Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

ergo said:
Assuming that's sarcasm, I would just ask as a final question to Noah:

Could the towers have collapsed with just a few strategically placed bombs on 2 or 3 consecutive upper floors? If not, why not?
Click to expand...
Define "few". Could you give us a range?
 
Clayton Moore said:
You had better be careful because you're saying it should be technically possible to reenact on a scale model using a computer model to calculate where the explosives had to be placed. That would be heresy.
Click to expand...
Said explosives would have to be durable enough to take the plane impact and an hour of fire, which means they would be conspicuous enough to be noticed, and durable enough to show up in the rubble.
 
ergo said:
I can think of two reasons why bedunkers are often so loathe to explain their theories using plain, concise language
Click to expand...
Says the man who wanted two sentences before he would accept a single two-digit number.

GStan said:
He was answering your question asking could the towers have collapsed with just a few strategically placed bombs on 2 or 3 consecutive upper floors? If not, why not?

Since the collapse started on the exact floors where the planes crashed AND the exact floors where the fires raged for an hour, NO, any explosives that had been previously put in those locations would no longer be operable.
Click to expand...
The funny thing is that he transparently sets up these "gotchas" by loading his questions, yet when everyone sidesteps them, he says we're the ones being intellectually dishonest.
 
Last edited:
000063 said:
Says the man who wanted two sentences before he would accept a single two-digit number.
Click to expand...

I would have accepted the two-digit number, too. It apparently was beneath you all to provide it until Grizzly finally coughed it up.
 
ergo said:
Interesting, because we still haven't been able to determine here whether a few explosives placed along the inner core of a half-kilometre tall building which is furnished and occupied would really sound like the detonation charges you hear in shorter, emptied-out buildings, or if they would sound like the explosions that people heard.
Click to expand...

Why were the cores the last things standing then? 60 stories of WTC 1's core is clearly visible after 15 seconds of the collapse towering over WTC 7 in the foreground of several videos.

So, if they were placed on the core, why did the exo-skeleton and floors collapse first?
 
ergo said:
Wrong.
Click to expand...

What was nearly the entire 81st floor of Tower 2 comprised of? Here's a hint, REALLY BIG BATTERIES aka a UPS system. Ever overloaded a circuit or battery? They explode. Not bombs. Batteries. No what else explodes? Compressed air cannisters. Electrical Transformers and associated circuits etc. Computer towers have exploded from overheated cpu's. Data Center Servers. There's a myriad of things that "explode" and that were in abundance within both towers. Why do you continue to equate EXPLOSION with BOMB?

Since you twoofers like youtube so much: youtube.com/watch?v=2hBDXB6cifo
 
ergo and Clayton do you have ANYTHING other than simple incredulity to offer as evidence that explosives were planted?
 
ergo said:
I would have accepted the two-digit number, too. It apparently was beneath you all to provide it until Grizzly finally coughed it up.
Click to expand...

You specifically requested it be presented in a two-sentence form, after you rejected links with the number, from Grizz.

In fact, at one point, I posted 3 links. The first one had the number. You said you tried two of my links, they didn't have the number, and so you didn't bother with the third. Either you can't spend a few seconds reading a single paragraph on a Wikipedia page, you went with the second and third links for no reason, you are accessing a different version of reality from everyone, or you're a liar. I really don't care which.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
If you want an honest answer to your OP you need to give a base-line of existing conditions. I don't think you're a "no-planer" so can we assume the plane damage was done and the buildings were on fire?

It would be helpful if you answered with more than a "yes". Why don't you be honest and speculate as to how much explosives would be needed and state your reasons for this belief.

Let's start here and see if we can get through your question. You ignoring this will obviously show you have no interest in the OP.


You're up.
Click to expand...

You skipped over this. Would you like your question answered or not?
 
000063 said:
In fact, at one point, I posted 3 links.
Click to expand...

Posting a link is not answering the question. You post a link to back up your answer to the question. Don't make others do your research for you.

Bedunkers, none of this should be difficult: State what you want to state plainly, in words, and back it up with facts. It's only difficult if you are trying to hedge the answer in conditions and exceptions.
 
ergo said:
Posting a link is not answering the question. You post a link to back up your answer to the question. Don't make others do your research for you.

Bedunkers, none of this should be difficult: State what you want to state plainly, in words, and back it up with facts. It's only difficult if you are trying to hedge the answer in conditions and exceptions.
Click to expand...
You fail to offer a question to answer. What is the baseline condition?
 
ergo said:
I would have accepted the two-digit number, too. It apparently was beneath you all to provide it until Grizzly finally coughed it up.
Click to expand...

ergo said:
In fact, at one point, I posted 3 links.
Click to expand...
Posting a link is not answering the question. You post a link to back up your answer to the question. Don't make others do your research for you.

Bedunkers, none of this should be difficult: State what you want to state plainly, in words, and back it up with facts. It's only difficult if you are trying to hedge the answer in conditions and exceptions.
Click to expand...

Boy, that was a fast backpedal. Also, you're quote-mining.

000063 said:
You specifically requested it be presented in a two-sentence form, after you rejected links with the number, from Grizz.

In fact, at one point, I posted 3 links. The first one had the number. You said you tried two of my links, they didn't have the number, and so you didn't bother with the third. Either you can't spend a few seconds reading a single paragraph on a Wikipedia page, you went with the second and third links for no reason, you are accessing a different version of reality from everyone, or you're a liar. I really don't care which.
Click to expand...
What you call "conditions and exceptions" are what we call "context", which is a vital consideration in any claim. Your repeated attempts to load questions and quote-mine are quite transparently dishonest.
 
No, but removing it from context is. That's what quote-mining is, ergo.

Nice false naivete.
 
ergo said:
... If the perimeter columns merely needed to be cut up so they can peel off in the manner we see, then incendiaries could do that job. But to sink the core would probably require explosives - maybe not typical of typical CD, but explosions that were indeed heard by witnesses.
Click to expand...
No explosives were heard. What will you do with your failed delusion?
 
ergo said:
Posting a link is not answering the question. You post a link to back up your answer to the question. Don't make others do your research for you.

Bedunkers, none of this should be difficult: State what you want to state plainly, in words, and back it up with facts. It's only difficult if you are trying to hedge the answer in conditions and exceptions.
Click to expand...

Seriously....

are you kidding?
 
It's ergo, so we may never know, but he is trying to make everyone else look dishonest for sidestepping his dishonest tactics, such as loaded questions and arbitrary standards of evidence, then he throws his toys out of the metaphorical playpen when no one wants to play his games.

Fun to watch, actually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom