Allen773
Graduate Poster
Is that how Trump Tower was built?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Merged Hulsey presents research arguing WTC7 not brought down by fires/University of Alaska
- Thread starter Trojan
- Start date
Is that how Trump Tower was built?
bknight
Master Poster
First off, WTC 1 caused extensive damage to WTC 7 when it fell, so that makes your argument meaningless. The damage to WTC 7 caused the fires to break out in many locations, resulting in the destruction of WTC 7. So no they didn't fall onto their footprint, obviously there will be some parts of each building on their respective footprints, but most fell outside. Look at the image record.
You fail.
Fonebone
persona non grata
Nice story Bro !
This is what the LIDAR record shows
The pillow shaped green mound to the far left is the footprint if the WTC7 Tower.
Can you spot the two other mounds in the LIDAR ?
Those mounds are the two twin towers resting inside their respective footprints !
This is what the LIDAR record shows
The pillow shaped green mound to the far left is the footprint if the WTC7 Tower.
Can you spot the two other mounds in the LIDAR ?
Those mounds are the two twin towers resting inside their respective footprints !
Last edited:
Fonebone
persona non grata
I don't think that image proves what you claim it proves.
This graphic is dated 01-09-13 indicating this was the scene two day after the attacks.The toasted and burned-out vehicles on both sides
of the street near Fitterman Hall are towed as are the post office trucks that were parked on the sidewalk
in front of the post office. Can you see the large mound pile of debris where the WTC7 should be ?
Yes, I acknowledge that some of the 47 story tall WTC7 tower spilled into the four surrounding streets. The graphic proves
the tower fell straight down into the footprint as defined by demolition experts.
I don't know what you're saying here.
Are you saying that the two debris sections I highlighted with arrows are in the footprint of the building? Are you saying they are not part of the building? Are you saying they were moved there at some point before/after the LIDAR image was taken?
I think it's clear that they are out of the footprint of the building, and that proves that your claim with respect to the exhibit you've shown is wrong.
Of course the height of the final mound of debris is maximum within the footprint of the building, as in most total collapses. Gravity pulls downwards.
Also, remember that the ground broke when WTC1 and WTC2 fell, making a lot of the debris go into the parkings below, causing the debris mound to be smaller in these areas.
ETA: It's easy to see that in the LIDAR image. Just pay attention to what is ground level, and notice how much of the areas around WTC1 and WTC2 is below ground level. Note these holes were created by debris of WTC1 and WTC2 that does not show as mounds in the image, and is therefore clearly outside the footprint.
Last edited:
By the way, this is a picture of the WTC2 footprint area. Try to match it with the LIDAR image and think a bit about what the LIDAR image actually shows.
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/6/wtc2south2.jpg
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/6/wtc2south2.jpg
This into footprint means little. Something that breaks apart will collapse down into a pile... a pile of elements ... small pieces will fall like jenga blocks. The build didn't fall over. Its parts may have had some torque and lateral forces acting on then from the collapse. The form of the debris pile only tells is that a huge structure broke apart and fell down.
Fonebone
persona non grata
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear !
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...98#post7378798
excerpt:
Better yet
Howsabout I use the NIST own words and borrow the NIST's dictionary !
NIST NCSTAR 1 A 2.2.2 2nd paragraph
[excerpt]
Quote:
When the WTC1 collapsed at 10:28:22 a.m.
--most-- of the debris landed--in-- an area --not much larger-- than the original
WTC1 building footprint.
Dr. Brazant : (WTC1 & WTC2 ) "collapsed essentially on their footprint"
NIST : "most of the debris landed
in an area not much larger than the original
WTC1 building footprint."
FEMA : The WTC7 tower debris field averaged 75 feet from the original building footprint. [/excerpt]
Fonebone>
I'm quoting NIST,FEMA, and Dr. Brazant describing the three tower collapses. Do you have any disagreement with those assessments ?
I clearly stated the burned -out vehicles that cluttered Washington street north of barclay st were removed.
The post-office vehicles South of Barclay were also removed, The NIST clearly states the WTC7 debris field averaged 75 feet from the actual building footprint.
Both Vessey street and barclay streets did contain ancillary debris but the building is mostly contained in the footprint.
The WTC7 was NOT located over the "bathtub" caisson.The north wall of the bathtub caisson ended at the south side of Vessey street.
Last edited:
No you didn't, and you still don't. As I said, in most total (building - forgot to specify that) collapses the highest part of the debris pile ends up in their blueprint, so that tells nothing about the cause, really.
So assuming that's what you actually meant when you wrongly said that the WTC7 pile was "lying in it's own footprint", what's the significance of that?
Before you answer, take a look at a couple collapses caused by fire...
Last edited:
bknight
Master Poster
Do you read what you're linking and understand the implications?
Most not all.
Not much larger, not the same size.
Essentially, not exact.
Averaged 75 feet, meaning some were less than 75 some greater than 75.
Mostly, not all.
Now as JSanderO indicated so what? pgimeno showed videos of other fire collapsed buildings. Why do you make a big deal out of this? Does all the bravado contradict that WT 7 collapsed due to widespread fires in the building? NO!
Come back when you have better debating material.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Out of curiosity, do you know why such care is taken in controlled demolitions?
It's not just placing explosives. That's usually only the final initiating stage.
Essentially, CD is a controlled collapse. The goal is not to keep the building from falling over like a tree. It's not even to keep most of the building from falling into it's own footprint; that's going to happen in ANY building collapse.
The primary reason for all the prep work in CD (which includes partial cutting of some support members, removal of some internal load bearing structures, etc...a LOT more than some magic super-thermite and invisible explosives) is to prevent that "75 foot average" like WTC 7 had.
WTC 7 was damaged and eventually collapsed due to debris thrown when WTC 1 and WTC 2 fell.That's what CD prep is intended to minimize. The goal of CD is not to collapse it into a pile, but to prevent it from throwing bits out. To reduce that 75 foot average as much as possible.
The entire CD argument based on this is, essentially, ignorance taking. Most people have only seen building collapses in videos of CDs or entertainment (movies/TV). They assume the "TV building collapse" reflects reality, rather than drama and spectacle.
I'd say we reverse the challenge. Find high-rise failures that DON'T result in something very similar to WTC 7. It's been claimed over and over that the collapse of these buildings was atypical...so prove that. Show the data. Do a statistical study of building collapses that shows that the average distance of debris form the footprint was atypical in these cases.
It's not just placing explosives. That's usually only the final initiating stage.
Essentially, CD is a controlled collapse. The goal is not to keep the building from falling over like a tree. It's not even to keep most of the building from falling into it's own footprint; that's going to happen in ANY building collapse.
The primary reason for all the prep work in CD (which includes partial cutting of some support members, removal of some internal load bearing structures, etc...a LOT more than some magic super-thermite and invisible explosives) is to prevent that "75 foot average" like WTC 7 had.
WTC 7 was damaged and eventually collapsed due to debris thrown when WTC 1 and WTC 2 fell.That's what CD prep is intended to minimize. The goal of CD is not to collapse it into a pile, but to prevent it from throwing bits out. To reduce that 75 foot average as much as possible.
The entire CD argument based on this is, essentially, ignorance taking. Most people have only seen building collapses in videos of CDs or entertainment (movies/TV). They assume the "TV building collapse" reflects reality, rather than drama and spectacle.
I'd say we reverse the challenge. Find high-rise failures that DON'T result in something very similar to WTC 7. It's been claimed over and over that the collapse of these buildings was atypical...so prove that. Show the data. Do a statistical study of building collapses that shows that the average distance of debris form the footprint was atypical in these cases.
Truthers do not accept that these building could collapse because they were so strong and stood for decades. They also believe that fire is incapable of weakening and distorting a structure so that it can no longer perform... stay standing. Further they seem to believe that parts of a building falling onto the lower part(s) can lead to catastrophic damage. Since they refuse to believe that a steel building can collapse from some fires.. the collapses had to be intentional demolitions.
Stupid logic.
Stupid logic.
the accidental debunker
Similar to the idiotic rant of maga or wwg1wga... "into its own footprint" from the pile of meaningless woo which resonates with the paranoid mindless followers.
Accidental debunker you be.
Similar to the idiotic rant of maga or wwg1wga... "into its own footprint" from the pile of meaningless woo which resonates with the paranoid mindless followers.
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,948
Can you please cite this "as defined by demolition experts"?
Because, you see, I have so far been under the impression that "into the footprint", to a demolition expert, means "no large debris leaves the immediate premise of the building such that no surrounding (infra)structure gets damaged or blocked". You see, demolition experts have a purpose there: To not damage neighboring buildings, to not spill out onto the street.
WTC blocked streets all around and caused major, even fatal, damage, to two buildings across two different streets.
I am pretty sure EVERY demolition expert in the world would call this a "FAILURE" if the goal had been to collapse "within the footprint".
So this is whyI ask you to cite any actual demolition expert who DEFINES "into the footprint" in a way that is, objectively, consistent with the WTC7 debris pattern.
Your predicted failure to provide such a citation by an actual demolition expert will be scored as you making up bad ****
Truth movement's use of the phrase -controlled demolition- is not intended to be read literally I suspect. What they seem to suggest is not that the destruction was controlled... but that some group engineered and placed devices which was led to the collapse of each building. The presumed goal was not to mimic a CD but to collapse/destroy the building. Falling into the footprint was not an objective... I suspect if the towers toppled they would be OK with that result.
Their destruction and collapse took the form of a gravity driven collapse. It appears the the location where structural failures dominated and which triggered the collapse was different in each of the towers... and informs one's understanding of how the structural integrity failed.
Their destruction and collapse took the form of a gravity driven collapse. It appears the the location where structural failures dominated and which triggered the collapse was different in each of the towers... and informs one's understanding of how the structural integrity failed.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Good point Sander. We have become so used to "CD" that we forget that all it needed was "D"... the "C" is redundant.
I even recall too many times in former years where a debunker attempting rebuttal relied on the false assumption that the "D" would need to be "C".
This whole "into the footprint" meme is directed at suggesting that it was a controlled demolition because that's what is done in controlled demolitions.
Many truthers insist in the footprint point, including Gage in his presentations. And that's exactly what Fonebone is claiming.
It's intended to be read literally. It's intended to suggest that since that's how CDs are done, this one was a CD.
Therefore, showing that it caused damage to adjacent buildings and that other collapses due to fire also leave a similar distribution of debris, is sufficient to totally destroy the argument that "it was a controlled demolition because it fell in its footprint".
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,948
I wanted to respond to this "footprint" debate with a snide at a meme that AE911T recently posted on their Facebook wall - but then I glanced up and saw that this here is still the "Hulsey presents research" thread, and so I refrained from continuing the derail 
I can't say for sure... but I think they use the CD because it a common and understood term... They likely do not mean literally because clearly the destruction was no controlled... but the towers were completely destroyed which IS a CD attribute.
It's a stupid argument to have.... ie what they meant by using the term... or why they chose it.