Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

ergo said:
I don't believe anyone here has ever been discussing "flat" floor-on-floor impacts. The model under discussion has always been about column-on-column impacts. Your defence of the official theory must address this since an estimated 85% of core and perimeter columns in the impact zone remained intact.

How is one degree of tilt "sufficient to negate column-on-column impact"? How would even the sudden failure of the 85% remaining columns in the impact zone not cause a jolt as the descent of the upper block hits intact structural framing below?
Click to expand...


One degree of tilt, off axis (as it was) from either major axis of the building, is sufficient to prevent any significant numbers of column-on-column impacts from occurring simultaneously. Hence, no jolt of comparable magnitude to those in verinage demolitions where the upper block falls flat and square.

(Of course, any column-on-column impacts whatsoever are impossible anyhow until three full floors of descent had occurred, and are highly unlikely thereafter. That's because there are no "column ends" to collide that can be any closer than three floors apart. Not to mention that as far as causing a "jolt" is concerned, collisions with floors have a much greater possible effect, due to momentum transfer, on the motion of the upper mass than column-on-column collisions could. So for "missing jolt" purposes, floor-on-floor impacts have more significance and hence are what I focused on.)

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
ergo said:
I don't believe anyone here has ever been discussing "flat" floor-on-floor impacts. The model under discussion has always been about column-on-column impacts. Your defence of the official theory must address this since an estimated 85% of core and perimeter columns in the impact zone remained intact.

How is one degree of tilt "sufficient to negate column-on-column impact"? How would even the sudden failure of the 85% remaining columns in the impact zone not cause a jolt as the descent of the upper block hits intact structural framing below? In verinage you have all (or most of) the supporting structure removed in the middle floors of the building. Jolt evident. Here we had only 15% in the upper third and fifth respectively. Same manner of destruction in both buildings. Same missing jolt; same rapid, symmetrical downward destruction.

It's idiotic. It's a story for idiots. Let the idiots answer this.
Click to expand...
You are repeating your failed attack on gravity collapse.
ergo said:
Only 15% were estimated by NIST to have been severed. The remaining 85% were not.



There's a misconception by "d-bunkers" that, first of all, the upper block would "fall" through the 85% remaining columns, and secondly, that the imagined severing of the 15% damaged columns would produce a radical shift of the upper block, misaligning the remaining composition of columns.
Click to expand...
I don't believe you have now, or will ever have a paper or evidence to support your claim of explosive demolition. You have an opinion based on nothing. You can't list anything which supports your claim. You are repeating your claims when you failed to comprehend models last year. You started this thread based on your demolition delusion, backed with talk, no math, no physics, only talk.

Where is your model for explosive demolition? Any 911 truth engineers have a model for your claims?
 
beachnut said:
I don't know how you can ignore the evidence available showing 19 terrorists did 911, but you do it without hesitation or purpose of evasion; bravo, you are the perfect 911 truth movement follower.
RADAR, FDR, physics, fire, 19 terrorists, UBL, witnesses, last statements by crew on aircraft just before death, CVRs, ATC tapes, crashed aircraft, video, and more, which you ignore so you can make up failed claims and post off topic in desperation to keep your fantasy alive with talk of conspiracy push by your love of Bush. How does your failure to figure out 911 dovetail with a delusion of explosives demolition? Where is your evidence for this thread, I don't need evidence because I know explosives were not used, you are the person failing to support the explosives demolition claims, you have to come up with the evidence, and since you can't, you failed to support the claim.
Click to expand...

Do you really believe that something that never happened before, the global collapse of a steel framed building caused by fire weakened steel, could occur THREE times in one day when the amount of energy against each building was different and at different locations?

The Bush/Cheney 9/11 Gravitational Collapse Hoax
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ub_hbDGJOs

Ejections?
Explosions?

Why all the lies about what is so obvious?
Who are the mainstream media protecting?

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/dict_ei.html


gravitational collapse
When a massive body collapses under its own weight. (For example, interstellar clouds collapse to become stars until the onset of nuclear fusion stops the collapse.
Click to expand...


http://news.softpedia.com/news/Old-...ds-Say-They-Should-Have-Collapsed-54963.shtml
 
Clayton Moore said:
Do you really believe that something that never happened before, the global collapse of a steel framed building caused by fire weakened steel, could occur THREE times in one day when the amount of energy against each building was different and at different locations?
Click to expand...

Yes, anyone with a knowledge of building structures knows it was not only possible, but more than likely.




The Bush/Cheney 9/11 Gravitational Collapse Hoax
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ub_hbDGJOs

Ejections?
Explosions?

Why all the lies about what is so obvious?
Who are the mainstream media protecting?

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/dict_ei.html

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Old-...ds-Say-They-Should-Have-Collapsed-54963.shtml
Click to expand...


Why all the troofer ignorance?
 
Clayton Moore said:
Do you really believe that something that never happened before, the global collapse of a steel framed building caused by fire weakened steel, could occur THREE times in one day when the amount of energy against each building was different and at different locations?
Click to expand...
Just FYI, the largest building ever demo'd was about 26 stories. WTC 7 was 47, and WTC 1 and 2 were 110. In other words, no one had ever demo'd a building that high before, much less three on one day, meaning, by your own argument, it is impossible.

Q E Frakking D.

Also: Both airplanes were similar, coming from the Boeing 767 line, and the Twin Towers were essentially identical in construction, as the name might indicate. So it's roughly just two buildings; WTC 1/2, and WTC 7.
 
Clayton Moore said:
My proof is basically that nothing can cause such complete destruction by falling/collapsing onto itself.
Click to expand...

The inverse-square law guarantees that, the larger a structure is, the more capacity it has to destroy itself if structural integrity is compromised.

This is especially true because, even though a skyscraper is much, much bigger than a house, we still expect to get the same utility per square foot out of it. Because of this, a building gets proportionally more fragile the bigger it gets.

Here's a quick thought experiment: Flip a doghouse upside down and observe the damage.

Now flip a real house upside down and observe the damage.
 
Major_Tom said:
If the NIST and yourselves had mistaken a south perimeter led collapse with a core led collapse, that basically nullifies their WTC1 report.
Click to expand...

When you get your paper published in a peer-reviewed journal, this statement might carry some weight. As it stands, it's just the arrogant proclamation of a crank amateur.

Prove me wrong. Get your paper published.
 
aggle-rithm said:
When you get your paper published in a peer-reviewed journal, this statement might carry some weight. As it stands, it's just the arrogant proclamation of a crank amateur.

Prove me wrong. Get your paper published.
Click to expand...






So pretty much anything you say means nothing since you don't have a paper?
 
Clayton Moore said:
So pretty much anything you say means nothing since you don't have a paper?
Click to expand...

On this forum, pretty much everything anybody says means nothing, because it has no significant influence anywhere. We think that's why truthers would rather post here than try to function anywhere that actually matters.

Dave
 
Clayton Moore said:
So pretty much anything you say means nothing since you don't have a paper?
Click to expand...

Any extraordinary claims that are unsupported by evidence or work done by those more qualified than me?...yes! Absolutely.

I would hold myself to those same standards, if I were making proclamations that my uninformed judgement was superior to professionals in the field we're discussing.
 
aggle-rithm said:
The inverse-square law guarantees that, the larger a structure is, the more capacity it has to destroy itself if structural integrity is compromised.

This is especially true because, even though a skyscraper is much, much bigger than a house, we still expect to get the same utility per square foot out of it. Because of this, a building gets proportionally more fragile the bigger it gets.

Here's a quick thought experiment: Flip a doghouse upside down and observe the damage.

Now flip a real house upside down and observe the damage.
Click to expand...


I did as you requested and I was able to glue both back together.
 
aggle-rithm said:
It was a thought experiment, remember?

Of course, you have to take the thoughts of the experimenter into account.
Click to expand...
Or lack thereof.

All Clay does is doubt, ignore, misinterpret and spam "witty" remarks. Or as I like to call it, DIMS.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
I see you don't understand the definition of the word "real" in this context either.

Dave
Click to expand...

I understand the reality, that only the felling of the towers could have brought us to this post 9/11 involvement with war and democracy building. No hijacker plan alone could have expected that crashing into the towers could completely destroy both of them. I understand that the Bush/Cheney administration interfered and impeded the 9/11 investigations by delaying, underfunding, and staffing them at the top with "their people."

All the rest is fill in the blanks.
 
Clayton Moore said:
I understand the reality, that only the felling of the towers could have brought us to this post 9/11 involvement with war and democracy building.
Click to expand...

For which claim, of course, you don't actually have any evidence.

I think you need to look up the words "reality" and "opinion", and try to work out which is which.

Dave
 
Clayton Moore said:
I understand the reality, that only the felling of the towers could have brought us to this post 9/11 involvement with war and democracy building.
Click to expand...

Please provide your evidence that the war and "democracy building" would not have happened if the buildings had not collapsed.
 
Myriad said:
One degree of tilt, off axis (as it was) from either major axis of the building, is sufficient to prevent any significant numbers of column-on-column impacts from occurring simultaneously. Hence, no jolt of comparable magnitude to those in verinage demolitions where the upper block falls flat and square.
Click to expand...

I would be interested to hear how one degree of tilt would prevent column-on-column impacts, but my guess is this is an assertion that bedunkers, justifiably, have never been able to back up. Justifiably because it's absurd.


(Of course, any column-on-column impacts whatsoever are impossible anyhow until three full floors of descent had occurred, and are highly unlikely thereafter. That's because there are no "column ends" to collide that can be any closer than three floors apart. Not to mention that as far as causing a "jolt" is concerned, collisions with floors have a much greater possible effect, due to momentum transfer, on the motion of the upper mass than column-on-column collisions could. So for "missing jolt" purposes, floor-on-floor impacts have more significance and hence are what I focused on.)
Click to expand...

Myriad's "explanation" here is either deeply ignorant or deeply disingenuous -- unless you want to believe that the upper portion of building above the crash zone was suspended in air for the height of three stories.

Intact columns means that they weren't severed. It means that the estimated 85% remaining intact columns did not have any ends dangling in the air, waiting to slip by their counterparts below. It means that 85% of the column structure was intact. Do you know what intact means? It means continuous. Connecting upper portion to lower. This means that the impact from the upper portion slumping onto the lower would be translated through the 85% remaining continuous, intact, column structure. That means you would have to see a deceleration as the upper portion pushes through those intact columns.

A one-hour office fire would not suddenly sever the 85% intact columns either. Nor would they suddenly bend like wet noodles. But even if they did suddenly bend like wet noodles, you would still have to see a deceleration, as there is still 75 - 90 storeys of intact structural framing below the slumping portion.

I don't expect an answer from Myriad on this. This is a point that can never be explained by 9/11 bedunkers. It's all handwaving and One Big Blur at this point.
 
ergo said:
I would be interested to hear how one degree of tilt would prevent column-on-column impacts, but my guess is this is an assertion that bedunkers, justifiably, have never been able to back up. Justifiably because it's absurd.
Click to expand...
It's the strangest thing; I knew, before I even read the post you quoted, that your response was a straw man. Because it was said in the patronizing tone you use when you employ them.

any significant numbers of column-on-column impacts from occurring simultaneously.
Click to expand...
Those qualifiers are vital, yet you seem to have omitted them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom