Monday, March 3, 2014 3:19:54 PM
I didn't ignore those six words of yours, they just didn`t change anything, idiot. Your claim that "*all* skyscrapers are designed to have a high probability of collapsing downwards as much as possible in the event of catastrophic failure" is catastrophically wrong. Go make that statement to any architect or engineer and you will get laughed out of the building.
"Anyone who doesn`t plan to minimise the damage in the event of failure has no business building anything bigger than a shed" The point is to plan to minimize the possibility of failure, not the damage.
One last thing to consider: look up "path of least resistance." There is no reason for those buildings to fall INTO the path of MOST resistance.
Monday, March 3, 2014 3:19:31 PM
The rest of your posts aren't even worth addressing, they just illustrate how confused you are. You confuse weight and velocity and momentum as if they are all the same thing. You talk about things dropping "at high speed". You use false analogies, ie. dropping a weight ON you. (You were already supporting that weight and you could handle twice as much with no strain. If it slipped 1-2% of your height, you would catch it.)
"So you`re a liar and a hypocrite" F.uck you. I haven`t lied anywhere (in this thread, at least, hehe) and I`m guessing you don`t know what hypocrite even means: (n. a person who professes beliefs and opinions that they do not hold).
Monday, March 3, 2014 3:18:39 PM
"You even agreed with the refutation" You really do have comprehension problems. No, I was simply tired of you all harping on that one point (THAT I NEVER MADE) so I proposed an alternate, more accurate phrasing.
"You accepted a collapse time almost double that which free fall would have been." When and where did I do that? It is becoming obvious that you never watched the video I linked.
"No it isn't, as has been explained to you." Again, when and where? Do you not ackowledge that every floor had thousands of welded and bolted joints? Do you really think that 70+ floors, each with those thousands of welded and bolted joints, would give virtually ZERO resistance in a collapse? You claim that "has been explained" to me, but I can`t seem to find it...
Monday, March 3, 2014 3:17:47 PM
@Angilion, the ignorant twat, says: "Obviously, the weight rapidly became even greater as more floors collapsed *onto the floors below*."
Really? Please explain how the weight of the floors increased. What new mass was added to the "Dozens of floors of the building" which were, pretty obviously, ALREADY THERE AND BEING SUPPORTED JUST FINE, THANK YOU.
I think the fact that you find it reasonable that dozens of floors of a very large building MYSTERIOUSLY INCREASED IN WEIGHT says EVERYTHING about your idiotic position.
"It has been refuted repeatedly, including in this thread." I never claimed "free-fall" speed, I claimed "near free-fall" speed. As in very friggin' close to the speed we`ve all seen in controlled implosions!
Saturday, March 1, 2014 11:04:58 PM
Last one. I've given you far too much of my time already.
I`m sorry, but that is just "bloody stupid." Buildings are designed and built to AVOID collapse in every imaginable way.
So you`re a liar and a hypocrite ("I`m sorry"), but that`s hardly surprising and a minor point in comparison.
You ignored a key part of what I wrote: "in the event of catastrophic failure." I did not write "buildings are designed to collapse". As usual, you are making stupid things up and pretending other people said them. You do that because your argument is rubbish and you can`t use it to answer what people actually write.
[quote]There is no "safe collapse scenario" planned in.[/quote]
Anyone who doesn`t plan to minimise the damage in the event of failure has no business building anything bigger than a shed, let alone a building 400m high with a mass of 500,000 tonnes in the middle of a city.