• 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

ergo said:
$0.6 billion is 1/5th of $3 billion. If it's "not much", why didn't they do it a long time ago, especially after the 1993 bombing?
Click to expand...

We work around it (carefully). It's called abatement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos_abatement

Until a floor needs a bare-concrete renovation, people are under orders to not knock down or disturb any walls without abatement procedures.

I've installed computer networks in these buildings. Asbestos is no reason to demolish them.
 
BigAl said:
Until a floor needs a bare-concrete renovation, people are under orders to not knock down or disturb any walls without abatement procedures.
Click to expand...

And of course, a bomb attack wouldn't disturb or knock down any walls....
 
ergo said:
Not really.

And, as we know, the fires weren't that horrendous. These were not infernos.
Click to expand...

:jaw-dropp

Wow. Do you think for one second about what you're posting?

The people who tragically jumped to their death rather than attempt to face the fires would probably take issue with that assertion.
 
ergo said:
And of course, a bomb attack wouldn't disturb or knock down any walls....
Click to expand...

Do you ever have a stright line of reasoning?
I believe your first contention was that it would cost too much for abatement so they knocked down the buildings, when it was pointed out that it really is not a lot of money for this one collection of structures within a much larger project you now shift to a safety issue?

How about you tie these together somehow and re-present your case again.
 
Chorduroy said:
:jaw-dropp

Wow. Do you think for one second about what you're posting?

The people who tragically jumped to their death rather than attempt to face the fires would probably take issue with that assertion.
Click to expand...

He doesn't have to of course,they are beyond speaking now.

How anyone can baldly assert that thousands of gallons of acellerant can be ignited over several floors of an office structure AND that the result would not be an 'inferno' is beyond comprehension, much less look over the images of the result of this and still assert the same. :rolleyes:
 
ergo said:
I didn't know there were "experts" on real estate occupancy rates. Is it some kind of sub-discipline of Real Estate Studies, or something? :)
Click to expand...

Apparently there are such in Canada as CBC news routinely reports on occupancy rates in both residential and commercial properties in major Canadian cities.

Seems to me ,, yes, yes, I have also seen the same thing reported on by CNN concerning USA cities.

The discipline is not 'real estate' it is city planning and urban planning. There are university courses and degrees available in this.
 
ergo said:
And, as we know, the fires weren't that horrendous. These were not infernos.
Click to expand...

wtc-9-11.jpg


PICTURED: Not An Inferno.
 
ergo said:
$0.6 billion is 1/5th of $3 billion. If it's "not much", why didn't they do it a long time ago, especially after the 1993 bombing?
Click to expand...

why don't you ask someone who would know rather then speculating that they killed 3000 innocents to save $600 Million?

TAM:)
 
Mancman said:
Did you read your own post? That $600 million is for: "the World Trade Center, New York's three major airports and other Port Authority properties.", not the WTC alone. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Doh, how did I not catch this.

Seems to me, the $200 Million is probably closer to the proper estimate, if you factor in the above.

So $200 Million is 1/15 of the 3 Billion...that is what 6-8% of the total cost...

TAM:)
 
Java Man said:
They couldn't identify conclusively?

"The engineers were able to identify many pieces by their markings. Each piece of steel was originally stenciled in white or yellow with information telling where it came from and where it was going. A sample of the markings can be seen in Figure D-5.

For example, a given piece might be marked, "PONYA WTC 213.00 236B4-9 558 35 TONS." Translated, this meant the column was destined for the Port of New York Authority's World Trade Center as part of contract number 213.00. Its actual piece number was 236B, and it was to be used between floors 4 and 9 in tower B (WTC 2). Its derrick division number was 558, which determined which crane would lift it onto the building and the order in which it was to be erected. Other markings might include the name of the iron works or shipping instructions to those responsible for railway transportation (Gillespie 1999). "

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxD.htm

Now the link comes from a Truther site. I hope that doesn't make the claim wrong. I mean the claim that each piece could be positively identified. I hope you don't fall into the old debunker tactic of arguing in circles.

Which brings me back to your quote. Which rather than make fun of me on every post just restates my position. Just because you're defending the right position doesn't automatically make your arguments correct. For example this absurd claim that they can't identify the beams, as if they were not marked in the first place.

Of course you also happen to conveniently put my statement out of its original context. Another typical debunker strategy. And last but not least "argumentum ad hominem" on your own words by making fun of me rather than countering my arguments.

How can a simple quote of my words say so much about you.
Click to expand...

Well, considering the engineers at NIST said, very specifically, that they could not positively identify the steel used in 7WTC from other buildings, I would say that they know better than you.

The rest if off topic, and won't be addressed.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Hi,

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. To have high buildings like that falling sideways would cause much more damage. And having a very high building risk falling sideways several days (or even longer) after an earthquake would be dangerous.
Click to expand...

Well, since none of the collapses fell into their own footprint, I would say you've struck out.

Go back to the dugout and try again next time.
 
Java Man said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually, you're wrong Java. It DID withstand the impact. It was the UNCONTROLLED fires that was the demise of the towers.

Maybe the reason that "it was designed to collapse" was not studied in depth, is because the engineers know that they do not design buildings that way.
 
triforcharity said:
Well, considering the engineers at NIST said, very specifically, that they could not positively identify the steel used in 7WTC from other buildings, I would say that they know better than you.
Click to expand...

Well that puts a dent into your "there were no explosives" theory. If they found no evidence in the steel they tested, but they're not sure the steel they tested was WTC7 steel. Then there could have been explosives or even thermite in WTC7, but they just sampled the pieces from the other buildings.
 
Anders Lindman said:
The cannot simply tell people: "Hey, did you know that the building you work/live in is designed to pancake into its own footprint in the case of a severe earthquake?"
Click to expand...

Yeah, cause that would be smart for business! You know, we've heard something simmilar to this crap here before, but it was "BUildings are rigged for CD when they are built" blah blah blah.
 
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...

No ergo, there was not any concrete encasement of the steel in ANY of the WTC towers. None.

Read the blueprints. Read the NIST report. If you want anyone to believe that, please feel free to cite your source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom