Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

Animal said:
I disagree with the claim that it is an overwhelmingly right wing idea. Polls in the past have shown just the opposite.
Click to expand...

These are old polls taken before Obama was elected. Almost all the polls routinely cited here were done years ago.

twinstead said:
Well, true or not, our delightful little cult member clayton moore doesn't fall under that category--but an ideologue is an ideologue is an ideologue, is it not?
Click to expand...

Why do you say that? I understand he's a Holocaust Denier. In my books, that puts him on the right.
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
Yeah sure. Good point. ahahhahahahahhahahahahaha

Global collapse. Every structural point of each floor failed simultaneously. 110 times. 110 times. 48 times.

Somebody call Guinness.

268 times in one day.
268 times in one week.
268 times in one month.
268 times in one year.
268 times in one century.

Basements don't count.
Click to expand...

ahahhahahahahhahahahahaha isn't an argument.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Global collapse. Every structural point of each floor failed simultaneously. 110 times. 110 times. 48 times.
Click to expand...

Which is why, when the towers started to collapse, we saw every part of the structure, from top to bottom, start to fall at exactly the same moment.

What? We didn't see that?

Then why does Clayton Moore think that "Every structural point of each floor failed simultaneously" when that can't possibly have happened?

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Which is why, when the towers started to collapse, we saw every part of the structure, from top to bottom, start to fall at exactly the same moment.

What? We didn't see that?

Then why does Clayton Moore think that "Every structural point of each floor failed simultaneously" when that can't possibly have happened?

Dave
Click to expand...

Each floor had structural points that supported it and connected it to the whole of the building. In order to fall straight down all of an individual floor's structural connections had to be "released/broken/severed" at the same time.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Each floor had structural points that supported it and connected it to the whole of the building. In order to fall straight down all of an individual floor's structural connections had to be "released/broken/severed" at the same time.
Click to expand...

Well, putting aside the minor matter that that's purely the product of your imagination and has nothing to do with reality in any way whatsoever, do you think that having the top part of the building fall on each successive floor may have had something to do with the structural connections of those lower floors being severed, and how long do you imagine that process would have taken?

Dave
 
Clayton Moore said:
Each floor had structural points that supported it and connected it to the whole of the building. In order to fall straight down all of an individual floor's structural connections had to be "released/broken/severed" at the same time.
Click to expand...

Never before in human history has the word "wrong" been on display more than that.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Well, putting aside the minor matter that that's purely the product of your imagination and has nothing to do with reality in any way whatsoever, do you think that having the top part of the building fall on each successive floor may have had something to do with the structural connections of those lower floors being severed, and how long do you imagine that process would have taken?

Dave
Click to expand...

I thought that pancaking had been poopcanned by the geniuses.
 
Clayton Moore said:
The point of Neglecting friction such as air resistance, was obviously to bring to the forefront the friction of the solid floors to be dealt with.
Over 80 of them plus the 4 basements.
SMH
Click to expand...

Soooo, my prediction was correct. You choose to ignore the question posed.

As for your explanation as to why you referred to 'air resistance'; The collapses occured at an average of 20-25% less acceleration due to gravity which IS consistent with momentum transfer to the lower floors. The math has been done in the pages of the 911 Conspiracy Theories sub-forum. I am sure if you use the search function you can find it.
 
Clayton Moore said:
I thought that pancaking had been poopcanned by the geniuses.
Click to expand...

The term was shelved because it is too simplistic a description of what occured.
However the global collapse was driven by the fact that the falling mass failed the floor systems which in turn left the two column systems (core and perimeter) unconnected and thus unbraced which led to the columns failing.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Each floor had structural points that supported it and connected it to the whole of the building. In order to fall straight down all of an individual floor's structural connections had to be "released/broken/severed" at the same time.
Click to expand...

Each floor had structural points that supported it and connected it to the core and perimeter columns. Failure at either end of large numbers of these trusses will fail the entire floor and remove lateral bracing between core and perimeter.
Failure of several adjacent floors would result in failure of the columns due to the loss of lateral bracing.

There-----fixed for you.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Yeah sure. Good point. ahahhahahahahhahahahahaha

Global collapse. Every structural point of each floor failed simultaneously. 110 times. 110 times. 48 times.
Click to expand...

NO, the initial collapse was rapid but not instantaneous and there is ample evidence to show that global collapse was a progression that had interior failures leading exterior collapse and core collapse lagging both.

The truss seat connections failed as thousands of tons of debris landed on the floors. If one side lagged behind the opposite side by half a second it would make little difference. The initial collapse had the upper block all moving within less than half a second and the first lower floor would have then completely failed also within a half second. Since by the time the debris hits the next floor it is moving a lot faster and since the lagging side is preweakened by the failure of the other side of the floorspace the time to failure of that entire floor is likely to be less than the first. Since every floor failure subsequent to this is caused by larger amounts of debris that is gaining velocity they fail faster and faster.

Basements don't count.
Click to expand...

Don't know why you say this, don't know why you even include the basements. The only reason basements were brought up before was to illustrate to you that the debris pile actually begins several floors below ground level.
Then again I believe you said that the basement floors did not fail. Cannot envision why they would not. They did have the mass of most of the entire 110 above ground storeys coming down on them and floors DO not have unlimited ability to carry a load.
 
000063 said:
It's the "pretty much" qualifier that bugs me. WTC 7 fell across a 4-lane street and hit buildings on the other side. That's not "pretty much" in my estimation.
Click to expand...

Isn't that two 4 lane roads, one to the south for the western 2/3rds of the structure, and one to the north at the eastern end of the building?
 
jaydeehess said:
Actually despite repeated requests you have presented absolutly no rebuttal to anyone's posts here. Personal incredulity and bald contentions do not cut it. You were presented with detailed explanations and shrug it all off by simply contending its all wrong but you NEVER present any similarily detailed rebuttal.

IOW, we've asked and asked but so far, you got nothing.


.
Click to expand...

,,,, and still we wait for something other than personal incredulity and misunderstanding of all things physics and engineering.

Also , Clayton, I asked for examples of known controlled demolitions sending multi-ton chunks flying away. I asked for examples of fire induced partial collapses in which the debris does something other than fall straight down.
Still nada?
 
Clayton Moore said:
I thought that pancaking had been poopcanned by the geniuses.
Click to expand...

It was ruled out as the cause of collapse initiation, but it obviously occurred.

ETA: The interesting thing is: The original hypothesis, that one of the floors became detached from the external columns when the heat caused the connections to fail, was perfectly reasonable and easy for the general public to understand.

If the buildings were really demolished by the government, then this would have been a fake hypothesis, of course. As such it would have worked very well and there was no reason to change it.

But...do you know why the hypothesis changed? It didn't fit the evidence. In fact, the floor connections held so well that the sagging floor pulled the external columns inward. As a quick-and-dirty explanation for easy consumption by the sheeple, this was a poor choice. As a testable and falsifiable hypothesis that matched the evidence, it was exactly what was needed.

Do the truthers have a testable, falsifiable hypothesis that fits the evidence better?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom