Acceleration of the falling top blocks.

[ergo]

Dusty, of all the absurd statements you make, this one might take the cake.

Noah seems to think that the first storey was not, in fact, capable of holding up the top 109 storeys. I wonder how he imagines the Twin Towers were able to remain standing for 30 years.

 

[DGM]

Noah seems to think that the first storey was not, in fact, capable of holding up the top 109 storeys. I wonder how he imagines the Twin Towers were able to remain standing for 30 years.

I'll take it as an acknowledgement you were talking out of your backside by the way you dodged my post. No clue how the building was constructed, huh?

So, why do you think making crap up helps your cause?

 

[ergo]

As for phunk, I have no idea what collapse mode he thinks he's explaining. Something he's no doubt made up in his little phunky head.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Noah seems to think that the first storey was not, in fact, capable of holding up the top 109 storeys. I wonder how he imagines the Twin Towers were able to remain standing for 30 years.

They stayed standing because the COLUMNS were supporting the weight. The floor, however, could not. This is true of most structures, where the floors are designed to carry only the usage load and there are specific load-bearing members designed to carry the structural load.

 

[ergo]

I'll take it as an acknowledgement you were talking out of your backside by the way you dodged my post. No clue how the building was constructed, huh?

You don't ask the questions here, DGM. You answer them. Here's where you can begin. K?

 

[ergo]

They stayed standing because the COLUMNS were supporting the weight. The floor, however, could not. This is true of most structures, where the floors are designed to carry only the usage load and there are specific load-bearing members designed to carry the structural load.

That must have been hell on the alleged falling upper block. Must have broken up pretty quick, eh?

 

[thedopefishlives]

That must have been hell on the alleged falling upper block. Must have broken up pretty quick, eh?

"Alleged falling upper block"? What, are you venturing into Judy Wood territory now?

 

[DGM]

You don't ask the questions here, DGM. You answer them. Here's where you can begin. K?

Nope. You specified what the construction was and said we have been misrepresenting this. You may think you can fool your moron friends but, this is your claim. Prove it.

Actually, what we've seen is a spammed image that shows the floors under construction. An image that also seems to want to give the impression that the floors were precariously flimsy and that the steel cabling in the trusses is something in the order of less than an inch thick. What isn't shown in that spammed image are the bridging trusses and the complete assembly that secures the floor panels to the columns.

 

[ergo]

"Alleged falling upper block"? What, are you venturing into Judy Wood territory now?

How long (in your mind) does the upper block remain intact once "collapse" begins?

 

[LSSBB]

Noah seems to think that the first storey was not, in fact, capable of holding up the top 109 storeys. I wonder how he imagines the Twin Towers were able to remain standing for 30 years.

ergo, please keep up. Noah's comment was with regard's to Dusty's post here:

Responses in red.

Which was in reply to Beachnut's comment:

How much does one floor hold? Can it hold 12 floors? Do some research before making up silly fantasy answers out of thin air.

Dusty's original post was clearly NOT about the first floor:

Twelve feet is not enough distance for the top floors to have achieved a great enough amount of force to crush the lower floors, as the faulty gravity collapse model suggests, but that's the weaker conclusion. The stronger conclusion is that the descent would have been quite slowed. Stopped? Maybe. Slowed? Definitely. And not slowed just a bit. A lot. But it's dumb to talk about it, really, because floors didn't fall onto other floors. Foam that used to be floors was doing the falling, and foam doesn't produce a big whack when it hits something.

ETA: ergo, do YOU believe one floor could have held up to the top block of the building falling on it?

 

[ergo]

Nope. You specified what the construction was and said we have been misrepresenting this. You may think you can fool your moron friends but, this is your claim. Prove it.

No. Read the thread. Stop trying to get on the other side of the table. Defend your stupid theory or stop posting.

 

[ergo]

ergo, please keep up. Noah's comment was with regard's to Dusty's post here:

No, it wasn't, LSSBB. It's plainly clear what he was responding to in the post I quoted.

 

[LSSBB]

No, it wasn't, LSSBB. It's plainly clear what he was responding to in the post I quoted.

So YOU seriously think that Noah was incredulous that the first floor of the building could hold up the rest, and not that he was incredulous about her responding to Beachnut incorrectly?

 

[DGM]

No. Read the thread. Stop trying to get on the other side of the table. Defend your stupid theory or stop posting.

So you admit you can't defend your retarded statement.

We'll keep posting the floor connecting as fact then.

Nice try at saving face though.

 

[ergo]

So YOU seriously think that Noah was incredulous that the first floor of the building could hold up the rest, and not that he was incredulous about her responding to Beachnut incorrectly?

What part of this don't you understand?

 

[ergo]

So you admit you can't defend your retarded statement.

We'll keep posting the floor connecting as fact then.

Nice try at saving face though.

If you can explain why my statement was "retarded" then maybe I'll respond to your posts. My guess is you can't.

As for the rest of your post, I have no idea what you're blathering about.

 

[DGM]

If you can explain why my statement was "retarded" then maybe I'll respond to your posts. My guess is you can't.

As for the rest of your post, I have no idea what you're blathering about.

Easy, you claim construction details that simply don't exist. That's why I asked you to show them in plan.

Tell you what. Show the details you claim exist and I will retract my statement. Bet you can't, because you made them up.

That's retarded if you claim to want the truth.

 

[LSSBB]

What part of this don't you understand?

I don't understand your interpretation of it. Literal thinking to the extreme, maybe?

 

[ergo]

Easy, you claim construction details that simply don't exist. That's why I asked you to show them in plan.

Tell you what. Show the details you claim exist and I will retract my statement. Bet you can't, because you made them up.

DGM, much as l like you, being a fellow Canadian and all, my experience with you is that you're a time waster who mostly bluffs. If you have a problem with my statement, you need to be able to explain what the problem is. If you can't, then it's obvious you don't yourself know.

 

[ergo]

I don't understand your interpretation of it. Literal thinking to the extreme, maybe?

Not that it's at all pertinent to the topic, but I'm fascinated by your attempt here to make Noah look less stupid than he does.

Here it is in gray and black:

The 1st floor was strong enough to hold 109 upper floors. The 2nd floor was strong enough to hold 108 upper floors.

Dusty, of all the absurd statements you make, this one might take the cake.