• 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:
Really, then how do you explain lack of serious damage on the upper half of the building you showed us? A big cloud falling would have damaged the building from the top down, not just the lower half.
Click to expand...

Please show me the location of that building on a map. Then you may understand. But, then again, HI, you are a truther.......
 
triforcharity said:
Really? Only enough to cross the street? Tell that to the people of Lower Manhattan, who were not allowed to return to the area, due to the fact that crap was everywhere.
Click to expand...

Me tell them? Why? It was you who brought the whole 16 acre thing. Apparently without realizing that's about the area encompassed by the four surrounding streets. How much did you think 16 acres were? All lower Manhattan? How much were you expecting that number to impress us?

I'm sure there was dust and "crap" as you say all over the place. But here you are trying to "impress" us with your 16 acre argument without actually realizing how little 16 acres in in the context of the superstructure the WTC was.
 
16 acres is roughly 8x the footprints of the two towers combined...if we are to take the the numbers provided, I believe, by jay earlier, of 1 acre coverage per tower...that is a lot of area outside the footprints....don't you think?
 
triforcharity said:
Please show me the location of that building on a map. Then you may understand. But, then again, HI, you are a truther.......
Click to expand...

Due south of the WTC complex. Lat-Long: 40.709725,-74.013297

Sorry, with minutes and seconds : +40° 42' 34.81", -74° 0' 47.24"
 
Last edited:
T.A.M. said:
16 acres is roughly 8x the footprints of the two towers combined...if we are to take the the numbers provided, I believe, by jay earlier, of 1 acre coverage per tower...that is a lot of area outside the footprints....don't you think?
Click to expand...

Yea, but still not enough to cross the street. So although it might sound impressive it's not big enough to reach anything half a block away.
 
actually, the footprints of the towers was, almost exactly 1 acre, at 43,000 sq feet...so yes, the 16 acres you belittle, is actually 800% the size of the footprints combined.

TAM:)
 
Java Man said:
Really, then how do you explain lack of serious damage on the upper half of the building you showed us? A big cloud falling would have damaged the building from the top down, not just the lower half.
Click to expand...

WTC 3 Marriott


WTC 4
wtc4outline.jpg


WTC 5

WTC 6
921pic08.jpg


All of the above:
200307wtc6and7aerial.jpg


Java Man said:
Really, then how do you explain abundance of serious damage on the upper half of the building you showed us? A big cloud falling would have damaged the building from the top down, not just the lower half.
Click to expand...
ftfy
falling debris
 
Last edited:
T.A.M. said:
actually, the footprints of the towers was, almost exactly 1 acre, at 43,000 sq feet...so yes, the 16 acres you belittle, is actually 800% the size of the footprints combined.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

And that compared to the average debris area of a controlled demolition is?
 
Java Man said:
And that compared to the average debris area of a controlled demolition is?
Click to expand...

HUGE. Considering that the goal of a CD is not to damage other buildings, and , IIRC, 18 buildings within the area received damage directly from falling debris.
 
triforcharity said:
HUGE. Considering that the goal of a CD is not to damage other buildings, and , IIRC, 18 buildings within the area received damage directly from falling debris.
Click to expand...

Numeric values and a reference would be better. Otherwise you're no better than a truther blowing hot gas out an orifice.
 
Depends n the size of the building, what type of building, how the building falls, what obstacles were in the way, etc, etc, etc......
 
T.A.M. said:
Raise your fist above a big mac. Let your fist fall and hit the big mac sandwich. Do the contents between the buns simply get compressed into the bottom bun, or do they get EJECTED LATERALLY out from the bun?
Click to expand...

I do like this, though. This is almost the exact same analogy I used with a "debunker" regarding the ability of layers of rubble to maintain vertical integrity when being crushed between the invisible upper blocks and the rest of the intact building. In my example, it was a tall sandwich with many layers and ingredients. What happens to the contents? Do they get EJECTED LATERALLY from between the two compressing forces? Or do they pummel through the lower portion of the sandwich (while remaining intact themselves) turning it all into a sticky mess on the plate?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom