Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

DGM said:
ergo:

Your problem here is context. I know what NoahFence's context is (as would be correct considering this conversation). You are trying to be smart and play this against us. Unfortunately for you, we have functioning brains,
Click to expand...
It always kills me when CTs try and quote mine the people they're actually talking to.
 
ergo said:
leftysergeant said:
Quite the contrary. As the process continues, more energy is availlable because falling rubble gains momentum.
Click to expand...
Highly doubtful, lefty, but feel free to provide a source for this claim.
Click to expand...
Are you disputing that falling rubble gains momentum, or that momentum-gaining rubble is gaining energy?
 
Ergo, could you please quote the entire post #1434, except for the last line, which is admittedly ad hominem? Just once? Or include the last line too. Because I really think you're ignoring some context here.
 
000063 said:
Ergo, could you please quote the entire post #1434, except for the last line, which is admittedly ad hominem? Just once? Or include the last line too. Because I really think you're ignoring some context here.
Click to expand...


A troll for truth quote mining!? Knock me over with a feather!
 
sylvan8798 said:
Are you abandoning your previous doubts on this matter, ergo?
Click to expand...

No, but this is not the subject of this thread.

We've also gone over this point ad nauseum and bedunkers have yet to provide a model showing that rubble can crush any amount of steel-framed highrise, let alone 90-odd storeys of it.
 
Good grief...back to the 'moon sized debris cloud not being able to do anything' argument?

Why haven't you tried standing under a backhoe yet? Could it be because you know you'll get killed?
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
No, but this is not the subject of this thread.

We've also gone over this point ad nauseum and bedunkers have yet to provide a model showing that rubble can crush any amount of steel-framed highrise, let alone 90-odd storeys of it.
Click to expand...
Two full up models on 911, you missed it. You have delusions, you think a pile of rubble the mass of the moon would not crush the WTC towers, you have ridiculous claims; fantasy. If you could do physics, and you can't, you would understand 911. Better get to a physics teacher who is not in 911 truth spreading lies.
 
ergo said:
And it's arguments like this that make even attempting to engage the topic here futile.
Click to expand...

Why? Your claim that rubble cannot do damage is perfectly applicable to a bucketful of sand from a backhoe, is it not? The sand should also do zero damage if dropped on your head. This is a direct consequence of your theory.

If this is not the case, please explain why.
 
excaza said:
Why? Your claim that rubble cannot do damage is perfectly applicable to a bucketful of sand from a backhoe, is it not? The sand should also do zero damage if dropped on your head. This is a direct consequence of your theory.
Click to expand...

You go try it out for us, excaza. :rolleyes:
 
leftysergeant said:
It might not be possible totake down a building like the towers by verinage because the core is immensely stronger than the floors or the perimeter columns. Note that the dropping ogf the upper part of the core onto the lower did not crush it down. The weight of the debris was thus shunted aside to the floors. Part of the problem is that it is impossible to keep two relatively small elements aligned for the whole process. The standing core is too small and hard a target for the upper block core columns, and the upper co,umns did not fall straight down.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I find it rather odd that we are talking verniage as this is not the style of collapse that has been accepted as having occured in Manhattan on 9/11.

After initial collapse the upper block's momentum impinged NOT on the vertical members of the lower portion of the structure(or at least a very small percentage did). This failed the lateral support to the two column systems, perimeter and core. This led to those systems failing due to long column instabilities and severe buffeting from the violent ripping out of those lateral support systems(the floor pans/trusses).
It cannot have done so if the reason for initial collapse has anything to do with buckling columns due to heat.

In verniage the load carrying support is blown out such that the upper section load carrying members impinge upon the lower section's load carrying members.

Thus the two types of collapse are very different even though the resulting effect may LOOK somewhat alike.
 
We've also gone over this point ad nauseum and bedunkers have yet to provide a model showing that rubble can crush any amount of steel-framed highrise, let alone 90-odd storeys of it.
Click to expand...

For chrissake would you at leasat PRETEND to have a clue?

Why would you need a model, when there are two ACTUAL examples readily available?
 
verinage
Click to expand...

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?
 
Indeed, I find it rather odd that we are talking verniage as this is not the style of collapse that has been accepted as having occured in Manhattan on 9/11.
Click to expand...

Just ergo flailing again - trying to grab anything that makes him sound as if he has a clue
 
ApolloGnomon said:
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?
Click to expand...

Apparently it's a form of building demoliton that doesn't use explosives. Ergo, in his blinding brilliance, is attempting to use that as his theory on how the twin towers fell.

Curiously, I can't find an example of a building demo'd in such a way that was previously struck by an airplane going 500 mph.

I guess they use hydraulics to remove some key elements of the building, causing the top to slam into the bottom. I'm sure I'm missing something as (as you've found) it's virtually impossible to search on that without 9/11 twoofer sites taking up valuable pixel space.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom