• 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

BigAl said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point. And most buildings have damage in the lower floors. The elevated part of Liberty going over West is undamaged.
 
T.A.M. said:
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
Click to expand...

TAM, it obviously took 'hardy any debris' to gouge out a corner of WTC 7 500 feet away and obviously a 'footprint' includes area within 50% of the height of an object.:D
 
jaydeehess said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well obviously if there is no street going behind a building, but rather another building that would be part of the footprint. I take it you limit the footprint to only the "roofed" part of the building.
 
As a matter of fact, not only does the debris field extend WELL beyond the foot print of each building, it actually extends, beyond the foot print of the entire WTC complex...past all the streets surrounding it.

Java, are you sure you looked at the same photo?

You do realize the WTCs were only 2 of the buildings in the complex, right?

TAM:)
 
Java Man said:
Well obviously if there is no street going behind a building, but rather another building that would be part of the footprint. I take it you limit the footprint to only the "roofed" part of the building.
Click to expand...

What part of "'footprint' would be the surface area above which the building extends. " did you have trouble with?

Roof? no, in many structures the roof area is much less than the area at the base(check Empire State Building for eg., thus my definition as I wrote it still stands.
 
Last edited:
Java Man said:
well that's what comes up on the map. It's the tunnel like structure leading up to the two octagonal ( with circular roof ) buildings at the top of your image.
Click to expand...

"My" image? No.

What is your point, anyway?
 
T.A.M. said:
As a matter of fact, not only does the debris field extend WELL beyond the foot print of each building, it actually extends, beyond the foot print of the entire WTC complex...past all the streets surrounding it.

Java, are you sure you looked at the same photo?

You do realize the WTCs were only 2 of the buildings in the complex, right?

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Yes I'm sure we are looking at the same photo. I'm also sure some debris got thrown outside the general grounds of the WTC, but they "crossed the street" at best.

Had the building not fallen on it's footprint, but rather toppled over, I'm sure you can see it could have very well reached into Battery Park had it fallen that way. Reached the river had it fallen that way. Or fallen right on top of City Hall.
 
A BUILDING FOOTPRINT is the area under the roof...simple as that.

TAM:)
 
Java Man said:
Yes I'm sure we are looking at the same photo. I'm also sure some debris got thrown outside the general grounds of the WTC, but they "crossed the street" at best.

Had the building not fallen on it's footprint, but rather toppled over, I'm sure you can see it could have very well reached into Battery Park had it fallen that way. Reached the river had it fallen that way. Or fallen right on top of City Hall.
Click to expand...

So, your definition of footprint means that if it did not topple over like a tree then it fell in its own footprint?

That there proves the "absolutely stupid" reference once again.
 
jaydeehess said:
So, your definition of footprint means that if it did not topple over like a tree then it fell in its own footprint?

That there proves the "absolutely stupid" reference once again.
Click to expand...

Well if it didn't fall on its footprint and it didn't topple over. How would you define and name the fall?

For that matter do any CD buildings NOT fall on their footprint? Not that I'm saying that WTC was a CD. Just for the sake of definition and in the case of a CD. Isn't the purpose of a CD to bring the building down on its own footprint and then can it be stated that in a CD not a single piece of rubble falls outside what once was covered by the roof?
 
I would define and name the pile as "A Big *********** PILE OF DEBRIS"

Why does the debris pile need to be defined or name?

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...

According to your link they were looking over every piece of steel, so they could determine where it came from. Even if they could not determine where it came from, each piece was reviewed. Kind of puts a dent in your "explosives" theory.
 
Java Man said:
Well if it didn't fall on its footprint and it didn't topple over. How would you define and name the fall?

For that matter do any CD buildings NOT fall on their footprint? Not that I'm saying that WTC was a CD. Just for the sake of definition and in the case of a CD. Isn't the purpose of a CD to bring the building down on its own footprint and then can it be stated that in a CD not a single piece of rubble falls outside what once was covered by the roof?
Click to expand...

Classic CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS fall closer to their own foot print, much closer, then the WTCs collapses did...that is for freaking sure. However, even they are not perfect. The object of the CONTROLLED Demolition is to control where the debris falls, as much as you can, to limit damage to nearby structures...did you see any limiting of damage to nearby structures in that photo?

TAM
 
Java Man said:
Well if it didn't fall on its footprint and it didn't topple over. How would you define and name the fall?

For that matter do any CD buildings NOT fall on their footprint? Not that I'm saying that WTC was a CD. Just for the sake of definition and in the case of a CD. Isn't the purpose of a CD to bring the building down on its own footprint and then can it be stated that in a CD not a single piece of rubble falls outside what once was covered by the roof?
Click to expand...

I said "'footprint' would be the surface area above which the building extends. " and TAM's defintion said "A building footprint is the outline of the total area of a lot or site that is surrounded by the exterior walls of a building or portion of a building, exclusive of courtyards. " which means that in a structure where the exterior walls all go in a straight verticcal line from ground to roof top then 'under the roof ' would be accurate.

It was a 'collapse' which does not require a toppling nor that the debris fall within the aforedescribed footprint.

Other structures have collapsed and had their debris extend outside their actul footprint without toppling over.

Is English your first language?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom