• 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:
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.
Click to expand...

Just a simple question for you java

You use the term footprint.

Now architecturally a buildings footprint is the area within its base.

We can see from the images that the debris are not within the base of the buildings. If they fell into their own footprint, then there would be no damage to surrounding buildings.

that would be 16 acres of debris and damage to surrounding buildings.

So we can agree that the towers didn't collapse into their architectural footprint. Correct?

Good.

You then go on to say that YOU define the footprint as including the streets around the buildings. Ok. That is a personal definition, which is not supported in any engineering or architectural texts, but I'll run with it.

The towers still managed to collapse OUTSIDE of that footprint and damage adjacent buildings

You then go on to say, well duh, since they were 110 stories, they would. BUT they didn't MAINLY collapse outside of the footprint, just parts of them.

Now here is the issue. Words have power. Precise words have precise meanings. In architectural and engineering terms, we can see that the towers collapsed outside of their one acre footprints. No matter how you want to semantically handwave it away, they did.

Even by your definition of a "footprint" they STILL did.

So please stop using the wrong terminology. Call it a collapse zone, call it a debris pile whatever, but stop using the wrong terminology.

P.s. under your definition, then wtc7 most definately didn't collapse into its "footprint" (by either definition) as it struck two adjacent buildings (which were across the street) including striking fiterman hall on the roof.
 
ergo said:
... of a structure that is 110 storeys tall.

Sorry. Two structures, 110 storeys tall.
Click to expand...

Well then since no building that size has ever been CDed it would be hard to speculate.

As they would have to dismantle the entire structure due to the massive amount of underground building which CD would destroy

Yet the largest CD ever, did not strike the adjacent buildings, or buildings across the street.

WE have had this discussion before, and school is still in session if you want.

p.s. have you figured out how to use a stop watch yet? Have you found me a citation for a "collapse" footprint?
 
ergo said:
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?
Click to expand...

I think both occur, to be quite honest. I think the vast majority of material, particular the material with more mass, continue to fall mostly vertical (the fist shall we say), but there is a significant amount I am guessing, lighter material, that is ejected laterally...but I am not an engineer or physicist, so I am only speculating.

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

I still don't know why I should care about labels ("inside","outside").

The pile is what it is, or was what it was. Deal with it. Don't label it and then argue over the label.
 
TruthersLie said:
Just a simple question for you java

You use the term footprint.

Now architecturally a buildings footprint is the area within its base.
Click to expand...

Yes, so lets use the stricter definition used by you instead of the more relaxed definition used by me which encompasses the area within the streets.

TruthersLie said:
We can see from the images that the debris are not within the base of the buildings.
Click to expand...

That is pretty clear and I agree with it. A great deal of debris did find their final resting place well outside the footprint. But did they fall there from the heavens or did they pour outward like sand in an hour glass?

Considering the height of the WTC 1 and 2 towers compared to the surrounding building it is clear to see that the debris did not fall from the heavens straight on the building. They began to pile up and bounce outward causing the damage to the lower floors of the surrounding buildings.

I won't deny that a rogue piece of steel or two could have bounced outward during the last seconds of the fall. And that a lot of dust and small particles were projected outward.

But to say that great steel beams did not fall vertically down on their footprint is to say that something gave them enough energy to fly outward many hundred yards to fall acres away. Since we know that there were no explosives there's clearly not enough energy sources to project that material outward any significant amount of distance.

Given the enormous amount of energy when reaching the floor it is understandable that there as debris pile up, some begin to bounce outward as they hit the pile and pour outward (thus explaining the damage to the lower parts of the surrounding buildings, which have minimal damage in the upper floors and rooftop). In that sense the towers did not find their resting place on the footprint, but rather on a wider area. But to claim that some piece of steel from floor 89 flew out and landed straight from heaven hundreds of yards away is to imply explosives.

So without any source of energy to project material outward at a significant speed the only way the building has to go is straight down. And what's straight down? It's footprint.
 
triforcharity said:
BZZZZTTTT!!! Wrong.

Try again.
Click to expand...

Well last time I saw pictures of it it had some sheets over it as if work was being done. The building is still there, isn't it? Maybe it hasn't been restored completely. Can you tell us what happened?
 
Java Man said:
Well last time I saw pictures of it it had some sheets over it as if work was being done. The building is still there, isn't it? Maybe it hasn't been restored completely. Can you tell us what happened?
Click to expand...

Why are people that are unfamiliar with WTC the same people that argue that something other than 2 airplane collisions caused all the death and destruction?

There is no "eyewitnesses for truth". You should ask yourself why.
 
Java Man said:
Well last time I saw pictures of it it had some sheets over it as if work was being done. The building is still there, isn't it? Maybe it hasn't been restored completely. Can you tell us what happened?
Click to expand...

It is being dismantled. Your Google must be broken.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/nyregion/07deutsche.html

http://open.salon.com/blog/mahabarb..._bones_demolishing_the_deutsche_bank_building

http://www.lowermanhattan.info/construction/project_updates/130_liberty_street__77170.aspx

Yeah, that was hard......
 
This is how it could have been done:

98771481.jpg


WTCcolumnCuts.jpg


Photo from: http://www.journalof911studies.com/...rldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf
 
Anders Lindman said:
This is how it could have been done:

[qimg]http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/1323/98771481.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Vao03gp7oC0/Rqx9k79RXfI/AAAAAAAAAA8/hB0tGwFV6jg/s400/WTCcolumnCuts.jpg[/qimg]

Photo from: http://www.journalof911studies.com/...rldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf
Click to expand...

And none of the thousands of people involved; designers, suppliers , construction crew and inspectors noticed!

There were no demolition explosions at WTC.
 
Last edited:
BigAl said:
And none of the thousands of people involved; designers, suppliers , construction crew and inspectors noticed!

There were no demolition explosions at WTC.
Click to expand...

What explosives? They didn't need any explosives for the core columns. The explosives in the basements was all that was needed (plus the Thermite on a few floors higher up of course, but not for the core columns).
 
Anders Lindman said:
What explosives? They didn't need any explosives for the core columns. The explosives in the basements was all that was needed (plus the Thermite on a few floors higher up of course, but not for the core columns).
Click to expand...

There were no demolition explosives at WTC on 9/11.
 
BigAl said:
So now you are a steelworker?
Click to expand...

They could only have used torches for the steel work post-collapse. Anything else would have been impractical for cutting through such thick steel manually. I'm guessing, but tell me if I'm wrong.
 
Anders Lindman said:
They could only have used torches for the steel work post-collapse. Anything else would have been impractical for cutting through such thick steel manually. I'm guessing, but tell me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

So now you are a steelworker?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom