"Tacoma Narrows Bridge" was a very famous structural failure and eng schools commonly reference it as an example of what not to do in design. With that noted: Why is not the total structural failure of WTC1, 2 & 7 examined in eng schools? VERY controversial subject and so nobody wants to have anything to do with it ..... or?
how about the "model" in this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCjEi4z2KZA Explain how the smaller upper section destroyed the lower larger section with gravity alone. I mean the lower section was supporting the smaller upper section just fine.
So, what is continually being brought up, is examples of engineered destruction of a building as an illustration of how a non-engineered event can completely destroy a skyscraper...... what?
No, bob. It's an example of how the smaller upper portion of a building can destroy the larger bottom portion without explosives. Do you understand that, or?
However, the "collapse" was planned to happen in the way that it did, how do I know what was done to the building to prepare it for demolition? The fact that the demolition was a planned event, negates any usefulness as an example of what may have happened on 9/11/2001.
People argue that the events of 9/11/2001 did not include the planned demolition of WTC 1, 2 & 7, however showing examples of planned demolitions doesn't support your case.
Do you not get it, (?) that posting examples of controlled demolitions in order to make the case that WTC1, 2 & 7 were not controlled demolitions, is completely mad ...... what?
Was that 15% or less by height that was dropped? I can't eve tell how many stories the building had. Can you tell how complete the destruction was afterwards? More BELIEVING without adequate data? psik
Verinage shows the physics of the small upper section crushing the larger upper section without the use of explosives. This is the third time that has been explained to you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJDX9V_pPV8 Yeah, right! ROFL Where is there a case of Verinage demolition being used on a steel frame building? The purpose of a Real MODEL is having complete data and controlled conditions and repeatability. A Youtube video is not a model unless it provides enough data to duplicate the test. psik
and for the third time, an engineered demolition of a building as alleged evidence that a non-engineered event could cause the very same result is quite lame. have a nice day : )
For the fourth time now: the example of Verinage demolition is to disprove your claim about the smaller mass not being able to destroy the larger mass. Which it has done quite handily. Constantly trying to derail the subject won't change that fact.
In the Verinage example, how do you know exactly what sort of preparation was done before the demolition, that is possibly cutting part way through structural members lower down in the building so as to facilitate the "collapse" and without totally certain information about any special work on the building before demolition, its a moot point, an engineered "collapse" is NOT an example that can be used to demonstrate that a non-engineered collapse could completely destroy the skyscraper.
No,you were shown how the smaller mass can destroy the larger mass...and how it didn't have to be 'engineered'
So the Verinage technique requires NO engineering at all? and you are quite certain that there was no preparation to the building structure before the demolition began? How do you support that idea? who decided how to attach the cables and at what points?
Never happen,using your limited criteria. And the WTC towers were NOT a 'steel frame building' in the conventional; sense. Verniage...sorry.
You are arguing in circles, bob. We aren't talking about the preparation for CD. Simply the fact that the smaller mass can destroy the larger mass. Physics.
However, under what conditions, if the Verinage didn't require any engineering, that would be one thing, but the fact is that Verinage requires engineering in order to work, this then negates the possibility that WTC1, 2 & 7 "collapsed" in anything like Verinage because a totally unplanned event that gives you the same result as an engineered event is highly improbable, and having it happen 3X on the same day is even more improbable.
You can spin this any way you want genericBob. The bottom line is this. Truthers continually claim that: A) The larger lower section supported the smaller upper section previously B) No smaller section can destroy a larger section below with gravity only The Verinage videos posted here prove these two things wrong. So I am asking you genericBob. How did the smaller section completely destroy the lower section using gravity alone? The lower section was supporting the upper section just fine until the upper section was dropped. Why can you not answer this?
The thing that is totally undefined here, and makes a HUGE difference is the fact that since the Verinage technique is an intentional demolition, what other things ( that is other than just dropping the upper section... ) were done, say like cutting part way through structural members lower down in the building so as to make it easy for the falling mass from above to do the job? The idea that an engineered event is being presented as alleged proof that the exact same result can be obtained in a totally non-engineered event is mad! WTC1,2 & 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition.......
