Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

Clayton Moore said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odp1FO0Vmuw&feature=player_embedded
Click to expand...
Hi Ho Silver, a video from 2007, wow, you are only 4 years behind now. A failed video by a moron. Again you posted a great example of undefined stupid on 911 issues. Good job, hope you did not fall for the moronic claims.
BTW, all the steel used in the WTC was recovered from the WTC debris pile. You seem to fooled by moronic delusion the debris pile was too small, but that would be a fantasy claim, only someone who lack knowledge in general would make.
Four year old video, another great find by you of crazy claims by idiots on 911. You are only 4 years late.
 
If I had a dime for every time one of you guys assumed every individual had the same politics I'd be a billionaire right about now.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Of course you did. 17 of 55 seconds seems to be the normal attention span for you neocon lovers.
Click to expand...
Your signature reminds me of Tim McVeigh, political claptrap, Let's get our America back, the America with conscience. Back from the evil oligarchy hiding behind neoconservatives and the mainstream media.

Is Obama a neoconservative? Do you know who the president is? Did you vote? Looks like you need to fight for better schools.

Next time post some engineering stuff to support your crazy claims? What college did you get your engineering degree from?
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
Then show us one. Other than WTC 1, 2, or 7.
Click to expand...
Show us steel tube-within-a-tube buildings, over 40 stories high, that were hit by jumbo jets heavy with fuel moving at hundreds of MPH which didn't fall down.

In fact, show me a building above 40 stories that has been bought down by demo charges. Then tell me how long those charges took to plant. Then explain when the conspirators put those charges in the WTC, and how long it would take. None of the answers you come up with will be any shorter than "weeks".

I predict you will either ignore this post, or mock me without answering the question. Or would, if I hadn't made that prediction. Because in your mind, ignoring n' snark are literally the only options, and if you're predicted, that makes them unviable.
 
Last edited:
Animal said:
Quite simple. The load imposed on the remaining structure exceeds the yield point of the remaining structure. This load exceeds the yield point of the remaining structure through a combination of dynamic loading (which far exceeded the static loading), eccentrically loading, loading imposed on secondary structures not designed to carry such loading, and the failure of secondary structures resulting in overloading of other structures due to unbraced conditions.
Click to expand...
Stop using big words, Animal, you'll confuse the poor thing.
 
Clayton Moore said:
What I'm saying is that using your premise of the how of the collapse does not jive with the minuscule amount of debris. The only way that level of destruction could be attained would be some type of controlled demolition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnKYrogPtcU&feature=related
Click to expand...

You talk about "miniscule amount" of observed debris, yet you have so far been unable to give a measure of how much debris was observed vs. how much you would expect to see.

You still need to reply to the following:

  • How much debris (volume and / or pile height) would you expect if the towers collapse?
  • How much debris (volume and / or pile height) was observed?
  • How do these two amounts compare? (You can only compare if you have numbers to both amounts)
  • Also not answered yet: What's your evidence to support your claim that the basements did not collapse?
  • And finally: Do you presume the towers did not collapse? You labled that an impossibility earlier.


Also I need to point your attention to this post that you chose to dodge:

Oystein said:
Let me walk you through this. Please answer in sequence.
  1. Why do you think that "nothing gets crushed to dust" when bricks (or other building materials) fall 100 feet? Do you believe that falling building material doesn't have enough energy to cause itseld and/or another brick to crush, producing some dust?
  2. If you answer "no" to the above, please tell me your reason. We can stop here then. If you answered "yes", go on
  3. Do you agree that there was a lot of dust created from concretre, drywall and other building materials when the towers collapsed?
  4. If you answer "no" to the above, please give reasons why you disagree. If you answered "yes" to the above, please continue
  5. You now claimed that the falling building mass didn't have enough energy to create much dust, yet you say that lots of dust was created. This implies that additional energy was provided somehow that crushed materials to dust. Do you agree with that line?
  6. If you disagree with the above, please explain why
  7. If you agreed with the above, then we next need an idea of how much energy was available from falling building material, AND how much energy yoou think was required to create all the dust that was observed. We need to put numbers to this. Do you agree?
Click to expand...


The list of questions you can't answer grows...
 
Clayton Moore said:
Of course you did. 17 of 55 seconds seems to be the normal attention span for you neocon lovers.
Click to expand...

It's known as the "Time to First Lie". If a video claiming to seek the truth tells a blatant, outright, obvious lie, then its makers are clearly not sincere, so there's very little point watching any more of what is actually a piece of propaganda rather than an impartial analysis. Using the TTFL approach, it's rarely necessary to watch very much of any truther video.

Dave
 
Clayton Moore said:
Of course you did. 17 of 55 seconds seems to be the normal attention span for you neocon lovers.
Click to expand...

See. This is all about ideology and world view for you, not about facts or logic. You think anybody who disagrees with you just HAS to be some right wing jingoist redneck who believes whatever the government tells him. In reality, of course, we run the gambit of political leanings, from deep left to deep right and everything inbetween. A simple trip to the politics sub forums would tell you that in an instant. We disagree with you because you have no compelling evidence to back up your beliefs; it's as simple as that.

But no, it's just easier for you to pretend that we're all "neocon lovers". LOL. Whatever makes you sleep at night.

What a joke.
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
Straight down
Click to expand...


As opposed to up, or sideways, or back and forth. (Hey, leaves and pieces of paper sometimes fall back and forth, so why shouldn't concrete floors and steel beams have done likewise?)

in a heap
Click to expand...


Instead of, in a cube or in the shape of a statue of General Sherman, or any of the other non-heap shapes that masses of debris tend to assume.

pretty much in its own footprint.
Click to expand...


As opposed to piling up neatly along Broadway, or forming a profile of Ed Meese.

How surprising, that different buildings would all fall exactly like that. Is that really true, not one of them fell elliptically in a regular dodecahedron in Philadelphia? Wow.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Last edited:
Clayton, a few posts above your most recent, I reminded you of several of the questions you forgot to answer.

Have you given up? Surrendered? Capitulated?
If so, a short statement to admit you have no answers and no knowledge about all these things and are talking straight out of your arse would be appreciated.
 
Oystein said:
Clayton, a few posts above your most recent, I reminded you of several of the questions you forgot to answer.

Have you given up? Surrendered? Capitulated?
If so, a short statement to admit you have no answers and no knowledge about all these things and are talking straight out of your arse would be appreciated.
Click to expand...
No need really,it was obvious from the start where his voice was coming from. Another truther bites the dust. Easy peasy.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Off-topic replies simply make it clear that you've got nothing.

Dave
Click to expand...


I've got something otherwise all of you "people" wouldn't be here swarming to get truthers to shut up.

911 truth would be the forever sweet spot story along with Area 51, MM and JFK for Globe Magazine, National Examiner Magazine, Sun Magazine, and
The National Enquirer Magazine.

And they don't print a word about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom