• 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

Java Man said:
Yup that pretty much sums up to falling on its footprint. Thanks for bringing up such a great photo that proves my point. Much welcomed.
Click to expand...

Oh really? Each tower was 208 feet wide by 208 feet wide. Does that look to you like anywhere close to a total surface area of 86,000 square feet?

You need to go back to school.

TAM:confused:
 
Java Man said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wow, can I nominate that for a stundie?

This is so absurdly stupid, it is actually funny!! Awesome Job Java!!
 
I think for their own good, to stop looking ridiculous, every truther should just stop using the word "footprint" and simply state,

"The Twin Towers fell essentially DOWN!"...lol

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
Oh really? Each tower was 208 feet wide by 208 feet wide. Does that look to you like anywhere close to a total surface area of 86,000 square feet?

You need to go back to school.

TAM:confused:
Click to expand...

Get serious. There's hardly any debris a block away, much less so damage. It fell perfectly on it's footprint. If you claim it didn't you're just not looking at it right.
 
triforcharity said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well not quite triforcharity. The base for the columns was section of steel laid horizontally in a pyramid and all encased in steel. That none of the vertical structural members were encased in steel, at least not above grade level, is true.
 
Java Man said:
Get serious. There's hardly any debris a block away, much less so damage. It fell perfectly on it's footprint. If you claim it didn't you're just not looking at it right.
Click to expand...

What was that big chunk sticking out of Banker's Trust? Why did a large portion of 30 West Broadway look so very different after the collapse of WTC 7? Why did both of these structures need to be torn down later? Because "hardly any debris" hit them?

Your definition of 'perfectly' must be rather different than any you might find in a dictionary. Given that the debris of each tower hit the other WTC strucures, WTC 3,4,5,and 6, and those structures were also damaged so severly that they had to be torn down, does that mean that WTC 3,4,5,and 6 were all within the 'footprint' of the towers"
 
Java Man said:
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.
Click to expand...

The many dogs that were there, trained to detect thermite, and explosives, disagree. Not to mention the fact that there were no explosions capable of cutting a core column reported, kinda stops your delusions in their tracks.
 
Java Man said:
Yup that pretty much sums up to falling on its footprint. Thanks for bringing up such a great photo that proves my point. Much welcomed.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely stupid. Do you know what a footprint is? Please post your definition of a footprint please.

Thanks.
 
Java Man said:
Get serious. There's hardly any debris a block away, much less so damage. It fell perfectly on it's footprint. If you claim it didn't you're just not looking at it right.
Click to expand...

Each tower was acre. The two towers were sort of centered in about 24 acres of open space and essentially all the debris landed in that open space.

whatever you want to call it, that's what happened.
 
triforcharity said:
The many dogs that were there, trained to detect thermite, and explosives, disagree. Not to mention the fact that there were no explosions capable of cutting a core column reported, kinda stops your delusions in their tracks.
Click to expand...

But maybe the walked the dogs around the columns from another building. I mean if trained engineers can't tell one from the other what hope is there for a K9 unit?

Regarding the cutting capability and column size. With all those changes and missing blueprints and not knowing which beam is which. Who knows what was in those buildings and where it ended up. You do have a point against the usage of explosives and the whole inside job. If the owners didn't quite have the blue prints and the engineers couldn't quite figure out which beam is which. What hope was there for an inside job!!!
 
Java Man said:
Get serious. There's hardly any debris a block away, much less so damage. It fell perfectly on it's footprint. If you claim it didn't you're just not looking at it right.
Click to expand...

There were big gaping holes in the buildings to the north, south and west of the WTC plaza. The holes were made by big beams tossed from the towers.

I don't recall damage to buildings to the east but I know a honking big beam landed in the street and penetrated into my subway tunnel.
 
triforcharity said:
This is absolutely stupid. Do you know what a footprint is? Please post your definition of a footprint please.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

My definition of the building footprint is the area encompassed between the paved streets. In the case of WTC it would be Vesey, Trinity, Liberty and West.
 
Java Man said:
Get serious. There's hardly any debris a block away, much less so damage. It fell perfectly on it's footprint. If you claim it didn't you're just not looking at it right.
Click to expand...

ok, so now that I know you either (A) did not look at the picture, or (B) have NO IDEA what the length of 200 feet looks like, I can honestly say that you must be a child, or simple. Which is it? That picture, easily, easily, show large piles of debris extending 400 - 500 feet in every direction or more.

Look at the size of the vehicles in comparison to the extent of the debris field for christs sake.

TAM
 
Java Man said:
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.
Click to expand...

There are a dozen reasons why we know that no demolition explosives were used at WTC.
 
triforcharity said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's actually another possibility. Although personally I don't believe that would have been necessary. The towers could have been rigged with explosives when they were constructed, but what is the shelf life for explosives? I doubt that they would replace explosives in the entire building from time to time. And I'm skeptical about some inside job project rigging every single floor with massive amounts of explosives. I believe the official story could be quite correct and that the buildings were on purpose designed to collapse like they did, straight down (I will not use the expression 'into their own footprints', since the debris was spread out on a much larger area than the towers' footprints ;)).
 
Java Man said:
My definition of the building footprint is the area encompassed between the paved streets. In the case of WTC it would be Vesey, Trinity, Liberty and West.
Click to expand...

Whhaaat?

No that might be described as the 'shadow' or 'vicinity'of the buildings or the area proximate to them, but their 'footprint' would be the surface area above which the building extends.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom