9/11 Bee dunkers are unclear: Did Building 7 crash into other buildings as it fell?

[Jackanory]

You sure do like shooting yourself in the footprint......er foot! Oh..........its 'design footprint' now. LOL. Is that common American terminology for the CD industry too?

Do you think that debris never falls outside of that area? Would demolitioners be shocked to see that a 47 storey building collapse fell outside of its design footprint?

Not at all. Limiting the area of debris/damage/infringement on others land is of paramount importance. The use of secondary safety devices such as barriers, netting and water cannon is common and a legal requirement. Surrounding drainage and water course systems, gas, electric systems are also covered----even though they may be outside immediate demolition area. Why do think thta is?

Debris outside of the buildings 'footprint' is guaranteed. Every time. Never has a demolition by explosives fallen within its own 'footprint' here in the UK. To say so would just be daft.

Nothing is perfect and less so with steel framed structures, which is why demolition companies dont use explosives to demolish them. They dismantle them. Concrete is much more predictable and often only requires enough charge to simply fracture. Gravity does the rest. Concrete tends to localise and absorb the blast wave because of its strength and the re bar is our friend in demolition of concrete construction as it continues to hold the mass together as it collapses. Steel framed buildings dont behave like that. Steel tends to carry the blast wave and subsequent vibrations to its weakest point and to areas in advance of wanting them. Not a very smart move when control is required.

 

[MRC_Hans]

@ Oystein

I'm pretty sure I've explained that a building descending symmetrically and as a whole, to the ground, as we see in all the videos, is another way of saying that it fell into its footprint, the way implosion experts try to get buildings to fall.

There is no possible way you can demolish or implode a building without having its debris spill outside the design footprint. You are reducing a tall vertical structure into a horizontal pile. Piles spread horizontally. No one can help that.

Footprint is a shorthand way of saying the building fell straight down vertically, piling on top of itself.

I think I now have explained it in every way humanly possible.

According to that definition, it would be fair to day that WTC7 fell in its own footprint, as indeed most collapsing buildings will do.

Hans

 

[Jackanory]

@ Oystein

I'm pretty sure I've explained that a building descending symmetrically and as a whole, to the ground, as we see in all the videos, is another way of saying that it fell into its footprint, the way implosion experts try to get buildings to fall.

There is no possible way you can demolish or implode a building without having its debris spill outside the design footprint. You are reducing a tall vertical structure into a horizontal pile. Piles spread horizontally. No one can help that.

Footprint is a shorthand way of saying the building fell straight down vertically, piling on top of itself.I think I now have explained it in every way humanly possible.

You sure have. 3 different senarios for 'footprint' .....in the same post? Remarkable.

 

[Oystein]

@ Oystein

I'm pretty sure I've explained that a building descending symmetrically and as a whole, to the ground, as we see in all the videos, is another way of saying that it fell into its footprint, the way implosion experts try to get buildings to fall.

There is no possible way you can demolish or implode a building without having its debris spill outside the design footprint. You are reducing a tall vertical structure into a horizontal pile. Piles spread horizontally. No one can help that.

Footprint is a shorthand way of saying the building fell straight down vertically, piling on top of itself.

I think I now have explained it in every way humanly possible.

I highlighted the things that are FALSE in your post.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Footprint is a shorthand way of saying the building fell straight down vertically, piling on top of itself.

Ah, at last we see ergo's core lie, the one he's been trying not to spell out for two threads.

Now, ergo, let's see how your "Footprint is a shorthand way of saying the building fell straight down vertically" stacks up against a quote from a real demolition professional.

Controlled Demolition Inc.

Mark Loizeaux, President of CDI, called the Hudson's project "the greatest dynamic-structural-control challenge the company had ever faced." CDI had to sever the steel in the columns and create a delay system which could simultaneously control the failure of the building's 12 different structural configurations, while trying to keep the hundreds of thousands of tons of debris within the 420 ft. by 220 ft. footprint of the structure.

So, for Loizeaux, the footprint is the size of the structure on the ground, not "a shorthand way of saying the building fell straight down vertically". Otherwise, the actual size of the footprint wouldn't matter.

Dave

 

[Edx]

The shoddily built Thai sweatshop is your shining example? That's kind of sad, but I already told you guys you could have that one.

It doesn't technically meet the requirements though. "Building 1" is one portion of the overall structure. It also wasn't a highrise. It was a large, poorly constructed industrial building.
.

You are wrong Ergo, because you got the truther talking point wrong.

The claim is not that no steel building has ever collapsed from fire. The claim is that no steel frame HIGH RISE has ever collapsed from fire before 911. This is defined by number of criteria, which is why NIST says the same thing (that I recall).

One time a truther went further than you and said no building ever collapsed from fire, that was funny.

 

[TruthersLie]

The shoddily built Thai sweatshop is your shining example? That's kind of sad, but I already told you guys you could have that one.

It doesn't technically meet the requirements though. "Building 1" is one portion of the overall structure. It also wasn't a highrise. It was a large, poorly constructed industrial building.


None of the steel had been fireproofed.

Wowsers...

Hey ergo.

in the caracas tower fire (you know the one you are trying to figure out why it didn't collapse), there was a partial collapse of the steel frame after it burned for hours.

The steel which collapsed was fireproofed.

oopsie... getting it again from that damn caracas tower..

I really must thank you for bringing that up. You make such a wonderful bee dunker.

 

[Jackanory]

@ Oystein

I'm pretty sure I've explained that a building descending symmetrically and as a whole, to the ground, as we see in all the videos, is another way of saying that it fell into its footprint, the way implosion experts try to get buildings to fall.

There is no possible way you can demolish or implode a building without having its debris spill outside the design footprint. You are reducing a tall vertical structure into a horizontal pile. Piles spread horizontally. No one can help that.

Footprint is a shorthand way of saying the building fell straight down vertically, piling on top of itself.

I think I now have explained it in every way humanly possible.

What cam first.........the 'footprint' or the egg?

What came first.......the 'footprint' or the 'CD'.

Did we find our 'footprint' in the sand before we discovered explosives.......or vise versa?

FOOTPRINT...........the print of our foot! Not the sand surrounding it!

Did the wicked witch of the North fall into her own 'footprint' in the Wizard of OZ? Or did she fall neatly within her footprint.

The arguement about 'footprint' stems back to some daft truther claims about all the debris falling inside a specific boundary. This didnt happen and never does. Extending that boundary as and when it suits is fine...........it still doesnt mean what ya think it means.

 

[Edx]

@ Oystein

I'm pretty sure I've explained that a building descending symmetrically and as a whole, to the ground, as we see in all the videos, is another way of saying that it fell into its footprint, the way implosion experts try to get buildings to fall.

There is no possible way you can demolish or implode a building without having its debris spill outside the design footprint. You are reducing a tall vertical structure into a horizontal pile. Piles spread horizontally. No one can help that.

Footprint is a shorthand way of saying the building fell straight down vertically, piling on top of itself.

I think I now have explained it in every way humanly possible.

So what if it didn't fall straight down, would that mean it wasn't a demolition?

What if it fell over like a tree, would that mean it wasn't a demolition?

NO.




-
So falling straight down is not an indicator of a demolition.

Falling in the footprint is not an indicator of a demolition either.

Ergo, (pun intended) you're wrong to use this as a indicator that the WTC had to be a demolition and it is wrong to suggest that if it fell outside the footprint or fell over that it wouldn't be.

Also, since they can make buildings fall over and according to truthers that's what the collapse of the WTC is more likely to look like if it was NOT a demolition, why didn't they?

 

[twinstead]

ergo I say give it up and start arguing LIHOP, if you just HAVE to have something to protest.

 

[TruthersLie]

How Stuff Works: Building Implosion

Where in here does it define the footprint as the area the building will collapse in? The area that includes all of the debris? Oh it doesn't.

and when you search for footprint, guess what you find?

The area of the base of the building.

oopsie.

Here is what YOUR OWN *********** ARTICLE SAYS

Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

hey... what is the footprint?

I love it when you screw yourself with your poor citations.

 

[TruthersLie]

Jackanory said that the demolition industry doesn't use the term.

The term as defined by your own source means

Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

Blasters approach each project a little differently, but the basic idea is to think of the building as a collection of separate towers. The blasters set the explosives so that each "tower" falls toward the center of the building, in roughly the same way that they would set the explosives to topple a single structure to the side. When the explosives are detonated in the right order, the toppling towers crash against each other, and all of the rubble collects at the center of the building. Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.

So the demolition term of a footprint, means the total area at the BASE OF THE BUILDING. thanks dee bunker.

So that means (according to your source) WTC7 didn't collapse into its own footprint...
So according to your source, there should be NOTHING outside the base of the building.

gee thanks. Way to go!!!!!

 

[TruthersLie]

What do you think demolitioners mean by "bringing a building down into its footprint"?

Gee... I wonder... I wish I had some citation...

Oh... lets look at that one you provided.

Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

Blasters approach each project a little differently, but the basic idea is to think of the building as a collection of separate towers. The blasters set the explosives so that each "tower" falls toward the center of the building, in roughly the same way that they would set the explosives to topple a single structure to the side. When the explosives are detonated in the right order, the toppling towers crash against each other, and all of the rubble collects at the center of the building. Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.

I wish I could find some sort of citation which explained what a footprint means in the demolitions industry....

 

[Jackanory]

The term as defined by your own source means



So the demolition term of a footprint, means the total area at the BASE OF THE BUILDING. thanks dee bunker.

So that means (according to your source) WTC7 didn't collapse into its own footprint...
So according to your source, there should be NOTHING outside the base of the building.

gee thanks. Way to go!!!!!

Whats the odds that 'TI' (TRUE IMPLOSION) will now replace the truther 'CD into its own footprint' stupid.

 

[TruthersLie]

Do you think that debris never falls outside of that area? Would demolitioners be shocked to see that a 47 storey building collapse fell outside of its design footprint?

It doesn't happen very often. When it does, the company responsible is usually sued out of existence.

So let me get this straight... because it falls down it "looks like CD."
becaue it is messy and strikes other buildings it makes it CD...

Gee... I just wish I could find any reference in demolitions citaitons which state what a footprint is....

 

[Jackanory]

ergo........has errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...............................gone!

 

[JerryGarcia]

It really is telling that the Truth Movement only has word games left in their arsenal.

 

[TruthersLie]

Ah, at last we see ergo's core lie, the one he's been trying not to spell out for two threads.

Now, ergo, let's see how your "Footprint is a shorthand way of saying the building fell straight down vertically" stacks up against a quote from a real demolition professional.

Controlled Demolition Inc.



So, for Loizeaux, the footprint is the size of the structure on the ground, not "a shorthand way of saying the building fell straight down vertically". Otherwise, the actual size of the footprint wouldn't matter.

Dave

Dave.

We need to be fully honest.

In the JL hudson implosion there was "debris" which were outside of the "footprint."

Here is the accounting of how massive this debris was, and the horrendous damage it did to the surrounding buildings.
(from your own source)

Pile up of debris during the fall of Hudson’s pushed four steel columns against and two columns over the post-tensioned concrete elevated People Mover Tramway near the south west corner of the structure. Cosmetic; minor structural and control cable/rail damage was found once the debris and protective cover was removed. Authorities hope repairs can begin during the two week down time previously scheduled for maintenance of the system to parallel the demolition of Hudson’s.

Yes... that was so catastrophic... it ranks right up there with Fiterman Hall, the verizion building. Anyone can see it.

YOu can even see it from these pictures.
http://www.aerialpics.com/C/hudsons.html

Take a look at that neat tidy pile (you can't copy, download or embed the images)... and how it obviously fell outside its footprint. We can see how it fell across all of the roads surrounding it. How the debris pile pushed out and struck the other buildings.

ETA: But I can imbed this one

Gee... we can see it obviously... fell in its own footprint... oopsie.

Here is the extent of the massive damages

wow... look at all that damage.....

 

[Edx]

The point is that debris in or out the "footprint" doesn't tell you if it was a demolition or not.

 

[twinstead]

The point is that debris in or out the "footprint" doesn't tell you if it was a demolition or not.

He knows that. Turning the argument in the direction he did was just a debate technique to keep from having to admit the debris path is inconclusive concerning CD, yet that is the only evidence he has.

In lieu of any corroborating evidence of CD, a rational person can only conclude it wasn't.