How funny. Here's a word I've never heard before. I see it for the first time ever on this thread, and try looking it up. Surprise, surprise, it doesn't seem to exist as a term in English outside of 9/11 fora.
So can someone give me a quick and easy definition?
In Verinage demolition, you buckle columns across one floor, usually at about half the height of the building, using hydraulic devices. Gravity does the rest, when the upper part crashes onto the verinage floor and crushes all the way to the ground.
I think we are discussing Verinage here not because anyone proposes that this method was used (no hydraulic piston would have remained operable on the fire floors that gave way first, as these were fire floors), but to consider an alternative.
I think the game ergo is playing here is to fool some people into stating the opinion that Verinage would not have been possible, and then argue from there that failure of one initiating floor could not have caused global collapse.
So
I would like to ask NoahsFence why he replied with "Not in a million years."? My guess would be one of these:
- Verinage hydraulics, as already mentioned, would not have survived the fires
- Verinage hydraulics are to big to not be noticed
- Verinage hydraulics are sturdy, steely things that would have been noticed in the rubble
Etc.
However, if we ask, in principle, if the towers could have been Verinaged (sans fires, disregarding the problem of stealthiness...), then the answer should be a clear YES: Any initial failure that makes the top block fall through the height of one floor would lead to total collapse. Doesn't matter if fire, explosives, hydraulics, an army of midgets with steel saws, space rays, nukes, thermXte...
