Merged Molten metal observations

Animal said:
It doesn't matter how huge huger and much huger they were when you remove their lateral support. oh, and they were not pulverized either.

Can troofers ever get ONE fact correct?
Click to expand...

There's a first time for everything. Maybe they will one day.
 
Clayton Moore said:
The core beams were huge, huger, and much huger yet they offered little resistance, about 4 or 5 seconds over free fall speed, to the alleged "collapse" to pulverization.
Click to expand...

Bulltweety. Provide a citation for that claim. Not even uber-truthers Szamboti or Chandler agree with it!

You just makin' stuff up now?
 
The core columns were huge, more huge, and much more huge yet they offered little resistance, about 4 or 5 seconds over free projected fall speed, to the alleged "collapse" to pulverization.
 
Clayton Moore said:
The core columns were huge, more huge, and much more huge yet they offered little resistance, about 4 or 5 seconds over free projected fall speed, to the alleged "collapse" to pulverization.
Click to expand...
Where do you NAZIs find this nonsense?
4 or 5 seconds? Not true. You failed to time the collapse of the WTC towers correctly. Hi Ho Silver,

What was pulverized?

(wallboard, and insulation mostly; why can't 911 truth answer questions?)
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
The core columns were huge, more huge, and much more huge yet they offered little resistance, about 4 or 5 seconds over free projected fall speed, to the alleged "collapse" to pulverization.
Click to expand...

The majority of them were the last things to collapse...
 
Clayton Moore said:
The core columns were huge, more huge, and much more huge yet they offered little resistance, about 4 or 5 seconds over free projected fall speed, to the alleged "collapse" to pulverization.
Click to expand...

Repeating a claim is not akin to providing a citation in support of the claim.
 
Last edited:
I shouldn't have bothered with it, the sentence is not particularly meaningful anyway. Nevermind....I've lost interest already, don't care what further response there is from him.
 
Clayton Moore said:
The core columns were huge, more huge, and much more huge yet they offered little resistance, about 4 or 5 seconds over free projected fall speed, to the alleged "collapse" to pulverization.
Click to expand...

So what?

Whatever their hugenosity* your observation "yet they offered little resistance" is correct. The columns were hardly involved at all in resisting the collapse. The falling material landed on the core beams and stripped them away from the columns. The failure strength of the beam connections is shear is far less than the axial strength of the columns properly loaded.




* Fairs fair. If he is allowed "more huge" then I can also make up my own word. :D
 
BTW, adding to Ozec's statement the core columns were the last significant components to fail...
Clayton, feigning knowledge in engineering isn't a license to condescend people, you're in a position where you should be asking real experts questions, rather than trying to talk about the issues yourself. I'm really not sure how you expect to make a compelling case they way you're coming along the issues
 
Last edited:
Aluminum glows

Anyone ever find this before?

http://vimeo.com/6447742

Fresh off the stove:
glowingal.jpg


After about a minute:
glowingal1.jpg
 
Clayton Moore said:
The core columns were huge, more huge, and much more huge yet they offered little resistance, about 4 or 5 seconds over free projected fall speed, to the alleged "collapse" to pulverization.
Click to expand...

This was replied to already in posts 1155, 1156 and 1162. Instead of addressing the arguments in those replies, you simply reposted verbatim. I reported your repetition of this nonsense as spam.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom