• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

$1M Controlled Demolition Challenge?

Clayton Moore said:
The above is why I am the Big "incredibly smart" Dog here by an incredibly wide margin.

Removing the three floors would a be much WORSE scenario than an airplane crash into the buildings, initiating fires, and causing the weakening of the steel.

Yet plague311 inferred the opposite.
Click to expand...

We already know that you do not have a clue about 911. No need to keep on reinforcing the point.
 
Clayton Moore said:
The above is why I am the Big "incredibly smart" Dog here by an incredibly wide margin.

Removing the three floors would a be much WORSE scenario than an airplane crash into the buildings, initiating fires, and causing the weakening of the steel.

Yet plague311 inferred the opposite.
Click to expand...

You are aware the even the smartest dog is still quite a ways behind humans in intelligence?
 
Clayton Moore said:
The challenge is just bs. If the "collapses" could have happened without some sort of assisting demolition activity a computer model would have been written to replicate the event and prove it was possible. The same type of program that verifies a building WILL NOT do a 9/11 "collapse" because pristine lower floors can't be made to fail by the weight floors from above.
Click to expand...

Aren't you the same person that once asserted that They could've planned the collapse of the building exactly so it would hit 7 and give Them an excuse via computer modeling?

Also, "pristine" lower floors have an upper limit. Someone worked out the impact of the upper floors on the lower section to be several times the weight of the entire intact building. The lower floors were simply not designed to take anything close to such weight, in static or dynamic form.

Clayton Moore said:
Not all that difficult. Use software to recreate the building then program in support failures to the upper section/about 1/3 of the building until the lower 2/3 of the building is demolished in less than 30 seconds.
Click to expand...

What "software"? You tend to get awfully vague when asked for specifics, or, heaven forfend, actual math. In fact, when I asked you to elaborate on the "computer modelled collapse" claim earlier, you abruptly left the thread in question.

plague311 said:
Post from pure incredulity.
...
Click to expand...
Co-signed.

dafydd said:
That never seems to occur to truthers.
...
Click to expand...
That might have something to do with their tendency to use the simplest model of the incident that they can comprehend, then ignoring any contrary evidence. Which is why some guy on Youtube claims to know more than structural engineers.

Clayton Moore said:
The above is why I am the Big "incredibly smart" Dog here by an incredibly wide margin.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the margin is not in the direction you think.

Removing the three floors would a be much WORSE scenario than an airplane crash into the buildings, initiating fires, and causing the weakening of the steel.

Yet plague311 inferred the opposite.
Click to expand...
No, he merely said that they were not the same, and despite the differences, your scenario would still lead to a collapse. Stop lying.

Do you have any idea of the amount of kinetic energy those floors would gain falling 30 feet? Even if they land end on end, the lower portion can't take it. In fact, it would likely hit with more force than the actual incident.

Come to think, I've never seen you even acknowledge the claim that the floors were destroyed individually. You understanding of the matter seems barely more complex than Richard Gage's famous box demonstration; large blocks striking other large blocks.



What you fail to understand is that the idea of a "block", in this case, is an abstraction used to refer to an assemblage of thousands of pieces of metal and structural components and the odd body or two.
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
They didn't collapse they were blown up. The entire world knows.


1x = top third of each tower.
2x = middle third of each tower.
3x = bottom third of each tower.

1x cannot demolish 2x.
Nor can 1x demolish 2x and 3x.

Create accurate as possible model of one of the towers.
Freeze the program.
Remove entire floors 71, 72, 73.
Restart the program.

Would floors 74-110 demolish floors 1-70?

No.
Click to expand...

Please, can you review the math for me. I am having problems keeping up with your advanced math. What does x stand for?

When will you publish your computer model?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom