Controlled demolition vs. the towers collapsing

[Myriad]

Huh. So I guess there was quite a bit of mass shedding, wasn't there?

"Quite a bit?" Indeed, there was more than a tad, but when dealing with such large massive objects, even a smidgeon can be a mighty big helping. Or are you saying it was more than a modicum, perhaps closer to a buttload?

Isn't arguing based on un-quantified terms fun?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[ergo]

24 acres is a rectangle about 1,000ft on a side, in other words, not as tall as the towers by a significant amount.

Your point?

Right. 16 acres is 64,700 something sq metres, which sounded very large to me, but it's actually only .6 sq km.

We're basically talking about a demolition footprint. With a lot of mass shedding.

 

[T.A.M.]

Well obviously there was a mound of debris. But the point is had there been a whole deep enough to fit the WTC the debris would have fallen pretty much squarely into it. Obviously things poured sideways, but it's a long shot from having the building fall sideways like a domino. It is clear it did fall on its footprint even if it poured to the sides when it no longer fit.

It is your group that is has pushed and pushed the whole "fell essentially into its own footprint" as if this somehow proved anything, well for christ's sake any collapse that did not involve the building falling on its side, by your standard would fall "essentially" in its own foot print.

The fact is that this building, falling via a gravity driven collapse from the top down HAD TO fall essentially downward, so of course MOST of the building fell into the square area covered by the towers...However, the assumption that the building fell into a neat little pile in that area is ridiculous. IT covered, as I said, a much MUCH larger surface area then the combine area covered by the intact towers.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

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%.

And at the time, what was the average occupancy rate for skyscrapers in that area of manhattan? I am betting around the number you just gave.

TAM

 

[Java Man]

IT covered, as I said, a much MUCH larger surface area then the combine area covered by the intact towers.

TAM

Right, but it did so by sideway dispersal, not because it toppled sideways.

 

[T.A.M.]

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.

OK, so given you have no HARD evidence, do you have any evidence besides your uneducated guess?

TAM

 

[ergo]

And at the time, what was the average occupancy rate for skyscrapers in that area of manhattan? I am betting around the number you just gave.

Not relevant. I was merely proving another "debunker" claim wrong.

 

[T.A.M.]

Some?

Can you just argue both sides of this? I have to go to lunch and you seem to be content to make my claims for me.

don't worry, he spent 2 pages putting the word "only" into a post I made, because I didn't put it there and he wanted to prove me wrong anyway.

He'll be fine arguing both sides.

TAM

 

[ergo]

don't worry, he spent 2 pages putting the word "only" into a post I made, because I didn't put it there and he wanted to prove me wrong anyway.

Glad you finally qualified what you said (something "debunkers" have to do a lot, we see) because it appears (still) that you are supporting doogiet's claim in your first few posts.

 

[Dog Town]

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%.

Source?

 

[T.A.M.]

I agree with that. But they were not kept until they whole investigation was over and NIST handed the report. My point is that it should have been kept longer to support the models.

1. NIST was not a forensic investigative body.
2. NIST report was not "out" for many years after the collapses. In particular, for WTC7 it did not come out until last year (IIRC).

What you are suggesting, is totally, 100% based on your paranoid skewed need to prove the USG did it, looking backward.

I would be willing to bet large money that in the days after 9/11, had you been asked how long should they keep 100% of the 50,000 feet of steel, you would have said "until the FBI is satisfied that they have what they need".

Well guess what...they were satisfied...that is why they let the steel be taken.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Only architects who are given the task of designing skyscrapers to actually be built would be required to sign such secrecy agreement. So most architects would not even know about this, even if they have worked decades as professional architects.

OMG, I know you are not postulating that there is a secret group of architects, those that design skyscrapers, who enter into some secret pact to design them to come straight down, but must not reveal this to the public...

seriously....look out boys, this one is a doozy.

TAM

 

[ergo]

Again, that's the advantage of making your arguments in such vague terms that if anyone actually counters you on it, you always have that classic "debunker", "I may have said that, but I didn't actually mean that!!" wiggle room.

 

[Java Man]

1. NIST was not a forensic investigative body.
2. NIST report was not "out" for many years after the collapses. In particular, for WTC7 it did not come out until last year (IIRC).

What you are suggesting, is totally, 100% based on your paranoid skewed need to prove the USG did it, looking backward.

I would be willing to bet large money that in the days after 9/11, had you been asked how long should they keep 100% of the 50,000 feet of steel, you would have said "until the FBI is satisfied that they have what they need".

Well guess what...they were satisfied...that is why they let the steel be taken.

TAM

True, but keeping that material longer would have helped uncover a lot of doubts and prevented a great deal of the conspiracy issues we are seeing today. It would have been a real deal breaker for the Truthers and a great support for the Debunkers.

 

[Disbelief]

Again, that's the advantage of making your arguments in such vague terms that if anyone actually counters you on it, you always have that classic "debunker" "I may have said that, but I didn't actually mean that!!" wiggle room.

You mean like you did, as Myriad pointed out above? Or is it more like the truther breed called "No-claimers" who have no actual theory, they just know something is wrong. This breed usually spends their time nitpicking and looking for "gotchas." Sounds familiar...

 

[ergo]

Source?

Twin Towers: The Life of New York City's World Trade Center, by Angus Kress Gillespie.

 

[T.A.M.]

Right, but it did so by sideway dispersal, not because it toppled sideways.

yes, well that is stating the obvious....what is your point?

TAM

 

[ergo]

You mean like you did, as Myriad pointed out above?

Please quantify the mass shedding factor, then, if you didn't like my "quite a bit".

 

[T.A.M.]

Glad you finally qualified what you said (something "debunkers" have to do a lot, we see) because it appears (still) that you are supporting doogiet's claim in your first few posts.

No I am saying that I never put the word "only" in my post, yet you kept trying to imply that I meant "only" at the base...when I did not state, nor did I mean that.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

True, but keeping that material longer would have helped uncover a lot of doubts and prevented a great deal of the conspiracy issues we are seeing today. It would have been a real deal breaker for the Truthers and a great support for the Debunkers.

I agree, had they done that, it might have put CTs to bed (though I doubt it). However, that is not sufficient reason to do so, and given the forensic investigators at the time were satisfied, and allowed the material to be removed (and eventually recycled), I am ok with what they did.

TAM