Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

jaydeehess said:
Also , Clayton, I asked for examples of known controlled demolitions sending multi-ton chunks flying away. I asked for examples of fire induced partial collapses in which the debris does something other than fall straight down.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Clayton Moore said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well? Surely you can find one and share it with the class? And, while you're at it, explain to us why beams can't go flying unless explosives are involved?
 
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


.
 
walkyrie said:
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
Click to expand...

Ahhhhhhhhhh...the hushaboom explosives that no one can hear and that did not leave a seismic signature. More delusional fantasies from the troofer brigade
 
walkyrie said:
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


.
Click to expand...
Cool story. You won't mind if sane people wait for evidence?


:rolleyes:
 
Clayton Moore said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do.
Given that it is your contention that explosives launched these column (not beam) sections I have asked you for an example of explosives doing exactly that.
Too much to ask for?

How about you tell us how explosives can be loaded in such a way as to launch these column sections without destroying the sections themselves.

When you have done that perhaps I will tell you how it is accomplished without explosives. Perhaps I'll just look for the explanations posted here in the past many times.
ETA: I see triforcharity has already posted an excellent illustration.

You seem to NEVER actually answer any question posed to you, do you think you can reverse that trend anytime soon?
 
Last edited:
walkyrie said:
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


.
Click to expand...

Of course you do. That is because both you and Clayton are averse to such things as reason, logic, math, science, and engineering. Without any of those it sure does seem suspicious.

BTW valkyrie, what is the difference between a building being "imploded" and one in which explosives are "detonated"?

Reminds me of the guy who told his wife he was too busy to go shopping with her because he had two major things to do around the house, mow the lawn, and cut the grass.
 
Clayton Moore said:
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.
Click to expand...
How much energy was released in the gravity collapse? If you can't do the math or physics, make is more reasonable you make wild claims based on delusions of other people.

Clayton Moore said:
That's a riot.
Click to expand...
No, it is physics, reality.

Next, a drive by posting
walkyrie said:
... WTC building seven was imploded and the WTC Twin towers were detonated with explosives.
Click to expand...
Based on? Have you told anyone else? FBI? Police? What did they say?

Better get on the Gage bandwagon of begging for money so you can go to Europe with Gage and skim the profits from AE911T travel scam and begging for dollars spreading lies to the gullible. Gage found a narrow market, nut case claims on 911, makes money off the fringe.
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/events.html#Upcoming_Speaking

Gage is making 70k with lies lie you post, what are you making? Gage is traveling on the 200 to 300k he takes in! Wow, what a racket!
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
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.
Click to expand...

Silliness.

Clayton, you are still on the run from this
Oystein said:
Clayton, you are running away from defending your unsupported claims like a weasle. Everybody sees that you are dodging. I think the impression arounbd here is growing that you are afraid to man up, or unable.

So, reply to the growing list of unanswered questions...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7196509&postcount=1050
...please ;)
Click to expand...

...and all the preceding posts.

To remind you:
- Expected pile volume/height
- Observed pile volume/height
- Evidence for basements intact after collapse
- Clarification if you presume the towers did not collapse

A notice that you cannot back up the claims that these questions are designed to help support, would be quite appreciated.
 
Clayton Moore said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, you are claiming that the ejection multi-ton beams into near-by buildings can only be explained by explosive demolition, aren't you?

So. yes, it makes perfect sense to ask: Do you have evidence that explosives in an explosive CD can eject multi-ton beams into near-by buildings.

(I bolded a pesky word that you don't like because you run away from it every time. I would kindly ask you to focus just once, and provide evidence to support the things you imply)
 
Oystein said:
Well, you are claiming that the ejection multi-ton beams into near-by buildings can only be explained by explosive demolition, aren't you?

So. yes, it makes perfect sense to ask: Do you have evidence that explosives in an explosive CD can eject multi-ton beams into near-by buildings.

(I bolded a pesky word that you don't like because you run away from it every time. I would kindly ask you to focus just once, and provide evidence to support the things you imply)
Click to expand...

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?
 
Clayton Moore said:
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?
Click to expand...

Do you have such an idea what explosive tech was available on 9/11? Can you source that idea and provide evidence?

Yes, I am saying that a "gravity collapse" ejected multi-ton beams into near-by buildings. Hint: Explosive controlled demolitions are gravity collapses, too. >90% of the energy expended in a CD to destroy the building comes from gravity. If you claim gravity was not enough to do those ejections, you need to explain how else so much kinetic energy got into the multi-ton beams. Oh, and who would be so foolish as to put such an excess of explosives to the beams and make them behave so suspiciously.

Also, you AGAIn dodged my several questions about expected and observed debris volume, evidence for no basement collapse, and if you think the towers didn't collapse. Why?
 
Oystein said:
Do you have such an idea what explosive tech was available on 9/11? Can you source that idea and provide evidence?

Yes, I am saying that a "gravity collapse" ejected multi-ton beams into near-by buildings. Hint: Explosive controlled demolitions are gravity collapses, too. >90% of the energy expended in a CD to destroy the building comes from gravity. If you claim gravity was not enough to do those ejections, you need to explain how else so much kinetic energy got into the multi-ton beams. Oh, and who would be so foolish as to put such an excess of explosives to the beams and make them behave so suspiciously.

Also, you AGAIn dodged my several questions about expected and observed debris volume, evidence for no basement collapse, and if you think the towers didn't collapse. Why?
Click to expand...

because your questions have no point other than obfuscation and nonsense.
 
Clayton Moore said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom