Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

aggle-rithm said:
"NET FORCE EQUALS ZERO!!!"

Does that ring a bell?
Click to expand...

Yes! That's the one! hahaha. That kid was so hilariously stupid. He kept giving the same equation over and over again because he had absolutely no understanding of physics but was desperately attempting to sound like he knew what he was talking about. He even wrote it out for us. Ah good times. Thanks :)
 
Oystein said:
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
Click to expand...

Nope. As you can see, earlier in this thread, Noah was objecting to the idea that only a few strategically placed explosives along the core (with incendiaries along the perimeter, as stated in the OP) could not possibly take the buildings down. Rather, according to Noah, "tons" of explosives would be needed.
 
ergo said:
Nope. As you can see, earlier in this thread, Noah was objecting to the idea that only a few strategically placed explosives along the core (with incendiaries along the perimeter, as stated in the OP) could not possibly take the buildings down. Rather, according to Noah, "tons" of explosives would be needed.
Click to expand...
How much are needed? Fire alone did it, but you are not an engineer, or able to do physics, so you can't be of much use on this issue. When will you post math to support your claims?
 
ergo said:
Nope. As you can see, earlier in this thread, Noah was objecting to the idea that only a few strategically placed explosives along the core (with incendiaries along the perimeter, as stated in the OP) could not possibly take the buildings down. Rather, according to Noah, "tons" of explosives would be needed.
Click to expand...

Yea conjecture ROCKS. Now all you have to do is find any evidence of those few strategically placed explosives, or somebody who placed them, or ANY evidence that supports any amount of explosives planted anywhere in the building and BAM! Pulitzer Prize!

You are convinced, so there must be a basis for it. I mean, you wouldn't just guess that there must have been explosives because you personally simply can't figure out how else the building could have collapsed, right? Simple incredulity without evidence doesn't convince rational people.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Nope. As you can see, earlier in this thread, Noah was objecting to the idea that only a few strategically placed explosives along the core (with incendiaries along the perimeter, as stated in the OP) could not possibly take the buildings down. Rather, according to Noah, "tons" of explosives would be needed.
Click to expand...

Until I'm proved wrong on that assertion, I stand by it. Somehow I don't think you'll be the one to do it.

And I stand by my statement that it's impossible no matter the amount of explosives needed. Why are you back onto explosives? Pick a point and stick to it for chrissake.
 
ergo said:
Nope.
Click to expand...


This post:

Because they're a full three times the size of the world record, and that can't be achieved in a populated building. It's pure fantasy.

The largest of the demos require TONS of explosives, and you're taking that information, multiplying the size by three, and subtracting the amount of explosives needed?


How's them pyroclastic clouds doing?

doesn't answer the other post.
 
NoahFence said:
Until I'm proved wrong on that assertion, I stand by it. Somehow I don't think you'll be the one to do it.

And I stand by my statement that it's impossible no matter the amount of explosives needed. Why are you back onto explosives? Pick a point and stick to it for chrissake.
Click to expand...


He seems to have developed a form of non sequitur where he posts links to non relevant posts.
 
tsig said:
He seems to have developed a form of non sequitur where he posts links to non relevant posts.
Click to expand...

If truthers actually tried to answer the questions then they would realize how insane their "theories" are. They have to adopt diversionary tactics.
 
twinstead said:
I mean, you wouldn't just guess that there must have been explosives because you personally simply can't figure out how else the building could have collapsed, right? Simple incredulity without evidence doesn't convince rational people.
Click to expand...

Explosives? Hydraulics? Or Judy Wood and her space beams? Remember, Ergo posted sometime back that he could not simply dismiss the latter. Apparently there is only one account for the collapses that he can dismiss outright. :rolleyes:
 
NoahFence said:
Until I'm proved wrong on that assertion, I stand by it.
Click to expand...

Good, you can discuss it with Oystein, then.

Oystein, why would it have taken tons of explosives, as Noah claims, to bring the towers down, rather than just a few strategically placed ones?
 
ergo said:
Good, you can discuss it with Oystein, then.

Oystein, why would it have taken tons of explosives, as Noah claims, to bring the towers down, rather than just a few strategically placed ones?
Click to expand...

The answers lies in a thing called physics.
 
ergo said:
Good, you can discuss it with Oystein, then.

Oystein, why would it have taken tons of explosives, as Noah claims, to bring the towers down, rather than just a few strategically placed ones?
Click to expand...

Slow down killa....
in your view, what took down the towers? Explosives or Verniage?
(not Verniage "effect" - the method)
 
ergo said:
Oystein, why would it have taken tons of explosives, as Noah claims, to bring the towers down, rather than just a few strategically placed ones?
Click to expand...

Well, for one, it was tried in 1993 and didn't work.

Interestingly, the perpetrators used Truther Physix in their plot. They believed the explosion would make the tower topple over like a tree and bring down the other one.
 
Last edited:
NoahFence said:
Slow down killa....
in your view, what took down the towers? Explosives or Verniage?
(not Verniage "effect" - the method)
Click to expand...

I have no idea why he asked me :confused:

I promote no theory of any kind that involves methods of intentional demolition. Ergo does (I think; or he is a no-claimer/troll). So ergo should ask himself how much explosives it would take. Much more importantly, he should ask himself if any evidence exists that such amounts of explosives were used.

Was it possible to bring down the twin towers with explosive charges strategically placed and attached to the core columns? Of course, yes.
How many explosive charges, and what amount of explosives would it take? I have no idea, and I don't care at all as long as no evidence exists that explosives were used to begin with.

Was it possible to bring down the twin towers with Verinage hydraulics strategically placed and attached to the core columns? Of course, yes.
How many hydraulic devices, and what size and force would it take? I have no idea, and I don't care at all as long as no evidence exists that hydraulic devices were used to begin with.

Was it possible to bring down the twin towers with thermXte charges strategically placed and attached to the core columns? I am sure, yes.
How many thermXte charges, and what amount of thermXte would it take? I have no idea, and I don't care at all as long as no evidence exists that thermXte was used to begin with.

Was it possible to bring down the twin towers with an army of midgets with saws strategically placed at core columns, sawing away diligently? I am sure, yes.
How many midgets and saws ? I have no idea, and I don't care at all as long as no evidence exists that midgets with saws were used to begin with.

All of the above of course is predicated on the case that the towers did not suffer plane crashes and experience large fires on the floors! However, explosives, detonators, hydraulic devices, their power supplies, thermite charges and midgets all would not have survived the plane impacts and fires and operated as planned. Therefore, all four methods, besides having no evidence for them, are highly improbably or impossible, as there were plane crashes and fires right where the collapses began!

Conclusion: Plane crashes and fires are by far the most likely reason why the twin towers collapsed.
 
brazenlilraisin said:
Yes but none of that matters if debunkers' statements appear to contradict one another.
Click to expand...

Debunker's statements are irrelevant; the commonly-held narrative of 9-11 has been in the public record for all to see and scrutinize for years.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Well, for one, it was tried in 1993 and didn't work.

Interestingly, the perpetrators used Truther Physix in their plot. They believed the explosion would make the tower topple over like a tree and bring down the other one.
Click to expand...

To be honest the original WTC bombing plan had an outside chance to succeed. However they overlooked one major problem. They were unable to park the van next to the wall they wanted and had to settle for a spot more to the center of the parking area. This had the effect of blowing a large hole in the floor but doing little damage to the foundation wall. In order to topple the structure the foundation would have had to be shattered over a large part of at least one wall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom