Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

[Oystein]

because your questions have no point other than obfuscation and nonsense.

Your claim that the debris pile was "miniscule" was obfuscation and nonsense, absent any quantitative description of how large it was.
Your implication that the debris pile was smaller than one would expect from an unassisted collapse was obfuscation and nonsense, absent any quantitative description of how large a pile you would have expected.
Your assertion that the basements did not collapse was obfuscation and nonsense, absent any evidence that they were still intact after the collapse.

 

[000063]

Each floor had structural points that supported it and connected it to the whole of the building. In order to fall straight down

It didn't. Pieces were found well out of the building's footprint.

all of an individual floor's structural connections had to be "released/broken/severed" at the same time.

If someone smashes me in the knee and breaks it, I can still hop around until I get tired, or they break my other knee.

 

[000063]

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?

I'm referring to the bits that hit Fiterman and Verizon. I'm not sure about any other road.

 

[000063]

That's a riot. A "non" explosive event, as per NISTeria, ejects multi-ton beams into near by buildings and you ask for a known controlled demolition that has ejected multi-ton beams into near-by buildings.

Which you cannot produce, I note.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

As far as the so-called "miniscule debris pile" is concerned.
The tower's columns were stood up like so:

_ _ _ _

| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
_ _ _ _

In profile, their relative thickness is like so:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In the short dimension height they were like so:

|------------------------|
|------------------------|
|------------------------|
|------------------------|

The latter two configurations require more "pieces" to get the same height as a single piece stood on its long axis as is shown below:


_ _ _ _

| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | --------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|
| | | | | ------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------------------|------------------------|
| | | | | ------------------| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |------------------|------------------------|
_ _ _ _ ------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------------------|------------------------|

In other words even if the WTC columns were neatly "stacked" on their shorter dimensions you would never get the full height of the constructed building.

In reality there was no such neat "stack." The debris was spread across 16 acres.

Clayton Moore is promoting a fantasy.

That is all.

 

[leftysergeant]

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.

Take another lookat the videos. The puffs of dust coming out the windows do not appear one floor at a time all the way around either of the towers. Building 7 is seen to move across the street toward where the towers had stood.

In none of the buildings did the floors or perimeter columns fail uniformly and at the same rate.

If you break one floor support, the rest are going to follow as the loads they bear increase. The asymetricality of the failures actually accelerates the process by stressing the supports in directions in which they were not intended to be stressed.

 

[000063]

Yes I agree with you the fire did not cause the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings. The most realistic cause of the destruction is that the WTC building seven was imploded and the WTC Twin towers were detonated with explosives .

You keep using that word...

That's a riot.

You have no idea what explosive tech was available on 9/11. And, you're saying a "gravity collapse" ejected multi-ton beams into near-by buildings?

No actual facts or evidence backing up the claims of falsehood, just argument from incredulity and flat-out denial. One of Clay's favorite plays, Mike.

 

[000063]

There have been no major advances in explosives since some time prior to 9/11, so this is BS. THERE STILL AINT ANY BLOODY HUSH-A-BOOMS.

And yes, gravity did propel the beams outward by compressing a great mass of rubble inside a box contained by those beams, thus forcing them outward. This is eighth-grade science here.

Screw eighth-grade; I was able to get similar results with the little plastic paddle inside my Kraft Handi-Snacks Cheese N' Crackers back in primary school.

 

[Clayton Moore]

There have been no major advances in explosives since some time prior to 9/11, so this is BS. THERE STILL AINT ANY BLOODY HUSH-A-BOOMS.

And yes, gravity did propel the beams outward by compressing a great mass of rubble inside a box contained by those beams, thus forcing them outward. This is eighth-grade science here.

More like pre school attentionless jabbering.

 

[leftysergeant]

More like pre school attentionless jabbering.

You have not accounted for your theoretical explosive events. How did explosives have anything to do with pushing those big assemblies of perimeter columns out from the sides of the building without making one gawdawful BOOM? Anyone with common sense can see that they were just shoved outward by the descending rubble. That high off the ground, they need not even be ejected with any great force to travel a considerable distance laterally before hitting the ground.

 

[Clayton Moore]

You have not accounted for your theoretical explosive events. How did explosives have anything to do with pushing those big assemblies of perimeter columns out from the sides of the building without making one gawdawful BOOM? Anyone with common sense can see that they were just shoved outward by the descending rubble. That high off the ground, they need not even be ejected with any great force to travel a considerable distance laterally before hitting the ground.

My work was done when the "collapse" of all three buildings was captured on video.

 

[leftysergeant]

My work was done when the "collapse" of all three buildings was captured on video.

No, it wasn't. Nobody showed any explosive events. You are just labelling stuff evidence of your position when it clearly proves the opposite.

 

[ergo]

My work was done when the "collapse" of all three buildings was captured on video.

Yup.

 

[brazenlilraisin]

Yup.

Says the guy who entertains the possibility they were dustified despite this.

 

[Oystein]

More like pre school attentionless jabbering.

Claiming that the debris piles were miniscule without quantifying them was pre school attentionless jabbering
Claiming that the debris piles were smaller than would be expected from unassisted collapse without quantifying how much you would expect was pre school attentionless jabbering.
Claiming the basements did not collapse without providing evidence for this nonsense was pre school attentionless jabbering.
Insinuating that the towers didn't even collapse was pre school attentionless jabbering.

You still owe us an answer to all four questions:

1. How large (volume, height) were the debris piles of the twin towers?
2. How large (volume, height) would you have expected them to be, since you say actual height < expected height?
3. What is your evidence for the claim that the basements did not collapse?
4. Do you think the towers did not collapse?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I thought that pancaking had been poopcanned by the geniuses.

You thought wrong. So now that you've made it clear that you don't understand the most basic points of the generally accepted explanation of the collapses, remind us why we should take any notice of the false conclusions your ignorance has led you to.

Dave

 

[Clayton Moore]

Take another lookat the videos. The puffs of dust coming out the windows do not appear one floor at a time all the way around either of the towers. Building 7 is seen to move across the street toward where the towers had stood.

In none of the buildings did the floors or perimeter columns fail uniformly and at the same rate.

If you break one floor support, the rest are going to follow as the loads they bear increase. The asymetricality of the failures actually accelerates the process by stressing the supports in directions in which they were not intended to be stressed.

Removed breach.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[jaydeehess]

I'm referring to the bits that hit Fiterman and Verizon. I'm not sure about any other road.

Part of WTC 7 fell across Vesey Street and impacted WTC 6. The 911 conspiracists ignore this and claim that WTC 7 fell in its own footprint. It is true that because WTC 6 was also largely destroyed that its not immediatly obvious that it was hit by WTC 7 but it is quite obvious that WTC 7 debris in in Vesey Street up to the north wall of WTC 6 and if one cares to look closely you can see that WTC 7 debris is on too of what's left of #6 as well.

The 911 conspiractors completely ignore that fact you bring up, that the eastern part of WTC 7 fell across Broadway to impact the Fitterman building. All they seem to care about is that the Post office seems to have escaped with only superficial damage at its base.

 

[jaydeehess]

My work was done when the "collapse" of all three buildings was captured on video.

Yup.

Quotes proving beyond any reasonable doubt that both of you are basically technically illiterate and easily misled.

A few centuries ago you'd have been argueing that the world was flat.

Clayton, I asked before how you can state that the towers both collapsed in their own footprints making the collapses suspicious, AND debris was thrown several hundred meters also making the collapses suspicious.

You have explosives bringing all debris straight down=suspicion, and debris landing supposedly too far away also = suspicion. Which is it, debris too compact of a pile, or debris being flung too far?

 

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore
You have no idea what explosive tech was available on 9/11.

We prefer not to have to invoke magical solutions to these scenarios.