Controlled demolition vs. the towers collapsing

[Anders Lindman]

1.) The towers did not fall in their own footprints.

2.) No building is designed to withstand an earthquake by collapsing in its own footprint. They're designed to withstand earthquakes by flexing, not falling over.

Ok, not exactly into their own footprints maybe, but pretty much straight down. The towers would only be able to withstand an earthquake by flexing up to a certain limit. A more severe earthquake above that limit would damage the buildings, and in order to not risk having them falling sideways they were designed on purpose to collapse like they did. That's my guess.

 

[Java Man]

1.) The towers did not fall in their own footprints.

They didn't? They toppled over and fell the length of central park or what?

2.) No building is designed to withstand an earthquake by collapsing in its own footprint. They're designed to withstand earthquakes by flexing, not falling over.

Now that's not what he said. He never said the buildings were designed to withstand earthquakes. Actually he never even mentions withstanding an earthquake. He says he believes that they were designed to fall on their footprint in the case the DID NOT withstand an earthquake. Read it again:

"I believe the WTC towers were designed to collapse like they did into their own footprints in the case of a severe earthquake for safety reasons."

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

How many JREF "debunkers" does it take to counter one empirical statement?

Jackanory
T.A.M.
9/11 Chewy Defense
Drudgewire
sabretooth47
beachnut
fitzgibbon
Chorduroy
dafydd
excaza
tsig
grandmastershek
jaydeehess
TruthersLie

14 and counting... and still nothing debunked. You call this efficient?

9 years of telling everyone in the world that you have "Mountains of evidence" is as efficient as you giving us fairy stories & lies about 9/11.

Nothing you say? It's you that has nothing cause I would know, I know all about you Truthers & what you've become.

 

[excaza]

Ok, not exactly into their own footprints maybe, but pretty much straight down. The towers would only be able to withstand an earthquake by flexing up to a certain limit. A more severe earthquake above that limit would damage the buildings, and in order to not risk having them falling sideways they were designed on purpose to collapse like they did. That's my guess.

Buildings are designed to withstand earthquakes stronger than anything that has ever been recorded in the area. They wouldn't be approved otherwise.

 

[excaza]

They didn't? They toppled over and fell the length of central park or what?

Really? You're going to start rehashing the footprint argument again?

Actually he never even mentions withstanding an earthquake. He says he believes that they were designed to fall on their footprint in the case the DID NOT withstand an earthquake.

And he's incorrect. Buildings are not designed to collapse. If they were, all you would have to do for a perfect CD would be to blow the lowest structural supports.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Buildings are designed to withstand earthquakes stronger than anything that has ever been recorded in the area. They wouldn't be approved otherwise.

But the architects of the towers would have had to design for the buildings to last many decades, even a century or more. And to predict earthquakes is generally difficult as I understand it. As an 'insurance' they would have taken the possibility of a severe earthquake into account. And to ensure that the towers would not fall sideways they designed them to collapse like they did straight down. Wouldn't that be possible?

 

[BigAl]

But the architects of the towers would have had to design for the buildings to last many decades, even a century or more. And to predict earthquakes is generally difficult as I understand it. As an 'insurance' they would have taken the possibility of a severe earthquake into account. And to ensure that the towers would not fall sideways they designed them to collapse like they did straight down. Wouldn't that be possible?

The towers swayed several feet when the planes hit. I'd guess they were well designed for the earthquake risk.

 

[excaza]

As an 'insurance' they would have taken the possibility of a severe earthquake into account.

Yes, and designed the building to withstand something stronger than that. This is called a safety factor. Of course, there is the possibility of some unforseen super-strong quake, but there's also the possibility that Yellowstone National Park will explode and send the planet into another ice age. The chances of these things are so small that they are not necessary to design for.

And to ensure that the towers would not fall sideways they designed them to collapse like they did straight down. Wouldn't that be possible?

Of course it's possible. But why design it to collapse when you could design it not to? The cost of repairing structural damage is far less than rebuilding the entire thing.

 

[Java Man]

Really? You're going to start rehashing the footprint argument again?

Really? Are you going to claim the towers fell sideways?

And he's incorrect. Buildings are not designed to collapse. If they were, all you would have to do for a perfect CD would be to blow the lowest structural supports.

So what's blown in a CD? The lowest non structural supports? The highest structural supports? Or maybe the highest non structural supports?

 

[excaza]

Really? Are you going to claim the towers fell sideways?

Please show that the towers fell in their own footprints, and therefore did not do any damage to adjacent buildings.

 

[ergo]

Really? Are you going to claim the towers fell sideways?

Yes, what is the "footprint argument"? Please do tell.

 

[Anders Lindman]

The towers swayed several feet when the planes hit. I'd guess they were well designed for the earthquake risk.

Only up to a certain point. They would have had to consider also earthquakes of magnitudes larger than the buildings were designed to withstand.

 

[Java Man]

Of course it's possible. But why design it to collapse when you could design it not to? The cost of repairing structural damage is far less than rebuilding the entire thing.

That's like designing a car not to crush in a crash and just ask the driver not to hit anything or be hit by anything. Like he said you can't control earthquakes. The best is to plan for the worst case.

I think he addresses an important issue NIST fails to address when not studying the collapse of the building. Was it built to safely fall in case of hit like that? It was made clear that the claim that it could withstand a jetliner was not lived up to. In other words it was a false claim that the WTC towers could withstand the hit of a 707 and ensuring fire. So it would seem reasonable that in a failure scenario it was at least built to cause the least amount of damage in case of a collapse.

 

[Java Man]

Yes, what is the "footprint argument"? Please do tell.

What footprint argument? If they didn't fall on their footprint where did they fall? Sideways?

 

[Sabretooth]

Only up to a certain point. They would have had to consider also earthquakes of magnitudes larger than the buildings were designed to withstand.

Slow down there, skippy...you're going to have to find some documentation of your "theory" before you try to argue building designs around here.

So, in other words, show some evidence that buildings are "designed to collapse" into their own footprint.

 

[Chorduroy]

The towers swayed several feet when the planes hit. I'd guess they were well designed for the earthquake risk.

Exactly. Earthquakes generate slow lateral forces, thus buildings need to be flexible side to side to withstand those forces.

 

[excaza]

That's like designing a car not to crush in a crash and just ask the driver not to hit anything or be hit by anything. Like he said you can't control earthquakes. The best is to plan for the worst case.

No, it's like designing a car to withstand crashing into a car and not designing it to crash into an airplane.

I think he addresses an important issue NIST fails to address when not studying the collapse of the building. Was it built to safely fall in case of hit like that? It was made clear that the claim that it could withstand a jetliner was not lived up to. In other words it was a false claim that the WTC towers could withstand the hit of a 707 and ensuring fire. So it would seem reasonable that in a failure scenario it was at least built to cause the least amount of damage in case of a collapse.

It withstood the airplane impact perfectly fine. It was not designed to take into account the fires that resulted. I'm fairly certain the architect stated this already.

 

[ergo]

Sorry, Java Man, I was referring to excaza's post here.

I would like very much to know what "the footprint argument" is.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Yes, and designed the building to withstand something stronger than that. This is called a safety factor. Of course, there is the possibility of some unforseen super-strong quake, but there's also the possibility that Yellowstone National Park will explode and send the planet into another ice age. The chances of these things are so small that they are not necessary to design for.


Of course it's possible. But why design it to collapse when you could design it not to? The cost of repairing structural damage is far less than rebuilding the entire thing.

They can only design the buildings to withstand earthquakes up to a certain magnitude because of cost-constraints, materials used, height of the buildings and so on. It would have constituted a great danger if some floors in the buildings were critically damaged. Then the towers could have remained useless and be difficult to bring down with a controlled demolition after the earthquake without risking having the buildings fall sideways into the city.

 

[Java Man]

It withstood the airplane impact perfectly fine. It was not designed to take into account the fires that resulted. I'm fairly certain the architect stated this already.

So it was designed to withstand the impact of a gliding fuel less 707, but nothing else? Also the airplane would hit when the building was powered down so no electrically induced fire would start.

Bottom line it was not well designed.