World record for a high-rise steel structure for CD is...

MarkyX

Master Poster
MarkyX
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
2,157
Hooray for critical thinking.

I decided to do a bit of an investigation on the controlled demolition by doing something simple: Find out what is the tallest building ever taken down by controlled demolition.

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=4

J.L. Hudson Department Store
Detroit, Michigan, USA
10/24/1998
Records: At 439 ft. tall Hudson’s is the tallest building & the tallest structural steel building ever imploded. At 2.2 million square feet, Hudson's is the largest single building ever imploded.
Click to expand...

The WTC 1 & 2 were 3.1 Times taller.

Wtc7 was 1.46 times taller.

And this is the world record we are talking about.

You can stack three Hudson Department building stores on top of each other and you will still not match up to the sheer height of the WTC 1 and 2.

How is this evidence against the CD theory? NO ONE knows how a building that tall will act because nothing like it has EVER been done. But we are to believe that it took a weekend to rig a huge building and a bunch of angry white guys with mid-80s IQ can spot it over demolition contracts, even though something this tall has never been done in demolition history?

Just a little bit of logic to hurt 'em more with.
 
MarkyX said:
Hooray for critical thinking.

I decided to do a bit of an investigation on the controlled demolition by doing something simple: Find out what is the tallest building ever taken down by controlled demolition.

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=4



The WTC 1 & 2 were 3.1 Times taller.

Wtc7 was 1.46 times taller.

And this is the world record we are talking about.

You can stack three Hudson Department building stores on top of each other and you will still not match up to the sheer height of the WTC 1 and 2.

How is this evidence against the CD theory? NO ONE knows how a building that tall will act because nothing like it has EVER been done. But we are to believe that it took a weekend to rig a huge building and a bunch of angry white guys with mid-80s IQ can spot it over demolition contracts, even though something this tall has never been done in demolition history?

Just a little bit of logic to hurt 'em more with.
Click to expand...
Considering the CTist use the logic of "no steel frame structure has ever collapsed before" as evidence of a CD, the bolding above is hereby submitted as evidence against a CD
 
good work. too bad it will fall on totally deaf ears. i mean if you are willing to accept that the govt would even want to commit an act that could kill 10s of thousands of americans, then why would you think it was too much to ask to blow up buildings three times higher than any previous CDs?

besides, the gubmnt has technologies way beyond what the lowley CD techs have. i reckon the military would pop a zit on your forehead from space if they needed to...
 
I remember reading about this in some wacko disinfo paper, Loose Change TV Guide or something. :D

I've never understood why the CTs call the collapses controlled demolitions. Any building of any height can be demolished with explosives. It's the "controlled" part that's the trick. If the "conspirators" were trying to control the collapses to avoid damaging other structures, they failed miserably.
 
Read the article about the Hudson's implosion, and was struck by this information (bolding mine)

CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition
Click to expand...

So, you math folks who love Story problems, if 12 people take 24 days to wire a building for demolition, how many people will you need to wire a building three times the size over a weekend? And how many charges will you need?

Nice find, MarkyX.
 
The insurance companies really should increase their insurance-premium in case that fire brings down a building. But what we’ve learned 5 years ago is that those companies do too much difficult work, studying buildings in detail, adding weakenings very precisely and having the risk that it might topple. Then the solution is to use an old jet with gallons of fuel and let it collapse about 10 floors from the top. Chance that it will implode and start from the bottom is zero because that hasn’t happened, chance that it will implode from top to down is 100% (2 out of 2). To get a bottom-up implosion a burning piece of debris should be ejected on it from about 600 feet, all possible.
 
Gravy said:
I remember reading about this in some wacko disinfo paper, Loose Change TV Guide or something. :D

I've never understood why the CTs call the collapses controlled demolitions. Any building of any height can be demolished with explosives. It's the "controlled" part that's the trick. If the "conspirators" were trying to control the collapses to avoid damaging other structures, they failed miserably.
Click to expand...

Ah damn, just saw it. You should've made a much bigger deal out of it :cool:
 
Hutch said:
Read the article about the Hudson's implosion, and was struck by this information (bolding mine)



So, you math folks who love Story problems, if 12 people take 24 days to wire a building for demolition, how many people will you need to wire a building three times the size over a weekend? And how many charges will you need?

Nice find, MarkyX.
Click to expand...

432 people?
 
einsteen said:
The insurance companies really should increase their insurance-premium in case that fire brings down a building. But what we’ve learned 5 years ago is that those companies do too much difficult work, studying buildings in detail, adding weakenings very precisely and having the risk that it might topple. Then the solution is to use an old jet with gallons of fuel and let it collapse about 10 floors from the top. Chance that it will implode and start from the bottom is zero because that hasn’t happened, chance that it will implode from top to down is 100% (2 out of 2). To get a bottom-up implosion a burning piece of debris should be ejected on it from about 600 feet, all possible.
Click to expand...

Great! Now I can add statistics to the list of subjects that you have demonstrated that you know nothing about!
 
Gravy, there is no way to get a top-down demolition without a relative amount of debris flying away.
 
einsteen said:
Gravy, there is no way to get a top-down demolition without a relative amount of debris flying away.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a top-down demolition.

I never seen it and every demo expert interviewed all stated the same scenario: The collapse started at the point of the plane crash, not at the bottom, therefore it's not a CD.

Show me one video of a top down demolition involving an office building. It could be concrete or steel frame, or whatever...
 
Well heck, if the Hudson Building demo is relevant, let’s recall that it wasn’t as controlled as people hoped. The Detroit People Mover, an elevated train that runs past the site, was damaged and put out of commission for some time. Falling debris, y’know.

So WTC7 could very well have been brought down by wreckage even from a “controlled demo” of the two towers. No additional bombs or “thermate” or anything else needed.

Or am I getting various CTs mixed up? If so, good; I’d worry if they started making any kind of sense to me.
 
MarkyX said:
Show me one video of a top down demolition involving an office building. It could be concrete or steel frame, or whatever...
Click to expand...

Marky, that does not exist because that is not the conventional 'clean' way, from bottom-up there are hundreds, wtc7 is the best example. And that should be the new world record.
No the twin towers were no controlled demolitions, I'm convinced.
 
einsteen said:
Marky, that does not exist because is not the 'clean' way, from bottom-up there are hundreds, wtc7 is the best example. And that should be the new world record.
No the twin towers were no controlled demolitions, I'm convinced.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Jowenko+WTC7+Demolition+Interviews
Click to expand...

You know Jowekno only stated that he says "it looks like a CD", right? And he based his information on only one video?

EDIT: If you must know, I found out by quoting your message.
 
einsteen said:
Gravy, there is no way to get a top-down demolition without a relative amount of debris flying away.
Click to expand...
Hey, we agree on something! Now, do you also agree that there's no way to get a top-down gravity collapse without a relative amount of debris flying away?
 
Of course Gravy, we know how ski-jumpers fly away. But you can not use the energy twice
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom