• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Controlled demolition vs. the towers collapsing

Oh, "the footprint argument" is now "irrelevant", but we don't actually know what that argument is, because I think excaza doesn't know what it is, either.

excaza, did the buildings fall into their own footprints or not? If they didn't, where did they fall, and what is your definition of "footprint"?
 
ergo, you've already had this discussion with other members in different threads. Re-read it, I'm not going to repeat it for you.
 
Last edited:
I haven't had this discussion before. I've never encountered anyone who's trying to claim that the buildings fell largely outside their footprint. Most people would agree that's a pretty ridiculous claim, since we can see very clearly how the buildings fell, and what the collateral damage was.
 
Anders Lindman said:
If the building tips over, then at least some people in the building may survive. If it is designed to pancake into its own footprint, then everybody in it will be squashed. On the other hand, if the building is prevented from tipping over, it will save lives in other places where otherwise there would have been a skyscraper falling over them like a domino.
Click to expand...

Do you have even a single piece of evidence to support your theory that any skyscraper is designed in such a way, or are you simply guessing based on what you think they dod or should do?

Jhc!

TAM
 
ergo said:
How does this counter John Skilling's claim?

You are aware that there was concrete encasement of at least some of the structural steel? The rest of it NIST has been been very evasive about.
Click to expand...

Cite for both claims please.

I know of no masonry-based fireproofing in WTC1/2.
 
ergo said:
I haven't had this discussion before. I've never encountered anyone who's trying to claim that the buildings fell largely outside their footprint. Most people would agree that's a pretty ridiculous claim, since we can see very clearly how the buildings fell, and what the collateral damage was.
Click to expand...

Why would there be collateral damage if they fell in their own footprint?
 
BigAl said:
Make stuff up much?

The WTC towers were fully occupied and profitable in 2001.
Click to expand...

This is false as well. Their heyday was in the '80s. The rest of the time they were occupied at a maximum rate of 85%.
 
ergo said:
I haven't had this discussion before. I've never encountered anyone who's trying to claim that the buildings fell largely outside their footprint. Most people would agree that's a pretty ridiculous claim, since we can see very clearly how the buildings fell, and what the collateral damage was.
Click to expand...

Really? Can you explain what happened to WTC 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7? Can you explain why debris covered 16 acres & damaged nearby buildings? Can you explain why witnesses & rescue workers saw the whole debris field when you weren't there to witness or see anything?

All you're doing is lying!
 
T.A.M. said:
Do you have even a single piece of evidence to support your theory that any skyscraper is designed in such a way, or are you simply guessing based on what you think they dod or should do?

Jhc!

TAM
Click to expand...

No hard evidence. My theory is that the core columns were cut diagonally by design, and with a plug held in place by gravity at each diagonal cut to keep the core columns at full strength. Then if a hard enough shock wave would hit from below, then the plugs would pop out of position and the core columns would completely lose all their vertical strength and collapse.
 
9/11 Chewy Defense said:
Really? Can you explain what happened to WTC 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7? Can you explain why debris covered 16 acres & damaged nearby buildings? Can you explain why witnesses & rescue workers saw the whole debris field when you weren't there to witness or see anything?
Click to expand...

Sixteen acres of "debris"? Don't you mean dust? :)

Are you aware that the collapse theory you defend depends on the buildings falling into their own footprints?
 
Anders Lindman said:
No hard evidence. My theory is that the core columns were cut diagonally by design, and with a plug held in place by gravity at each diagonal cut to keep the core columns at full strength. Then if a hard enough shock wave would hit from below, then the plugs would pop out of position and the core columns would completely loose all their vertical strength and collapse.
Click to expand...

Photographs of the WTCs' construction contridicts that theory.
 
Anders Lindman said:
No hard evidence. My theory is that the core columns were cut diagonally by design, and with a plug held in place by gravity at each diagonal cut to keep the core columns at full strength. Then if a hard enough shock wave would hit from below, then the plugs would pop out of position and the core columns would completely lose all their vertical strength and collapse.
Click to expand...

Well, I have to admit it is an interesting idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom