• 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.

A Truther writes...

Oystein said:
Readers understand very well what I mean:

In a verinage demolition, one intermediate story has its structural elements removed by force, sending the top stories falling on the story below, and triggering an avalanching collapse all the way down to the ground.

In the twin towers, one intermediate story had its structural elements removed by force, sending the top stories falling on the story below, and triggering an avalanching collapse all the way down to the ground.


Only difference really is the force applied to the failing story. In one case, it's cranes, pulleys or explosives, at the twin towers it was airplanes and fires.
Click to expand...
Did you know that in WTC1 only 15% of the supporting columns .core and perimeter wre destroyed by the plane. Only two of the 47 massive core columns were taken out.

So given that 85% of the columns between the upper and lower parts were fully intact do you still consider that enough ' structural elements were removed by force ' to allow the free collapse of the upper block onto the lower ?

Do you not think that the steel would have slowly softened to the point where the top lowered itself gently onto the lower block.

Of course if this happened then there was next to no dynamic force applied on the lower block which in turn means that collapse arrest should have happened immediately.
 
bill smith said:
Did you know that in WTC1 only 15% of the supporting columns .core and perimeter wre destroyed by the plane. Only two of the 47 massive core columns were taken out.

So given that 85% of the columns between the upper and lower parts were fully intact do you still consider that enough ' structural elements were removed by force ' to allow the free collapse of the upper block onto the lower ?
Click to expand...

As you surely noticed, neither did I claim that the airplanes alone took out the support, nor did they alone trigger the collapse. So that remark is irrelevant. And I am sure you know it.


bill smith said:
Do you not think that the steel would have slowly softened to the point where the top lowered itself gently onto the lower block.
Click to expand...

The appropriate response would be "lol"
But I am not here to show disrespect.
You see, steel columns are not hydraulic elevators or cranes or gentle turtles supporting the earth. Steel columns are things that are strong as long as they are straight an vertical.
Your "lowering itself gently" seems to imply that some columns magically bow down or get compressed from several meters close to zip. Of course they wouldn't do that. A strained column will lose its ability to support seriousl loads after just a few inches of bending, strain, whatever. They then break (or more realistically, the bolted or welded joints between two column sections break). Load distribution occurs without much downward movement as long as enough columns remain to support the full weight. When they start breaking beyond that, they break rapidly indeed.

Just ask any real structural engineer.


bill smith said:
Of course if this happened then there was next to no dynamic force applied on the lower block which in turn means that collapse arrest should have happened immediately.
Click to expand...

You are making this up.
 
Oystein said:
As you surely noticed, neither did I claim that the airplanes alone took out the support, nor did they alone trigger the collapse. So that remark is irrelevant. And I am sure you know it.




The appropriate response would be "lol"
But I am not here to show disrespect.
You see, steel columns are not hydraulic elevators or cranes or gentle turtles supporting the earth. Steel columns are things that are strong as long as they are straight an vertical.
Your "lowering itself gently" seems to imply that some columns magically bow down or get compressed from several meters close to zip. Of course they wouldn't do that. A strained column will lose its ability to support seriousl loads after just a few inches of bending, strain, whatever. They then break (or more realistically, the bolted or welded joints between two column sections break). Load distribution occurs without much downward movement as long as enough columns remain to support the full weight. When they start breaking beyond that, they break rapidly indeed.

Just ask any real structural engineer.




You are making this up.
Click to expand...

There you go Readers. Write that down somewhere.
 
Oystein said:
Freeze the video at 29 seconds and you will see that the top 7 stories have crushed the 6th story (and little below it - NOT the bottom 6 stories)
Freeze the video at 30 seconds and you will see that the top 8 stories have crushed the 5th story (and little below it - NOT the bottom 5 stories)
Freeze the video at 31 seconds and you will see that the top 9 stories have crushed the 4th story (and little below it - NOT the bottom 4 stories)
Freeze the video at 32 seconds and you will see that the top 10 stories have crushed the 3rd story (and little below it - NOT the bottom 3 stories)
Freeze the video at the end of 32 seconds and you will see that the top 11/B] stories have crushed the 2nd story (and little below it - NOT the bottom 2 stories)
Freeze the video at 33 seconds and you will see that the top 12 stories have crushed the 1st story

Notice how the top part accumulates stories and mass every second.
Notice how the top 8 (then 9, then 10, then 11, then 12) upper stories keep moving and, if anything, pick up speed rather than losing any.
Notice how the top never destroys the entire bottom, but goes story by story.

Now suppose there had been 95 more stories below - is there any doubt that the top 13 stories would have crushed the next, and then the top 14 stories the next, and then the top 15 stories the next, and then the top 16 stories the next, and so on and on and on. until the whole mess finally hits the ground?

Because, you see, verinage demolition does not depend very much on first taking out the center story. It just needs enough top stories to overwhelm one more, and the rest goes down to the ground.
As the video shows, 6 top stories will do the trick.
The twin towers had 15 and 33 stories to start with.
Click to expand...


And do they also carry out verinage on steel framed buildings ? Like do you think that example in the video had a steel core ? Or is verinage carried out on brick and concrete buildings mostly ?
 
Let the record show that Bill has been here since Feb 2009 and has 5,336 posts of complete nonsense. Argue at your sanity's own risk.

And to the OP, its just the same old drivel spewed by the CFs. Nothing new.
 
bill smith said:
Did you know that in WTC1 only 15% of the supporting columns .core and perimeter wre destroyed by the plane. Only two of the 47 massive core columns were taken out.

So given that 85% of the columns between the upper and lower parts were fully intact do you still consider that enough ' structural elements were removed by force ' to allow the free collapse of the upper block onto the lower ?

Do you not think that the steel would have slowly softened to the point where the top lowered itself gently onto the lower block.

Of course if this happened then there was next to no dynamic force applied on the lower block which in turn means that collapse arrest should have happened immediately.
Click to expand...

Good Point Bill,

Yes indeed the laws of physics that suggest that a buckling failure will always be a rapid failure are very inconvenient. Hah but you knew that and you were just being tricksy.

But I do like your video of the spire. I think that conclusively prooves that the explosives were not all detonated at the same time and that the spire was detonated after the main columns. I guess this must be documentation of the first mistake made by the demo team.

Its certainly worth a chapter in the next book.
 
bill smith said:
If 10% of an item can crush the lower and stronger 90% of the same structure by gravity alone then you will surely be able to show the readers other examples of this happening. Choose any example from the recorded history of this planet
Click to expand...

You missed his point completly, as you usually do.

The top 10% did not HAVE to crush the lower 90%. It only had to crush 1 floor.
 
bill smith said:
I invite the Readers to go back several posts to where I laid out my spaghetti model. Then they can use theiir minds eye to envision the collapse occurring as you describe. My intuition tells me that their intuition will not buy it..
Click to expand...

Yes, OUR intuition tells us that spagetti is not a good representation of the WTC at all!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom