Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And it clearly slows as it hits each floor, if the towers feel like this they would of been much slower or would of stopped half way down
so you turned to dust?nothing "vaporized"! There were 6 floors worth of basements in the wtc towers. Why do the conspiracy theorists ignore the fact that the basements were filled with debris?
i was turned to dust before it even hit the ground
And it clearly slows as it hits each floor, if the towers feel like this they would of been much slower or would of stopped half way down
Do you understand the concept of acceleration? Do you understand that an object in free fall accelerates under the force of gravity? Do your understand the concept of momentum? Do you understand the concept of inertia?
Those are all rhetorical questions because the answer to all of them is negative given your original allegation above.
the Verinage technique conclusively disproves the assertion that such a thing is impossible without explosives, so "truther" claims based on that assertion are clearly invalid. WTC1 and 2 were similar to a Verinage, except there is no evidence to suggest that the occupied buildings were rigged with cables and giant hydraulic winches to yank out the support structure. Nor is any such thing necessary, given what we know about the initial damage from the planes and the subsequent effects of the fires. As Bazant demonstrated with quantitative analysis (which "truthers" have repeatedly failed to refute), after the collapses began, the buildings were doomed because they simply did not have the reserve capacity to absorb the energy released -- i.e. the exact reason that Verinage works.verinage requires prep and all the supports to be pulled simultaneously to induce global failure, hence you just proved a demolition.timing is critical, the higher the building the more critical timing is. you need to show that fire can simultaneously remove the supports to create a straight down verinage.
The reason that WTC7 looks much like a conventional demolition -- at least, the part of it that we can actually see in the videos, which is just the upper half falling -- is because for that upper part of the building, the same basic thing is going on as in a conventional demolition: When the lower structure is no longer supporting the upper structure, gravity takes over and destroys the entire thing. Just watching the upper half, it could hardly look any different regardless of the initiating events, but the thing that irrefutably makes it different from a conventional demolition is that if explosives had been used to initiate the collapse, the distinctive sound that much explosives would produce would have easily been heard miles away and the shock waves would have shattered windows for blocks around. And again, no such explanation is required, given what we know about the effects of fire (i.e. it causes steel to expand) and the design of the building (i.e. it wasn't designed to withstand thermal expansion during a 7-hour unfought fire or the progressive failures that occurred after the initial column failure).
The absence of evidence of explosives in all three cases -- not in the quantity that would be required, anyway -- led frustrated but imaginative "truthers" to speculate that thermite was used instead. However, there is no credible evidence of thermite on the site, no credible evidence of thermite damage to the structures, and no credible evidence that such a demolition is even possible with current technology.
So, "truthers" claim that instead of simply planting some big-assed truck bombs and blaiming it on terrorists, the "perps" concocted a ridiculously complicated and unnecessarily risky hoax involving fake hijackings and demolitions using an unproven technology, then somehow managed to coerce hundreds of people into assisting and covering up, and then somehow managed to not only leave no evidence of what "really" happened but not a single participant willing to ruin the whole thing and send them to a probable execution by squealing. When you propose something that is that outrageously implausible on its face, you need some damn good evidence, and it just ain't there.
And that's all I intend to say on this thread, since the subject here is just the pathological epistemology of conspiracy theorists. If you want to continue the 9/11 argument, you know where that is supposed to happen.
No, not "incidents of a controlled demolition method called Verinage" (Reply #43) - Democratic Underground
so you turned to dust?i was turned to dust before it even hit the ground
He must have been hit by Dr Tracy Blevins' hurricane powered 9/11 dustification ray.
the thickness of the steel in the core columns tapered from bottom to top.
You keep avoiding two questions that have been asked of you.
1. Where are the ejected heavy core/perimeter columns OUTSIDE of the footprint traveling at 60 to 70 mph due to explosives?
2 Seconds after collapse initiation:
3 seconds after collapse initiation:
The explosives in the core have supposedly all gone of to initiate the collapse therfore should have ejected columns/beams/concrete. Where is it all?
2. Please explain how TakeAStepBack's quote below pertains to the verinage demolition at 3:22 of the video I have posted previously.
