I've seen this too many times. When the conversation gets to a point where the opponent cannot cope with the technical details or refute them, he resorts to name-calling and condemnation. I think you have outed yourself.
When they don't have a choice, they do. The whole point of a structural collapse is the removal of resistance. An intact building had 1 g of resistance. The structural failure had 0.3 g of resistance. Where else was there to collapse? Spilling down outside of the walls of the lower building? Kind of impossible if the upper structural elements were still intact. Yeah, you tell me what the other path was. I'm waiting.
I've seen this too many times. When the conversation gets to a point where the opponent cannot cope with the technical details or refute them, he resorts to name-calling and condemnation. I think you have outed yourself.
Things don’t collapse through the path of greatest resistance, retard glowie
When they don't have a choice, they do. The whole point of a structural collapse is the removal of resistance. An intact building had 1 g of resistance. The structural failure had 0.3 g of resistance. Where else was there to collapse? Spilling down outside of the walls of the lower building? Kind of impossible if the upper structural elements were still intact. Yeah, you tell me what the other path was. I'm waiting.