Landmark Tower demolition broke neighboring windows

[1337m4n]

I was asked in another thread for seismic data for proven controlled demolitions.

I have not yet found any detailed seismic readouts but I did come across this interesting news article.

Now I'm sure you're all familiar with the Landmark Demolition video which by itself debunks ignorant CD conspiracy fantasies by showing how much sound a real controlled demolition makes.

Well here is the link to the related news article:

http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/nc/ne/?id=101566

I highlight the portion of interest and double-highlight the portion of even-more-interest:

The city blocked off a 12 block area around the tower for safety. XTO Energy who owns the property, raffled tickets for a chance for the public to push the button and demolish the building. Members of the Boy Scout Troop 326 took part in the demolition. Den mother Betty Rogers purchased the winning ticket, and her son Preston Rogers, age 11, pushed the button. It took just 7 seconds for the building to be imploded without a problem. A few windows were broken in neighboring buildings which is normal. Clean up of the site will take 3 months.

It seems that a normal controlled demolition will shatter the windows of neighboring buildings. That is just how forceful it is; all those tons and tons of TNT. It is enough to send shockwaves through the air and ground, like a miniature earthquake, and shatter the windows of surrounding buildings.

Was a similar phenomenon observed on 9/11?

 

[TheWeirdSkeptic]

Nice find.

I'm going to assume, though, that truthers are going to spin what you said and say that since WTC7 windows broke thats proof that the other WTCs had demo charges in them.

Maybe even skip that and just say since the windows broke it was a CD... uncontrolled demolition I mean.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

It seems that a normal controlled demolition will shatter the windows of neighboring buildings. That is just how forceful it is; all those tons and tons of TNT. It is enough to send shockwaves through the air and ground, like a miniature earthquake, and shatter the windows of surrounding buildings.

Was a similar phenomenon observed on 9/11?

There were instances of window breakage in nearby buildings at ground zero, however it was exclusively a result of debris impact. The BBC documentary that aired a while back brought it up, making the observation that much of the breakage took place on the sides facing the towers. Windows on opposite facing sides were intact, contrary to what should be expected of damage from explosives detonation.

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

What is the most prevalent CT out there that claims the WTC collapses were 100% a traditional controlled demolition?

Is there such a thing?

Please source.

 

[Wolrab]

What is the most prevalent CT out there that claims the WTC collapses were 100% a traditional controlled demolition?

Is there such a thing?

Please source.

Why don't you take a stab at it. Was it 5, 10, 20, some other percentage controlled demolition?

 

[R.Mackey]

Good find.

It's also worth pointing out that neighboring windows are just the tip of the iceberg in the Sept. 11th situation. The windows on the Towers themselves would be absolutely certain to fracture, sending sharp, supersonic, deadly shards of glass for blocks around. No structure I'm aware of has been "CD"'d without first removing all traces of glass, and for good reason.

Needless to say, this lethal field of flying glass did not happen. The farthest-flying bits were the heaviest, large sections of structure and what not, and this is indicative of gravitational acceleration, not explosives.

 

[Baylor]

Controlled Demolition is not a "one size fits all" trade.

The techniques for each CD is highly dependant on the neighborhood, or the proximity, sensitivity and historical significance of nearby buildings.*

Before placing explosives, all furniture, finishes, mechanical equipment, windows, everything except the basic structural frame, floor slabs, and walls are stripped from the blast floors. Exterior walls, even if they are not load-bearing, are sometimes fully or selectively left in place because of the effort to comply with OSHA fall protection rules and to help contain fly of debris from the detonation of eplosives. Walls are often at least partly removed at the floors where columns are detonated so that the desired collapse mode is not impeded at those floors.

As the building structure is often preweakened to some extent because wind and other live loads are signficant for tall slender structures, careful consideration needs to be given to winds or other possible live loads during the structural prepartion period leading up the implosion date.

*Loizeaux, Mark
Progressive Collapse - an Imploison Conrtractor's Stock in Trade
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities
November 2006
391

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

Why don't you take a stab at it. Was it 5, 10, 20, some other percentage controlled demolition?

Well according to most debunkers a traditional controlled demolition of the WTC towers would have taken tons of explosives and months of setup.

But the same buildings could collapse with no setup or explosives in one hour from a plane a crash and building content fire to a small percentage of the building near the top?

 

[johnny karate]

What is the most prevalent CT out there that claims the WTC collapses were 100% a traditional controlled demolition?

How about every single one that uses "traditional" as the yardstick by claiming "it looked like a controlled demolition".

 

[johnny karate]

Well according to most debunkers a traditional controlled demolition of the WTC towers would have taken tons of explosives and months of setup.

But the same buildings could collapse with no setup or explosives in one hour from a plane a crash and building content fire to a small percentage of the building near the top?

Wrong. Please provide a source for this specious claim.

 

[Smackety]

Well according to most debunkers a traditional controlled demolition of the WTC towers would have taken tons of explosives and months of setup.

But the same buildings could collapse with no setup or explosives in one hour from a plane a crash and building content fire to a small percentage of the building near the top?

Yes. remember 9/11? That is exactly what happened. What is your point?

 

[Quad4_72]

Well according to most debunkers a traditional controlled demolition of the WTC towers would have taken tons of explosives and months of setup.

Indeed. It may have taken as long as a year to do. If I remember right, the largest controlled demo of a building took like 6 months to set up. We are talking about TWO towers that are double the size.

But the same buildings could collapse with no setup or explosives in one hour from a plane a crash and building content fire to a small percentage of the building near the top?

Correct. See the NIST report for more information.

 

[1337m4n]

If I recall correctly, the collapses of Twin Towers registered 2.1 and 2.8 on the Richter Scale. It takes a Richter magnitude of at least 3.0 to cause even the most minor damage (like breaking windows). The coffin of fantasy CD is so full of nails, one can't tell it apart from a sea urchin.



Oh and as for the other tangent, Mackey, I believe you had an analysis refuting this Truther claptrap about "oh but it could've just been a LITTLE bit of explosives"? Please post it and relieve homeland Insurgency of his ignorance and bad ideas. Or should I say, for the benefit of our lurkers, because Insurgency has demonstrated he has too much confirmation bias to be convinced of anything via logic, reason, and facts.

 

[Baylor]

2.1 and 2.3

www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html

 

[1337m4n]

(Also remember HI that if you claim it was only a little explosives, then squibs, collapse speed, collapse style, footprint, debris spread, pulverization, etc. cannot be used as evidence for demo. So you must either accept this debunking of demo or admit that there is zero evidence for demo. Take your pick.)

 

[X]

(Also remember HI that if you claim it was only a little explosives, then squibs, collapse speed, collapse style, footprint, debris spread, pulverization, etc. cannot be used as evidence for demo. So you must either accept this debunking of demo or admit that there is zero evidence for demo. Take your pick.)

That sort of sums it all up, doesn't it?

 

[Baylor]

Take your pick.

He doesn't take picks. He Just Asks (mostly incoherent) Questions, then does the damsel in distress routine when we point out how stupid of a question it was.

 

[Baylor]

This is the same poster who said he "doesn't know" whether or not a laser beam guided flight 175 into the South tower. Fleshing out his nonexistent explosives hypothesis is the least of his worries.

 

[R.Mackey]

Oh and as for the other tangent, Mackey, I believe you had an analysis refuting this Truther claptrap about "oh but it could've just been a LITTLE bit of explosives"? Please post it and relieve homeland Insurgency of his ignorance and bad ideas. Or should I say, for the benefit of our lurkers, because Insurgency has demonstrated he has too much confirmation bias to be convinced of anything via logic, reason, and facts.

I've presented this lots of times, but here is (I think) the most recent.

Basically, any minimal demolition, dependent on "natural" weakening mechanisms, is many times more complex than a brute force demolition. This makes it much, much harder, not easier. It also implies an absolutely prescient understanding of exactly what would happen -- predictive tools many times more accurate than the reconstruction, such as presented by NIST. Such technology does not exist now, and certainly did not exist in 2001. QED.

 

[TJM]

Even though this is from a truther site, I find it interesting to see how many buildings fell into the yellow "broken glass / facade damage" category from falling debris. I'm no explosives expert, but I would imagine that to get damage on this order, that's going to be one big explosion. I'm thinking something like the 1947 Texas City explosion.