Moderated Continuation - Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

bill smith said:
But there is no other example of a building having been crushed down by the lightest one-tenth of itself in the entire world history of construction on the planet Earth Newton. Thousands and ten-thousands of years and millions and millions of buildings say that it is impossible without deliberate demolition. It has never,ever happened.

You cannot show differently using either of the two acceptable methods. Example or modelling Newton. You know why ?......because it can't be done without deliberate demolition.
Click to expand...

Example #1:
WTC Tower 2 (collapsed 9/11/01)

Example #2:
WTC Tower 1 (collapsed 9/11/01)

You have to prove that it was impossible for those to collapse before you can rightfully claim that is was in fact impossible. Just saying that it's impossible, providing zero evidence that it is in fact impossible while ignoring thousands of pages of documents backed up by math and engineering showing that is in fact possible doesn't make it impossible. It just makes you a lunatic.

Edit: Oh, and buildings this tall have only existed for the past 50 years. Why don't we look at every building over 1000 feet that has collapsed to look at comparable results. Can you provide some of these?

When you "truthers" come up with a reasonable analysis showing how and why the towers fell like they did in a deliberate demolition OR actual arguments showing* it's impossible, then we'll talk. But until then, there's no reason to even discuss the subject.

*Note - This is why I still engage Tony Szamboti, he at least has the testicular fortitude to try and come up with reasons why the towers couldn't collapse. He's generally wrong on most issues, but he at least tries. He doesn't hide behind some made up axiom, which the self-definition precludes the necessity of providing evidence.
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
Example #1:
WTC Tower 2 (collapsed 9/11/01)

Example #2:
WTC Tower 1 (collapsed 9/11/01)

You have to prove that it was impossible for those to collapse before you can rightfully claim that is was in fact impossible. Just saying that it's impossible, providing zero evidence that it is in fact impossible while ignoring thousands of pages of documents backed up by math and engineering showing that is in fact possible doesn't make it impossible. It just makes you a lunatic.

When you "truthers" come up with a reasonable analysis showing how and why the towers fell like they did in a deliberate demolition OR actual arguments showing* it's impossible, then we'll talk. But until then, there's no reason to even discuss the subject.

*Note - This is why I still engage Tony Szamboti, he at least has the testicular fortitude to try and come up with reasons why the towers couldn't collapse. He's generally wrong on most issues, but he at least tries. He doesn't hide behind some made up axiom, which the self-definition precludes the necessity of providing evidence.
Click to expand...

I am coming to realise Newton that we really don't have to prove anything. We have 100% unbroken precedent on our side and it's completely conclusive. Such a collapse has never , ever happened in all the many thousands of years of construction on this planet. We are talking millions upon millions of structures. Isaac Newton is with is to the death on this. The itegrity of his Laws depend on it.

Who do you have ?- Bazant and friends ? Ho ho ho.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I am coming to realise Newton that we don't really have to prove anything. We have 100% unbroken precedent on our side and it's completely conclusive. Such a collapse has never , ever happened in all the many thousands of years of construction on this planet. We are talking millions upon millions of structures. Isaac Newton is with is to the death on this. The itegrity of his Laws depend on it.

Who do you have ?- Bazant and friends ? Ho ho ho.
Click to expand...


What precedence? How many 1000 ft tall steel framed buildings have collapsed again?
 
I see billy's still in Rainman mode ...

["Judge Wopner says "Inside Job"! Judge Wopner says "Inside Job"!]

bill smith said:
But there is no other example of a building having been crushed down by the lightest one-tenth of itself in the entire world history of construction on the planet Earth Newton.
Click to expand...
.
Okaaayyyy,

"Never in recorded history has a steel skyscraper been demolished with explosives or thermite.

Therefore, it could not possibly have happened on 9/11."

QED.

Tom

PS. I cannot believe that this stupid argument hasn't occurred to me before this. Guess I'm just not used to (or frankly, comfortable with) advancing embarrassingly stupid arguments.

... unlike some people around here.
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
What precedence? How many 1000 ft tall steel framed buildings have collapsed again?
Click to expand...

Any structure where the top and lightest 10% crushes the other and stronger 90% down flat on the round by gravity alone will do.

PS....and you better be able to come up with something credible and in the true spirit of the argument. Otherwise WTC1 was demolished without a doubt.
 
Last edited:
tfk said:
I see billy's still in Rainman mode ...

["Judge Wopner says "Inside Job"! Judge Wopner says "Inside Job"!]


.
Okaaayyyy,

"Never in recorded history has a steel skyscraper been demolished with explosives or thermite.

Therefore, it could not possibly have happened on 9/11."

QED.

Tom

PS. I cannot believe that this stupid argument hasn't occurred to me before this. Guess I'm just not used to (or frankly, comfortable with) advancing embarrassingly stupid arguments.

... unlike some people around here.
Click to expand...

See my latest post.
 
tfk said:
"Never in recorded history has a steel skyscraper been demolished with explosives or thermite.

Therefore, it could not possibly have happened on 9/11."
QED.
Click to expand...

There ya go bill. You've been proven wrong. Now what?
 
bill smith said:
Any structure where the top and lightest 10% crushes the other and stronger 90% down flat on the round by gravity alone will do.
Click to expand...

The 90% isn't some monolith. It is comprised of a whole bunch of little floors that are crushed down flat by the larger mass above, and added to that mass to make it larger. Those little floors are crushed one by one. SO, there is NO "stronger 90%", only a bunch of weaker structures that cannot support the weight of a top 10% whose percent increases as it incorporated the mass of each floor into its mass.

I cannot emphasize enough that if I get it, ANYBODY should. Frankly, I think only an idiot wouldn't understand it. You disagree? If I gave a crap I would ask you to actually convince somebody who can do something about it. But I don't. So I won't.
 
bill smith said:
But there is no other example of a building having been demolished using thermite in the entire world history of construction on the planet Earth Newton. Thousands and ten-thousands of years and millions and millions of buildings say that it is impossible. It has never,ever happened.

You cannot show differently using any acceptable method. Example or modelling Newton. You know why ?......because it can't be done.
Click to expand...
fixed that for ya
Edited by prewitt81: 
Incivility removed


Be civil and polite. Also, do not alter the quotes of another user.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: prewitt81
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A W Smith said:
fixed that for ya
Edited by prewitt81: 
Incivility removed
Click to expand...

I would appreciate it if you kept your slimy fingers from altering posts that stand under my name. I have never called on the moderators for anything but if you do this again I will.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
tfk said:
Okaaayyyy,

"Never in recorded history has a steel skyscraper been demolished with explosives or thermite.

Therefore, it could not possibly have happened on 9/11."

QED.

Tom

PS. I cannot believe that this stupid argument hasn't occurred to me before this. Guess I'm just not used to (or frankly, comfortable with) advancing embarrassingly stupid arguments.

... unlike some people around here.
Click to expand...

You're right, it's impossible for a steel skyscraper to be demolished with explosives because it's never been done before!

Introducing "Bit's Axiom: It is impossible to demolish a steel skyscraper with explosives". It will also be directly related to "Bit's Challenge: demolish a steel skyscraper with explosives." Come on truthers, if it's possible to demolish a steel skyscraper with explosives, JUST DO IT ALREADY. Geez.
 
Now that we have reversed the burden of proof please feel free to show us your best reasons why WTC1 was not demolished by explosive demolition.
 
Justin39640 said:
cause it got hit by a plane
Click to expand...

The plane caused limited structural damage leaving more than 85% of the columns between A and C intact. Further it caused a short lived fuel-based fire followed by some fires of office equiment. NIST says these fires burn for on average 20 minutes at a guven location and then move on or go out. Not enough time to seriously affect massive steel columns that were in effect part of a 500-mile heat sink. So the plane's limited effect did not cause the global collapse of WTC1.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom