Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

Let's see if I have this lovely prediction right... Ergo thinks he's setting up a trap so he can accuse his critics of equating the WTC collapse to a CD using hydraulics.
 
Last edited:
Let's see if I have this lovely prediction right... Ergo thinks he's setting up a trap so he can accuse his critics of equating the WTC collapse to a CD using hydraulics.
That sounds about right. Except that he's misinterpreting the critics' comparison to Verniage, and hydraulics with that much power would be more conspicuous, less durable, and even more difficult to install than Hushaboom™ explosives. Note how he keeps assuming every debunker has the exact same position. Note that at no point has he ever retreated from his explosives position.
 
The only difference between the collapse of the towers and actual verinage is that the initial fall of the top section of the buildings was initiated by the immediate destruction of some of the perimeter and core columns and the floor trusses by the impact of a large metal object and the gradual weakening of several others by extreme heat.
 
Ummm ERgo?

He must have me on ignore (I can understand why... I keep pwning him badly...)

Oh well...

ummm ergo?
ummm ergo?

How about the quotes from the people who survived the collapse and who specifically mention EXPLOSIONS after the collapse has happened, but do not mention explosions during the collapse?

How about admitting you stepped on your dick about a lack of barotrauma at OKC bombing?

How about telling us the difference between into vs onto?

how about telling us the difference between essentially vs actually?

How about providing ANY citation which states a building footprint includes the buildings across the street or the roof of an adjacent building?

um ergo?
 
In verinage, the weight of the building above the break provides all of the energy which destroys the structure below it. In this alone, the destruction of the towers exactly resembles verinage. But in normal verinage, the bearing walls, rather than the floors, are impacted and crushed. In the towers, they were merely disconnected from the lateral supports and shoved aside.

One point should be addressed here befre someone who does not know what they are talking about brings it up. The companies doing verinage have set a limit on how tall a structure the will demolish in this way. Twoofers assume that this is because there is some arresting factor that might come into play or that friction will exhaust some of the energy.

Quite the contrary. As the process continues, more energy is availlable because falling rubble gains momentum.

The problem is one of controlling the spread of debris. The rubble will want to come down faster than the lower structure will get out of the way, and will thus find a path of lesser resistance out to the sides. Their current maximum height is the height beyond which an unacceptable amount of material will fall outside the designated safe zone. As you can see from video of the towers, the radius of the debris plume increases rapidly until it reaches the ground, for exactly the reasons I have described.
 
Verinage eh?
Seems the 911 conspiracy nutters are getting desperate with their search for 'evidence'...
10 years and they can't admit that 3 hijacked aircraft were flown into structures by insane islamists and 1 impacted the ground when the brave pax attempted to take it back
 
He's not-so patiently waiting for his "ah ha!" moment, when I say that it is physically possible to do that on a skyscraper.

What he's missing of course is that it's NOT possible after an aircraft impact and an hour of massive fires. It's also physically possible for one person to dismantle an aircraft carrier with a blowtorch and some extra time on the weekend - but I wouldn't recommend it.
 
He's not-so patiently waiting for his "ah ha!" moment, when I say that it is physically possible to do that on a skyscraper.

What he's missing of course is that it's NOT possible after an aircraft impact and an hour of massive fires. It's also physically possible for one person to dismantle an aircraft carrier with a blowtorch and some extra time on the weekend - but I wouldn't recommend it.

Noah, you might actually try to read what Lefty's describing. You might understand something.

That said, aircraft impact and massive fires would only help the so-called verinage effect, not hinder it, so I suspect you don't even understand what is being discussed here.
 
The companies doing verinage have set a limit on how tall a structure the will demolish in this way. Twoofers assume that this is because there is some arresting factor that might come into play or that friction will exhaust some of the energy.

Source? It is not mentioned in the patent. We discussed this last fall in another thread.

Quite the contrary. As the process continues, more energy is availlable because falling rubble gains momentum.

Highly doubtful, lefty, but feel free to provide a source for this claim.
 
Noah, you might actually try to read what Lefty's describing. You might understand something.

That said, aircraft impact and massive fires would only help the so-called verinage effect, not hinder it, so I suspect you don't even understand what is being discussed here.

Of course I know what's being discussed. Not the "effect" - you're implying, damn near flat out stating - that that was the cause of the collapse. Hydraulic machines taking down the towers as in the demo in France.

Sorry dude, you're not getting me on semantics. Only one of us is truly dumb, and it' ain't me.

Aircraft impacts and the resulting fire took down the towers. Not explosives, not "Verinage" - not nanosupersecretthermite. Aircraft. Fire.

Period, pyroclastic boy.
 
Source? It is not mentioned in the patent. We discussed this last fall in another thread.



Highly doubtful, lefty, but feel free to provide a source for this claim.

So in one post, you beg me to read what Lefty describes so I can...oh I dunno. Get a clue.

In the next post you disagree with everything he says.


Are you for real?
 
Anyone else? Could the towers have been brought down by verinage?

EdX, over here, thinks the twin towers collapses looked like verinage. What say bedunkers?
What a stupid ass question. Of course they could. It would also be painfully obvious as would a conventional CD.

Do you plan to stop being a troll and actually think soon?
 
ergo:

This might be a tough pill to swallow but, your post are why "9/11 truth" has fail so badly. You know nothing about the relevant subjects and people that do can see it instantly.
 
I'm ignorant?!?

:id:

You're the one who thinks the dust cloud was pyroclastic.

So why don't you tell me where I went wrong, huh?

(Cue the exit)
 
Uh, oh. Bedunker scrip-scrap a-brewin'...
Nope. If you look back to a post in which he replied you will see how your lack of attention to detail has again bit you in the ass.


You really need to step up your "game" before you mess with adults.
 
Uh, oh. Bedunker scrip-scrap a-brewin'...

Uh, not quite.

You were asking if the TWIN TOWERS could have been taken down with that method, on that day. You know it.

They could not. Why?

As I already said:

wtc-Impact_4.JPG



Why don't you tell me then smart guy - could the towers have been taken down using that method on 9/11/2001?


All you're doing is trolling to get someone to say it was physically possible. IF I agree, do you promise to leave?
 

Back
Top Bottom