0
   

The World's Leading Butcher

 
 
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Thu 15 Feb, 2018 10:29 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
No I didn't. I said they fell without pulling down the core and perimeter structures.


Videos illustrate that this is another outright lie. Perimeter box columns and the core did not remain standing.

And you have the totally impossible nanothermite in WTC dust that by itself sinks the USGOCT.

And you have the totally impossible molten/vaporized WTC steel that by itself sinks the USGOCT.

And you have the human being being exploded out a twin tower window just before the towers were blown up. The same bombs and explosions that George W Bush describes, which also sinks the USGOCT.

https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article11147661.ece/ALTERNATES/s1168v/out-wind.jpg

Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Thu 15 Feb, 2018 11:28 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
Having countless tons fall on top of you tends to have that effect.

The problem with that explanation is that there were even more countless tons of undamaged cold, hard steel below the upper block. Another problem with your explanation is that it completely ignores the law of conservation of energy. This was covered in the other thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAofwkAOlo
30 second mark, and 1:12 mark.

You believe that this upper block acted as a pile driver to crush the lower intact core structure below it. But if that were the case, there would have been not only a visible jolt and pause of the downward movement of the upper block, but also the destruction of the more heat-damaged upper block as it met with the lower block. As such, the collapse would have been arrested because the upper block would have been destroyed easier and faster than the intact lower block. But that's not what happened. Once the upper block is in motion, it does not slow down. You don't know it, but you are making the claim that one structure passed through another structure as if it weren't there, which is impossible.
Quote:
More that, since the core structure was not the part that failed and collapsed, its resistance to collapse was irrelevant.

Except that the core collapsed along with the floors.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 16 Feb, 2018 05:13 am
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:
The problem with that explanation is that there were even more countless tons of undamaged cold, hard steel below the upper block.

That is incorrect. Each floor was all open space. All of the load-bearing structure was either in the core or the perimeter.


Glennn wrote:
Another problem with your explanation is that it completely ignores the law of conservation of energy.

The fact that gravity will cause countless tons to squash things does not ignore conservation of energy.


Glennn wrote:
This was covered in the other thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAofwkAOlo
30 second mark, and 1:12 mark.

That's just a video of the second collapse. I don't see what the point is.


Glennn wrote:
You believe that this upper block acted as a pile driver to crush the lower intact core structure below it. But if that were the case, there would have been not only a visible jolt and pause of the downward movement of the upper block,

It doesn't take very long for countless tons to snap off weak connections that are not designed to carry anywhere near that weight.

Video of the collapse shows that there was a brief pause when each of the first few floors went, but once momentum got going the floors went faster and faster.


Glennn wrote:
but also the destruction of the more heat-damaged upper block as it met with the lower block.

I'm sure it was plenty damaged during the collapse. Damage didn't make the weight any lighter however.

And as each additional floor collapsed, that added even more weight to the mass smashing down on subsequent floors.


Glennn wrote:
As such, the collapse would have been arrested because the upper block would have been destroyed easier and faster than the intact lower block.

That wouldn't arrest the collapse. Damage didn't make the collapsing mass any lighter.

And the subsequent floors that were added to the collapsing mass had not been damaged by the fire (not that they would have been any lighter if they had been).


Glennn wrote:
But that's not what happened. Once the upper block is in motion, it does not slow down.

Correct.


Glennn wrote:
You don't know it, but you are making the claim that one structure passed through another structure as if it weren't there, which is impossible.

No. I am making the claim that the collapsing mass snapped off the attachments that each floor had to load-bearing support as it crashed into each floor (which was then added to the growing collapsing mass).


Glennn wrote:
Except that the core collapsed along with the floors.

That is incorrect. In both collapses, the lower half of the core stood for about half a minute after the rest of the building had already collapsed.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 16 Feb, 2018 05:15 am
@camlok,
camlok wrote:
Videos illustrate that this is another outright lie. Perimeter box columns and the core did not remain standing.

Wrong. Videos illustrate that the lower halves of the cores stood for about half a minute after the rest of the buildings had collapsed.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 16 Feb, 2018 05:17 am
@camlok,
camlok wrote:
The fires were never hot enough to begin with.

They were more than hot enough to weaken steel.


camlok wrote:
You see this in the molten iron/steel flowing out the windows of WTC 2 minutes before the collapse initiated right at that part of the building.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_d1XHtHix_ZM/SZkJRsFieyI/AAAAAAAAADE/sAOUMFrFpm4/s320/wtc2-corner-9-53-51.jpg

That is molten aluminum.
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Fri 16 Feb, 2018 09:19 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
That is incorrect. Each floor was all open space. All of the load-bearing structure was either in the core or the perimeter.

That statement does not change the fact that there were countless tons of undamaged cold, hard steel below the upper block.
Quote:
The fact that gravity will cause countless tons to squash things does not ignore conservation of energy.

Not only are you failing to acknowledge that there was countless tons of undamaged steel below the upper block, but you're also failing to acknowledge that the upper block was of the same composition as the lower structure.

As far as the law of conservation of energy is concerned, you are ignoring it. One thing that happens when a stationary object is hit by a moving object of the same composition is that the moving object is slowed down. That did not happen.
Quote:
That's just a video of the second collapse. I don't see what the point is.

The point is what it's always been. The upper block begins descending, and its descent is completely unaffected by any resistance from the intact core structure below it, which mean that you believe that one structure can pass through another structure of equal composition as if it weren't there, which is impossible.
Quote:
It doesn't take very long for countless tons to snap off weak connections that are not designed to carry anywhere near that weight.

Again you're assigning more structural integrity to the damaged upper block than to the undamaged structure below it.
Quote:
Video of the collapse shows that there was a brief pause when each of the first few floors went, but once momentum got going the floors went faster and faster.

No it doesn't. The video I provided absolutely shows a smooth accelerating descent from the very beginning. I suggest you review it.
Quote:
And as each additional floor collapsed, that added even more weight to the mass smashing down on subsequent floors.

And here you are equating floors with the core structure. This is the same mistake FEMA made with its pancake theory; they didn't take the core structure into account either.
Quote:
That wouldn't arrest the collapse. Damage didn't make the collapsing mass any lighter.

It didn't make the intact core structure below it any less resistant either.
Quote:
. . . the lower half of the core stood for about half a minute after the rest of the building had already collapsed.

So, at the beginning of the collapse when there was much less mass acting on the core structure just below it, the core structure is completely crushed, but when that mass acting on it is supposedly multiplied halfway down, the core structure is not destroyed. I see.

Also, what's your theory concerning the remaining spire just dropping down through itself instead of toppling? I trust you've seen a video. If not, here is one of them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjhzZHUYn_c

0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Fri 16 Feb, 2018 10:18 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
They were more than hot enough to weaken steel.


Prove the fires were hot enough to weaken the steel.

Quote:
That is molten aluminum.


Prove it is molten aluminum.
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Sat 17 Feb, 2018 03:42 pm
Did oralloy ask you to provide some proof that the molten steel/iron flowing out of WTC 2 minutes before its collapse is aluminum?
0 Replies
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/26/2021 at 07:06:21