promoting the collapse of the top part of a building onto the bottom resulting in a rapid, symmetrical collapse” . This is offered as a refutation to the 9/11 Truth claim that the WTC buildings were brought down via controlled demolition, arguing that gravity alone can cause a symmetrical, freefall collapse without the use of explosives.
Do they have a case here? A moment’s reflection will reveal that not only does this NOT support their case (that fire weakened steel causing gravitational collapse), but rather it strongly supports the controlled demolition theory regarding the towers. How so?
Consider their example. What is the Verinage method? It is controlled demolition! So they are using an example of controlled demolition in order to refute the controlled demolition theory!! This is obviously self-refuting. In order for them to have a case, it would seem to me that they would have to provide examples of fire alone initiating specific and simultaneous structural failure in order to cause a symmetrical collapse that resemble anything like the WTC buildings. Consider that the Verinage method employs a team of structural engineers who “rig the physics” in a purposeful and deliberate manner in order to accomplish the desired result; a symmetrical, rapid collapse. This strongly supports the controlled demolition theory, NOT a fire initiated, gravitational collapse theory. To say that fire can do exactly what a team of engineers and demolition experts do is not only absurd, but it is an insult to their profession in my opinion. It is argued that the Verinage method emulates the WTC conditions for this kind of collapse. But how can that be without fire? This is question begging as the whole debate is centered on whether random office fires can bring down buildings in the exact manner as controlled demolition, exhibiting all, or most of, their characteristics. The Verinage example refutes their own case.
Also, a closer look at theVerinage method reveals other problems for the debunkers. For example, what type of building is the method used for? Are any steel framed high rises? No.
To bring down steel framed buildings, explosives are generally used.
Does the method employ a gravitational collapse of the top 15 % of the building in order to crush the bottom 85%, like we see in the WTC’s? No, they weaken the columns on the CENTRAL floors and let physics do the work.
Lastly, it is argued, in the WTC collapses, that the squibs were the result of pressurized air, not explosives. In the Verinage example, no explosives were used so wouldn’t westill expect to see many squibs like in the WTC’s, assuming they are the samekind of destructive event? Compare the WTC squibs with these Verinage examples . Where are the squibs in the lower floors in the Verinage examples? . The squibs in the WTC’s, in contrast, look exactly like those seen in controlled demolitions using explosives.
So, does the Verinage example carry any weight for the debunkers? Not at all. It not only does NOT support their case but rather it’s a strong support for the controlled demolition theory in that it takes HUMAN AGENCY, a team of EXPERTS, to set up the NECESSARY CONDITIONS in order to accomplish this kind ofcollapse. For more detailed info on the problems of the Verinage method brought up by debunkers, see here and here.