Horizontal Ejections and Squibs

Mancman said:
But you'd have little control over where debris landed, and could end up killing spectators and destroying or damaging nearby buildings, resulting in severe jail time for yourself and bankruptcy for your demolition firm. Notice the phrase 'controlled demolition'.

Why do you keep posting this garbage? You know how stupid it is.
Click to expand...

You let the upper section (1/5) fall down on the section below (4/5). Then you need the TNT just to control, where the debris lands?
Interesting new, innovative demolition idea.
 
Mancman said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/10252462f1fb5349c7.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/10252460ac0c35d142.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/102524891bcad7b1f3.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/10252475858a245abf.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/102524891bcadd18d5.jpg[/qimg]

Nope. No fires there.
Click to expand...

if the fires were so hot, why didnt the perimeter columns melt or just begin to turn red?
 
bio said:
You let the upper section (1/5) fall down on the section below (4/5). Then you need the TNT just to control, where the debris lands?
Interesting new, innovative demolition idea.
Click to expand...

Bio... stop looking at the towers as monolithic blocks... they were not... They Were an assembly of small pieces working as a system.

As a system they work successfully, individually components can fail. When you get that concept we'll discuss. But Trying to think of the collapse as 1/5 of a tower vs 4/5 of a tower is flat out irrelevant, and wrong.
 
bio said:
[qimg]http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_core_large.jpg[/qimg]

They Were an assembly of small pieces working as a system?
Click to expand...

Thankyou for stretching the page on my 20-inch screen... :p

And relative to the entire 110-story structure YES they were small parts.... 36 foot sections vs the collective 1300 ft height

Do you enjoy taking things literally? Here out of courtesy I will restate the quote so it no longer confuses you:

"Bio... stop looking at the towers as monolithic blocks... they were not... They Were an assembly of smaller pieces (relative to the building's size) working as a system."

Happy?
 
Last edited:
bio said:
if the fires were so hot, why didnt the perimeter columns melt or just begin to turn red?
Click to expand...

The perimeter columns failed when the fire heated said columns to roughly 600C. They didn't have an oppurtunity to get hotter.
 
bio said:
You let the upper section (1/5) fall down on the section below (4/5). Then you need the TNT just to control, where the debris lands?
Interesting new, innovative demolition idea.
Click to expand...

At no point do you even approach anything resembling a rational thought.

You need the TNT in both parts. The bottom section of the WTC had no TNT or any explosive or substance to cut columns so the walls fell outward and crushed buildings flat.
 
Newtons Bit said:
The perimeter columns failed when the fire heated said columns to roughly 600C. They didn't have an oppurtunity to get hotter.
Click to expand...

Do have any photo- or video-evidence of melting perimeter columns during the fires (before collapse)?

If the fires were so hot (as you say), why the perimeter columns did not melt away?
 
Last edited:
bio said:
you cannot bring any evidences of melting perimeter columns, because they disappeared before?:o
Click to expand...

Stop being obtusse, no-one is saying there is melting columns apart from you.

They weakened, then they failed. There is photo and video evidence of this.
 
funk de fino said:
Stop being obtusse, no-one is saying there is melting columns apart from you.

They weakened, then they failed. There is photo and video evidence of this.
Click to expand...

what - you have no evidences?

why?

There must have been melting perimeter columns, if the fire were so hot (1000 degree C) to heat up the steel-core-columns over 600 C.
 
Last edited:
bio said:
what - you have no evidences?

why?

There must have been melting perimeter columns, if the fire were so hot (1000 degree C) to heat up the steel-core-columns over 600 C.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. No-one is claimng the columns melted. Only you.

1000 deg C would not melt the columns and even if it did they would fail before they melted.

Not too good at this are you?
 
funk de fino said:
Incorrect. No-one is claimng the columns melted. Only you.

1000 deg C would not melt the columns and even if it did they would fail before they melted.

Not too good at this are you?
Click to expand...

where did I write that? Strawman?
I am talking about perimeter columns, which stood in and close to the hell-fire and not melted. Is my point so difficult to understand?
 
bio said:
where did I write that? Strawman?
I am talking about perimeter columns, which stood in and close to the hell-fire and not melted. Is my point so difficult to understand?
Click to expand...

What temp was the fire?

What temp does steel melt at?

Why would the perimeter columns melt?

Would they fail before they melt?

Do you think the fire was hotter near the center of the building or at the edge where the perimeter columns were?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom