World record for a high-rise steel structure for CD is...

[Oliver]

If you are referring to the test done recently in Glasgow, that was to test fire behaviour, not building collapses.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5216788.stm

Ops, i reminded it the wrong way - i hear to much about CD´s...
I think this is the project i remind - did you hear something about
the progress - are the tests over?

Regards,
Oliver

 

[Gravy]

Jowenko also explains that you don't need to apply charges on all levels, with a cutting torch you can burn them V-shaped and they are loose on top of each other. Never knew those CD techniques, I always thought you place charges on all carrying points and in fact start to blast below, if a floor then sags in and the next floor is at bottom level you repeat the procedure, your cables should not break then because then you can't reach the next level. In fact that is then a demolition wave from bottom to top with a speed that behaves like free-fall but then in opposite direction.

ps. mr Jowenko thinks that you can do it in 7 hours in that chaotic day,

While the building is fully occupied, basement to roof, prior to the second plane strike, while the OEM bunker is active prior to the mandatory evacuation order, while a triage station is active in the loading dock and lobby, while evacuations are underway and the building is searched several times for stragglers, while the towers are collapsing and slamming the building with debris, causing massive structural damage, while unbreathable dust and smoke fill the air, while rescue operations are underway for people trapped in the building, while the FDNY did recon inside the building and attempted to fight it outside, while fires raged uncontrolled on many floors and engulfed the entire building in thick smoke, while the building was under close observation by numerous FDNY personnel?

What do you think, einsteen? Honestly, what do you think? When did this crew of invisible superdemolishers operate?

he also mentions the Silverstein "pull it", if this Silverstein movie is out of context I would be interested in the complete movie.

Here's the quote:

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." –Larry Silverstein

What do you mean about being out of context?

 

[einsteen]

I've seen all the quotes and seen the debunking site, that explains more than that short Silverstein interview, the interview itself can be interpretated wrong, but then I'm interested in the complete movie if there is one, that would be a better debunking. If it is copy paste work the original should be available.

And about the collapse, what is the alternative Gravy?

- it collapsed spontaneously
- magic explosives already within

The building had relatively a few columns, please watch the videos.

And what do you mean with invisible superdemolishers, in the other thread you said that a lot of CD experts were on the scene. The building was also completely evacuated, furthermore a FEMA quote: "the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence"

 

[Gravy]

I've seen all the quotes and seen the debunking site, that explains more than that short Silverstein interview, the interview itself can be interpretated wrong, but then I'm interested in the complete movie if there is one, that would be a better debunking. If it is copy paste work the original should be available.

What in the world is there to explain or debunk? The quote is all you need. What is the issue, einsteen? How can any rational person interpret Silverstein's quote as the CTs do? That's an honest question. Do you have a rational explanation that would support a CT point of view, and include motive?

And about the collapse, what is the alternative Gravy?

- it collapsed spontaneously
- magic explosives already within

(Sigh.) So we're starting at square one again? No progress at all? Okay, what about the damage and fires in WTC 7 do you have an issue with?

The building had relatively a few columns, please watch the videos.

Wait...there are videos? Oh, man, why have I been spending all my spare time reading 14,000 pages of testimony from the people who were involved when there are videos????

And what do you mean with invisible superdemolishers, in the other thread you said that a lot of CD experts were on the scene. The building was also completely evacuated, furthermore a FEMA quote: "the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence"

Ho-lee Moses. The CD experts were on the perimeter of the collapse zone, not inside planting explosives. Did you not read the information I've provided more than once? The building was not completely evacuated until mid-afternoon. Have you read the NIST interim report on WTC 7, which I asked you to do? If so, what issues do you have with it?

And how many times do I have to ask you the same questions, einsteen? Honestly, how many times? Just tell me and I'll post the questions that many times in a single post. It will save us all a lot of time.

The following is posted for the second time. Is anything unclear about it, einsteen?

While the building is fully occupied, basement to roof, prior to the second plane strike, while the OEM bunker is active prior to the mandatory evacuation order, while a triage station is active in the loading dock and lobby, while evacuations are underway and the building is searched several times for stragglers, while the towers are collapsing and slamming the building with debris, causing massive structural damage, while unbreathable dust and smoke fill the air, while rescue operations are underway for people trapped in the building, while the FDNY did recon inside the building and attempted to fight it outside, while fires raged uncontrolled on many floors and engulfed the entire building in thick smoke, while the building was under close observation by numerous FDNY personnel?

You are perilously close to the exit where TruthSeeker1234 and Christophera got off.

 

[Toro]

Read the article about the Hudson's implosion, and was struck by this information (bolding mine)



So, you math folks who love Story problems, if 12 people take 24 days to wire a building for demolition, how many people will you need to wire a building three times the size over a weekend? And how many charges will you need?

Nice find, MarkyX.

That is exactly what I thought when I read it.

 

[einsteen]

Sorry Grav, I mean the long version of the interview in which they show him the official reports.
Let's forget about Silverstein and consider this unique event.
Let's admit that this spontaneous collapse is absolutely not plausible, improbable, unlikely, the first and only
steel-framed building in history that collapses like a CD and probably the last one. Then there are two things
you can do, swallow it or reject it.

 

[HeyLeroy]

Hooray for critical thinking.

I decided to do a bit of an investigation on the controlled demolition by doing something simple: Find out what is the tallest building ever taken down by controlled demolition.

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=4

The WTC 1 & 2 were 3.1 Times taller.

Wtc7 was 1.46 times taller.

And this is the world record we are talking about.

You can stack three Hudson Department building stores on top of each other and you will still not match up to the sheer height of the WTC 1 and 2.

How is this evidence against the CD theory? NO ONE knows how a building that tall will act because nothing like it has EVER been done. But we are to believe that it took a weekend to rig a huge building and a bunch of angry white guys with mid-80s IQ can spot it over demolition contracts, even though something this tall has never been done in demolition history?

Just a little bit of logic to hurt 'em more with.

I watched that demo with my own three eyes, from across the Detroit river. It looked nothing at all like the collapses of the WTC towers. It started at the bottom.

Here's the video.

good work. too bad it will fall on totally deaf ears. i mean if you are willing to accept that the govt would even want to commit an act that could kill 10s of thousands of americans, then why would you think it was too much to ask to blow up buildings three times higher than any previous CDs?

besides, the gubmnt has technologies way beyond what the lowley CD techs have. i reckon the military would pop a zit on your forehead from space if they needed to...

Oh, yeah, the Republican Elite Tactical Commando Hitsquad has capabilities that would boggle your mind. But if you learned about them, they'd hafta kill you.

Well heck, if the Hudson Building demo is relevant, let’s recall that it wasn’t as controlled as people hoped. The Detroit People Mover, an elevated train that runs past the site, was damaged and put out of commission for some time. Falling debris, y’know.

So WTC7 could very well have been brought down by wreckage even from a “controlled demo” of the two towers. No additional bombs or “thermate” or anything else needed.

Or am I getting various CTs mixed up? If so, good; I’d worry if they started making any kind of sense to me.

Oh, that's no proof. The People Mover always had trouble. Not long after it was built, chunks o' concrete spontaneously fell off of it. People sure moved then!

 

[Gravy]

Let's forget about Silverstein

ABSOLUTELY NOT. Let's remember how his name is constantly libeled and slandered by people like you. State your objections to his quote, and provide a rational explanation for the CD claim that takes motive into account, or admit you cannot.

and consider this unique event.

And consider this unique event: earlier I asked you to give examples of skyscrapers that suffered similar structural damage and similar uncontrolled fires. What are they?

You're playing games and refusing to answer direct questions, einsteen, and that's uncalled for. You don't really want to be in the same league as TruthSeeker1234, do you?

Let's admit that this spontaneous collapse is absolutely not plausible, improbable, unlikely, the first and only steel-framed building in history that collapses like a CD and probably the last one. Then there are two things you can do, swallow it or reject it.

LET'S ADMIT? No, einsteen, your claim is completely absurd, and you have provided no evidence that supports it. Nor have you made any effort to refute the large amount of evidence I've provided.

SPONTANEOUS COLLAPSE? Quiz for you: how many quotes, by how many people who were on the scene, do I have that illustrate the damage, fires, and pull back orders at WTC 7? Take a guess.

 

[HeyLeroy]

(snip)
Let's admit that this spontaneous collapse is absolutely not plausible, improbable, unlikely, the first and only
steel-framed building in history that collapses like a CD and probably the last one. Then there are two things
you can do, swallow it or reject it.

Umm, how can you say the collapses were spontaneous when they were hit with 300,000 POUND FRICKIN' PLANES???

Has that somewhat minor detail somehow eluded you?

 

[HeyLeroy]

Gravy, I really must commend you. I'd have thrown my hands up in disgust a long time ago.

Your tenacity is commendable, sir.

It's a sad state of affairs when these nutters can deny such mountains of evidence because they need a little attention.

 

[Hyver]

I watched that demo with my own three eyes, from across the Detroit river. It looked nothing at all like the collapses of the WTC towers. It started at the bottom.

Here's the video.

That was freaking cool!

 

[Gravy]

Gravy, I really must commend you. I'd have thrown my hands up in disgust a long time ago.

Thanks. I save on all that up and down hubbub by keeping my hands up all the time now. Thank goodness for wireless keyboards. Catholics think they're being blessed when I pass.

 

[HeyLeroy]

That warranted an honest laugh. I can be here for a bit of humourous sarcasticality in the way of support. if you need a shoulder-rub, however, you'll hafta call someone else.

You and MarkyX have way more patience for calling these mouth-breathers onto the carpet, but did you happen to watch that video clip from the website to which MarkyX linked? (I put up the link to the actual clip)

The collapses look markedly different, if that's any help.

I was there, albeit a mile away across the Detroit river from the Hudson bldg, and the way those towers collapsed (at least from the non-stop video footage I saw) appeared to be a completely different type of event, physically.

Cheers, and keep up the good work, sir.

 

[einsteen]

And consider this unique event: earlier I asked you to give examples of skyscrapers that suffered similar structural damage and similar uncontrolled fires. What are they?

gravy, I admit there is nothing we can use to compare this building, we can only use other buildings in the environment, I can show a lot of pictures with buildings that even have more damage and those didn't collapse, why are there no testimonies about those buildings ?

If at this stage the FEMA is not sure and NIST doesn't give it priority and there are also experts that say things like "would stand guaranteed" and it would greatly astonish me, also the Spanish professor doing the fire experiment wouldn't expect it.

 

[einsteen]

Umm, how can you say the collapses were spontaneous when they were hit with 300,000 POUND FRICKIN' PLANES???

Has that somewhat minor detail somehow eluded you?

hey Leroy, totally irrelevant for wtc7, that was due to fire and damage. A burning part should be ejected from one of the twin towers 600-700 feet far away. Indeed things were ejected so far, but this one should also burn then. It almost looks like a domino effect of collapsing towers.

 

[HeyLeroy]

hey Leroy, totally irrelevant for wtc7, that was due to fire and damage. A burning part should be ejected from one of the twin towers 600-700 feet far away. Indeed things were ejected so far, but this one should also burn then. It almost looks like a domino effect of collapsing towers.

So you concede that WTC7 was destroyed due to 'fire and damage', thank-you.

What was the item (part) that should have been ejected 600-700 feet away, and from which tower, as you claim? Why 'should' it have been on fire, as you claim?

What were the items that were ejected 600-700 feet away, as you claim?

Do you not believe that falling dominos knock each other down?

Was WTC7 on fire while the supposed demolition charges were being planted?

Am I merely risking tendinitis, as I suspect Gravy is, by typing these very basic questions, or do you intend on replying with some semi-lucid, cogent responses?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Read the article about the Hudson's implosion, and was struck by this information (bolding mine)

CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition

So, you math folks who love Story problems, if 12 people take 24 days to wire a building for demolition, how many people will you need to wire a building three times the size over a weekend? And how many charges will you need?

Nice find, MarkyX.

That's not all, Hutch. If you read down rfurther in the article you find:

Homrich/NASDI’s 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI’s implosion design.

This appears to be in addition to the work mentioned in your quote.

And of course that doesn't take into account all the work necessary to HIDE the charges and the wires once it's all in place.

The controlled demo that the tinfoilers describe simply cannot have been done. It's just not possible.

 

[einsteen]

I can not give those answers, if wtc7 collapsed as a result of fire and damage that must be caused by wtc1 and wtc2 debris,
it is not needed for the debris to be on fire, that could be caused by the impact, maybe a gas explosion.
If you check the pictures of the fires at wtc7
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7/fire.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7northface.html
they look localized and if you check the fires in the other buildings wtc #5 for example
http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/wtc2.html
it looks similar. Do you expect me to give an answer how to cut some columns in the basement during that day?
but what the CD experts say is that you can implode or topple buildings. The damage was asymmetrical and the implosion
was... Each day I become more skeptical to swallow this b_u_l_l, I almost have to puke but I'm still open-minded, if they
show their math I will be the first one to read it.

 

[Peephole]

If you check the pictures of the fires at wtc7http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7northface.html
they look localized and if you check the fires in the other buildings wtc

Check again.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

 

[aggle-rithm]

My brother is a civil engineer, a fact that may or may not be relevant. When I was visiting him a few years ago I asked about a skyscraper that had been damaged by a tornado and had been vacant for a couple of years. He said they were planning on demolishing it -- but as tall as it was (36 stories) and as close as it was to other buildings, implosion was not considered safe. Therefore, they were going to dismantle the building, floor by floor, from the top down.

As it turned out, it was cheaper to refurbish the building and convert it into condos than to demolish it, so it's still there. That may explain why you don't see too many controlled demolitions of skyscrapers.