Kinetic energy can't be used for two separate works. So it either expelled that energy as it sheered off (meaning that the total mass of the upper section became smaller, along with its potential/kinetic energy along the way), or it used it to pulverize the section below it. One or the other, not both. You would need an energy input for that to occur and we dont have one. Unless you know something we dont.
(which was three floors) of the building in the verinage video I posted turn to debris. What caused the lower section to shear apart/collapse from the top down?
The upper section was not three floors..it was three floors that were removed
Nothing "vaporized"! There were 6 floors worth of basements in the WTC towers. Why do the conspiracy theorists ignore the fact that the basements were filled with debris?
I was turned to dust before it even hit the ground
And it clearly slows as it hits each floor, if the towers feel like this they would of been much slower or would of stopped half way down
so you turned to dust?
He must have been hit by Dr Tracy Blevins' hurricane powered 9/11 dustification ray.
it was turned to dust before it even hit the ground...deal with it
verinage requires prep and all the supports to be pulled simultaneously to induce global failure, hence you just proved a demolition.timing is critical, the higher the building the more critical timing is. you need to show that fire can simultaneously remove the supports to create a straight down verinage.
And it clearly slows as it hits each floor, if the towers feel like this they would of been much slower or would of stopped half way down
Do you understand the concept of acceleration? Do you understand that an object in free fall accelerates under the force of gravity? Do your understand the concept of momentum? Do you understand the concept of inertia?
Those are all rhetorical questions because the answer to all of them is negative given your original allegation above.
You did not even understand they used hydraulics to drop the building dumb-ass.. the building slowed as they hit each floor .(each floor that was weakened by pre cutting) if this happened to the towers.. all supports would need to fail at the same time ..the bottom section would have to be pre-cut (especially as the towers get thicker from top to bottom).. the top half of the building would have to be dropped on the bottom half and it still would of slowed as it hit each floor below
And it clearly slows as it hits each floor, if the towers feel like this they would of been much slower or would of stopped half way down
Do you understand the concept of acceleration? Do you understand that an object in free fall accelerates under the force of gravity? Do your understand the concept of momentum? Do you understand the concept of inertia?
Those are all rhetorical questions because the answer to all of them is negative given your original allegation above.
You did not even understand they used hydraulics to drop the building dumb-ass.. the building slowed as they hit each floor .(each floor that was weakened by pre cutting) if this happened to the towers.. all supports would need to fail at the same time ..the bottom section would have to be pre-cut (especially as the towers get thicker from top to bottom).. the top half of the building would have to be dropped on the bottom half and it still would of slowed as it hit each floor below
You did not even understand they used hydraulics to drop the building dumb-ass.. the building slowed as they hit each floor .(each floor that was weakened by pre cutting) if this happened to the towers.. all supports would need to fail at the same time ..the bottom section would have to be pre-cut (especially as the towers get thicker from top to bottom).. the top half of the building would have to be dropped on the bottom half and it still would of slowed as it hit each floor below
and no steel core/framed building was ever shown to be demolished by verinage.
guess the explosive ploy played out so you went to plan B.And it clearly slows as it hits each floor, if the towers feel like this they would of been much slower or would of stopped half way down
Do you understand the concept of acceleration? Do you understand that an object in free fall accelerates under the force of gravity? Do your understand the concept of momentum? Do you understand the concept of inertia?
Those are all rhetorical questions because the answer to all of them is negative given your original allegation above.
You did not even understand they used hydraulics to drop the building dumb-ass.. the building slowed as they hit each floor .(each floor that was weakened by pre cutting) if this happened to the towers.. all supports would need to fail at the same time ..the bottom section would have to be pre-cut (especially as the towers get thicker from top to bottom).. the top half of the building would have to be dropped on the bottom half and it still would of slowed as it hit each floor below
so it was an invisible untraceable verinagethe Verinage technique conclusively disproves the assertion that such a thing is impossible without explosives, so "truther" claims based on that assertion are clearly invalid. WTC1 and 2 were similar to a Verinage, except there is no evidence to suggest that the occupied buildings were rigged with cables and giant hydraulic winches to yank out the support structure. Nor is any such thing necessary, given what we know about the initial damage from the planes and the subsequent effects of the fires. As Bazant demonstrated with quantitative analysis (which "truthers" have repeatedly failed to refute), after the collapses began, the buildings were doomed because they simply did not have the reserve capacity to absorb the energy released -- i.e. the exact reason that Verinage works.verinage requires prep and all the supports to be pulled simultaneously to induce global failure, hence you just proved a demolition.timing is critical, the higher the building the more critical timing is. you need to show that fire can simultaneously remove the supports to create a straight down verinage.
The reason that WTC7 looks much like a conventional demolition -- at least, the part of it that we can actually see in the videos, which is just the upper half falling -- is because for that upper part of the building, the same basic thing is going on as in a conventional demolition: When the lower structure is no longer supporting the upper structure, gravity takes over and destroys the entire thing. Just watching the upper half, it could hardly look any different regardless of the initiating events, but the thing that irrefutably makes it different from a conventional demolition is that if explosives had been used to initiate the collapse, the distinctive sound that much explosives would produce would have easily been heard miles away and the shock waves would have shattered windows for blocks around. And again, no such explanation is required, given what we know about the effects of fire (i.e. it causes steel to expand) and the design of the building (i.e. it wasn't designed to withstand thermal expansion during a 7-hour unfought fire or the progressive failures that occurred after the initial column failure).
The absence of evidence of explosives in all three cases -- not in the quantity that would be required, anyway -- led frustrated but imaginative "truthers" to speculate that thermite was used instead. However, there is no credible evidence of thermite on the site, no credible evidence of thermite damage to the structures, and no credible evidence that such a demolition is even possible with current technology.
So, "truthers" claim that instead of simply planting some big-assed truck bombs and blaiming it on terrorists, the "perps" concocted a ridiculously complicated and unnecessarily risky hoax involving fake hijackings and demolitions using an unproven technology, then somehow managed to coerce hundreds of people into assisting and covering up, and then somehow managed to not only leave no evidence of what "really" happened but not a single participant willing to ruin the whole thing and send them to a probable execution by squealing. When you propose something that is that outrageously implausible on its face, you need some damn good evidence, and it just ain't there.
And that's all I intend to say on this thread, since the subject here is just the pathological epistemology of conspiracy theorists. If you want to continue the 9/11 argument, you know where that is supposed to happen.
No, not "incidents of a controlled demolition method called Verinage" (Reply #43) - Democratic Underground
nice blog cut and paste...meaningless
verinage requires prep and all the supports to be pulled simultaneously to induce global failure, hence you just proved a demolition.timing is critical, the higher the building the more critical timing is. you need to show that fire can simultaneously remove the supports to create a straight down verinage.
What demolished the lower section of the building in the verinage video I posted?
guess the explosive ploy played out so you went to plan B.Do you understand the concept of acceleration? Do you understand that an object in free fall accelerates under the force of gravity? Do your understand the concept of momentum? Do you understand the concept of inertia?
Those are all rhetorical questions because the answer to all of them is negative given your original allegation above.
You did not even understand they used hydraulics to drop the building dumb-ass.. the building slowed as they hit each floor .(each floor that was weakened by pre cutting) if this happened to the towers.. all supports would need to fail at the same time ..the bottom section would have to be pre-cut (especially as the towers get thicker from top to bottom).. the top half of the building would have to be dropped on the bottom half and it still would of slowed as it hit each floor below
verinage requires prep and all the supports to be pulled simultaneously to induce global failure, hence you just proved a demolition.timing is critical, the higher the building the more critical timing is. you need to show that fire can simultaneously remove the supports to create a straight down verinage.
What demolished the lower section of the building in the verinage video I posted?
The concrete steel reinforced building was demolished by controlled demolition..by careful preparation to the entire building ,very precisely pre-cutting all lower supports and removing all supports from multiple floors simultaneously with hydraulics...but somehow you think this can be achieved with random fires in a steel framed building and are in fact trying to use a controlled demolition to disprove controlled demolition..its ludicrous if you actually think about it
