I dont recall having a conspiracy theory quote it dubya has a conspiracy theory, 19 hijackers remember.
So you do not tie it into a conspiracy theory. Therefore it supports the official narrative, agreed? Because Verinage works by taking out floors near midway > top and using the kinetic energy of the top section to crush the in tact section below it. Your ones start at the bottom.
The Chinese towers were rigged to topple sideways. The structure appears to be largely concrete and extra-strong for earthquake resistance. The right side was supposed to follow the left, but, apparently, did not tip quite far enough beyond its center of gravity, possibly becvaue the base of the left section blocked it. Grain elevators are extremely hard to blow because they are made to be blast-resistant, because they are so often subjected to massive exoplsions from the inside. They simply did not cut a big enough notch in the side toward which they wanted it to fall. The same thing happened to the Turkish flour mill. It was so sturdy and the notch so far above the ground that it just rolled over. Neiother of these structures in any way resembled the WTC and are thus utterly irrelevant.
That may be largely because you do not know what you are looking at. The contsruction of the Chinese tower in no way ressembles that of the WTC. Initiation of collapse was in no way similar. The damage done to the Chinese tower was ALL done at the bottom in order to drop it sideways. No charges were set off internally to make the structure fall in on itself. If you think otherwise, please demonstrate why you think so, and be specific. Just shouting "shills!" will get you nothing that you want. As I said, re the grain elevator, they are all blast resistant. Again, no internal charges were set off to collapse the structure. It was clearly intended that it should topple, unless the demolitions contractor was the world's greatest gainfully-employed idiot. If you see any error in my statement regarding the grain elevator, please point it out. In either case, can you please tell me what the hell any of them are supposed to have to do with the collapse of the WTC?
Here's a grain elevator explosion I remember going down to see after it had happened View attachment 1897500
They do tend to stay in place after an explosion. The same force woulld probably have launched pieces of WTC a mile or so away. There is obviously some serious concrete and rebar in there.
No. I just know the difference between pre-stressed concrete grain elevators and steel-framed office towers.
its largely because your theory is unfounded and has no basis in reality sure it does, it went straight up. yes verniage should have just creamed that top section! well maybe not like the wtc, it has plenty of charges to make it fall on itself, its the only way they can fall on themselves as we can see LOL so what that does not mean they are resistant to verniage now does it? LOL doodeedoo
What the hell are you on about now? Those buildings were all heavily strengthened against earthquake and/or internal explosions. What has verinage to do with either? None of them were rigged for verinage. Deal with what functions in this time/space continuum.
the wtc was not rigged for verinage either and it has 5x redundancy yet you claim verinage, wtf is up with that! try to keep it in this universe!
Pay attention. Morons like little Dickie Gage say that you cannot break a building by dropping the top of it on the lower part. That verinage works means that he is full of (*)(*)(*)(*). The weight of upper floors falling on lower floors broke the towers. That simple. The examples you offered were just shot at the bottom to tip them over. No comparison.
That is NOT what he said. Since troughers are known for misrepresentation of everything known to mankind quote it. What you said is the usual 1/.2 truths mostly bs and in the case of the wtc wrong. since you claim to be the expert tell us why you are wrong
No one said the WTC was verinage, we said that verinage proves truthers wrong on their claim that a falling top section of building will not bring down the bottom section. All be it, the WTC were 'like' verinage, but were not demolition. It was fire induced failure. There is no way the bottom section of the WTC could stop 500,000 ton of building dropping with gravity. But I don't expect you to understand why, so let's just leave it at that.
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 prove to us that fire can simultaneously remove the supports to create a straight down verinage. Its impossible so good luck with that. that and no steel core/framed building was ever shown to be demolished by verinage.
We are not saying that it was done by verinage. You are proving yourself as incapable of rational thought as little Dickie. The towers, like little Dickie's cardboard boxes, were designed to support a certain amount of weight IF they are undamaged and properly alligned. If not, they will not bear that weight. A wet box, with heavy boxes on top of it, whether dropped from some distance or just sitting there, will collapse. Little Dickie and the dozens of tray and washer stackers who base their theories on his reasoning were lost in the woods already and have just gone off into the quicksand.
I like the one where big dickie dropped his concrete block on a stack of blocks and only the top one broke....making fools out of the troughers LOL
