Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

Dave Rogers said:
Yes, of course. Perfectly straightforward. It's possible to calculate simultaneous crush-up and crush-down, if that fits better with your belief system. It makes a small difference, well within the bounds of experimental error.
Click to expand...

I shouldn't have really let this one go, either. What idiocy. A two-way crush front in a collision is something that can only be "believed" in, not a reality of impacts.

WTF?
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
I shouldn't have really let this one go, either. What idiocy.
Click to expand...
... you have no numbers, no physics, no engineering to support your claims, so you are forced to post nothing. Good job exposing your lack of science and your inability to support your anti-intellectual stand on 911 issues. If you were in charge of the world, would physics or engineering be banned first because you don't understand them?

You need to support your position with some engineering. walkyrie will not be able to help, he can't do physics or engineering.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
This is the part you missed. A "formula" does not "do the work". It shows that the work was done correctly.
Click to expand...

A formula is what your calculations are based on. If your formula is incorrect, your calculations are going to be incorrect.
 
ergo said:
Wrong. It was not expected at all.

Stop spewing this nonsense.
Click to expand...

Was Howard Stern in on it too? Because it was rather expected by him, at least he expressed a fear that the towers might fall before either of them did.

Stop spewing falsehoods.
 
Sophistry, DGM. You should be asking yourselves that question. Is a two-way crush front in an impact predicted by a "belief system"? Holy Jebus.
 
ergo said:
Sophistry, DGM. You should be asking yourselves that question. Is a two-way crush front in an impact predicted by a "belief system"? Holy Jebus.
Click to expand...

Great.

Then I'm sure you can easily link us to a peer reviewed refutation of Bazant's theory in any peer reviewed engineering journal in the world. In any language.

Don't you have 1400+ "architectural and engineering professionals?" Why haven't they published any refutation of these papers? It should be easy.

Where are they?

Oh they must be busy "essentially" determining what they need to put "into" them. They may be "about" engineering refuations of NIST... and one day they may actually make it "onto" the cover of a resptected engineering journal. If only they would actually write one.
 
ergo said:
Sophistry, DGM. You should be asking yourselves that question. Is a two-way crush front in an impact predicted by a "belief system"? Holy Jebus.
Click to expand...
That would depend. Are we considering the effect of gravity?

Wait, you're the guy that thinks rubble is a "special" kind of mass.
 
Last edited:
The fact that the whole WTC structures after the controlled explosions vanished completely into pulverised dust and thousands of small chunks of steel debris (landing hundreds of feets away from the towers) is not characteristic of large reinforced steel structures exposed to fire. The evidence and arguments for controlled demolition are really convincing and overwhelming
 
walkyrie said:
The fact that the whole WTC structures after the controlled explosions vanished completely into pulverised dust and thousands of small chunks of steel debris (landing hundreds of feets away from the towers) is not characteristic of large reinforced steel structures exposed to fire. The evidence and arguments for controlled demolition are really convincing and overwhelming
Click to expand...
Source? Are you a structural engineer? You were proved wrong by the guy who designed the WTC structure. You should look up the facts before making false statements on an event where people were murdered.

The chief structural engineer who designed the structure of the WTC towers said they fell exactly like they would due to impacts and fire. So your opinion is false, a delusions you made up out of thin air.
 
walkyrie said:
The fact that the whole WTC structures after the controlled explosions vanished completely into pulverised dust and thousands of small chunks of steel debris (landing hundreds of feets away from the towers) is not characteristic of large reinforced steel structures exposed to fire. The evidence and arguments for controlled demolition are really convincing and overwhelming
Click to expand...

Where did you study that and what are your qualifications?
 
ergo said:
Hmm, thought I just explained that. Because you wouldn't get a global collapse without it? And to sink the core. And possibly to pulverize all building contents beyond recognition.
Click to expand...

If the buildings didn't actually collapse, just the crashes, do you think the way Americans and the government responded would have been any different?
 
ergo said:
Wrong. It was not expected at all.

Stop spewing this nonsense.
Click to expand...

...perhaps you missed the twoofer "foreknowledge" mumbo-jumbo?
It most certainly was expected. By people who, you know, were right in front of it at the time. They heard the building creaking, saw it leaning, saw the raging inferno and the damage.

First hand, not on youtube video or google images.

They were there. You were not. I'll defer to them, thank you.
 
walkyrie said:
The fact that the whole WTC structures after the controlled explosions vanished completely into pulverised dust and thousands of small chunks of steel debris (landing hundreds of feets away from the towers) is not characteristic of large reinforced steel structures exposed to fire. The evidence and arguments for controlled demolition are really convincing and overwhelming
Click to expand...

Are you Enrico on facebook?
 
Justin39640 said:
If the buildings didn't actually collapse, just the crashes, do you think the way Americans and the government responded would have been any different?
Click to expand...

They (we) probably would have sent a couple of missiles at Afghanistan, but by and large would have ignored it. It was the destruction of a single filing cabinet in WTC 7 that pushed us over the brink. Along with important documents, it housed the method to solving Rubik's cube in less than 15 seconds.

(This was not meant to be a factual statement)
 
NoahFence said:
They (we) probably would have sent a couple of missiles at Afghanistan, but by and large would have ignored it. It was the destruction of a single filing cabinet in WTC 7 that pushed us over the brink. Along with important documents, it housed the method to solving Rubik's cube in less than 15 seconds.

(This was not meant to be a factual statement)
Click to expand...

It's closer than the average truther post.

:boxedin:
 
dropzone said:
17 pages in and ergo is still at it? And there isn't a point at which we can stop being polite and reasonable and start being graphically dismissive of his idiotic unsupported beliefs?

This board lacks something. I mean, Randi, himself, isn't this nice.
Click to expand...


From the moderation I've seen on this board so far, I have to assume that laughing dogs are the extent of the derision permitted. More is certainly deserved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom