• 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:
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...

Yes that is the ideal. In practise an actual CD allows for small amounts of debris and of course dust, to fall outside the footprint of the structure and in many cases the building is brought down into an open area next to but obviously outside, the footprint of the structure. But in NO CD whatsover is the intent of the CD to bring down the structure in such a way as to cause severe damage to other nearby structures, ie. WTC 3,4,5,6,Banker's Trust and 30 West Broadway or any of the other myriad other structures that suffered repairable damage.
 
T.A.M. said:
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.
TAM
Click to expand...

building-demolition.jpg


Notice how much wider the pile is than the original building (footprint).
 
Java Man said:
Yea, I'm sure they do.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2010/07/11/edmonton-mayfair-hotel-collapse.html
Click to expand...

I know you are not dumb (or at least you don't seem it) so I know you really didn't just post an example of a CD that didn't go the way they wanted. As an example of what?

are you arguing with me just to argue now?

FOR ****S SAKE...I was not saying that EVERY SINGLE CD IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND falls only into its own footprint...

JESUS H CHRIST!!!!!

TAM:crowded::jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp
 
Java Man said:
[qimg]http://www.orangeandbluehue.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/building-demolition.jpg[/qimg]

Notice how much wider the pile is than the original building (footprint).
Click to expand...

You are just making a fool of yourself now. The attempt of a CD is to limit the debris pile to as close as you can to the buildings footprint.

Is that a better definition for you? Do you understand what I am saying now???

Stop digging while you can sir.

TAM
 
T.A.M. said:
You are just making a fool of yourself now. The attempt of a CD is to limit the debris pile to as close as you can to the buildings footprint.

Is that a better definition for you? Do you understand what I am saying now???

Stop digging while you can sir.

TAM
Click to expand...

Yes, do you? The WTC towers were 400+m high. And the most they did was "repairable" damage to buildings across the street. And did so mainly on the lower floors. That's an incredible amount of luck considering there was enough energy in the collapse equivalent to a small tactical nuke.
 
BigAl said:
Irrelevant. There was no explosive demolition at WTC.
Click to expand...

Who mentioned explosives? We're talking about falling into the footprint of a building which has already been proven time and time again can happen without explosives.
 
Java Man said:
Yes, do you? The WTC towers were 400+m high. And the most they did was "repairable" damage to buildings across the street. And did so mainly on the lower floors. That's an incredible amount of luck considering there was enough energy in the collapse equivalent to a small tactical nuke.
Click to expand...

What point are you trying to make?
 
Java Man said:
Who mentioned explosives? We're talking about falling into the footprint of a building which has already been proven time and time again can happen without explosives.
Click to expand...

What point are you trying to make?
 
They fell outside their footprint, genius! You're arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin because your argument is even though the debris is clearly outside the footprint, it's close enough to be in their footprint (by your definition).

You're claiming two diametrically opposed positions at the same time!
 
fitzgibbon said:
They fell outside their footprint, genius! You're arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin because your argument is even though the debris is clearly outside the footprint, it's close enough to be in their footprint (by your definition).

You're claiming two diametrically opposed positions at the same time!
Click to expand...

Did they? Or did they just flow outside the footprint area after the pileup was so great it would no longer fit. Leading it to "pour out" a bit.
 
Java Man said:
Did they? Or did they just flow outside the footprint area after the pileup was so great it would no longer fit. Leading it to "pour out" a bit.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should do your research and ascertain whether the bits that 'poured out' we just top bits from the WTC. And of course, we have the problematic issue of the damage to WTC7. I think that definitely qualifies as "outside the footprint". How do we explain that?

But hey....what would I know? I'm not an architect. Mayhap as I don't really know what a footprint is.
 
fitzgibbon said:
Perhaps you should do your research and ascertain whether the bits that 'poured out' we just top bits from the WTC. And of course, we have the problematic issue of the damage to WTC7. I think that definitely qualifies as "outside the footprint". How do we explain that?

But hey....what would I know? I'm not an architect. Mayhap as I don't really know what a footprint is.
Click to expand...

Well for starters given there were no explosives what would give the beams enough lateral speed to make if fly hundreds of feet to the side as some here would like to make the claim of the so called "debris field".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom