ATTN: WTC 7 Did NOT Fall Into Its Own Footprint

[Bolo Boffin]

Please revise your websites, your rhetoric, and spread the word around.

I demand footprint falling from my buildings that fall into their footprints. You should too.

[Ezlivin]

1. Close enough for government work

The only thing I demand is an open, honest and thorough investigation.

[Bolo Boffin]

4. No, not even that.

See all of that debris on the other building?

I demand footprint falling from my buildings that "fall into their footprint". You should, too, in the interest in truth-seeking.

[mindy11]

7. definately not in its 'footprint'

Here you can see more how WTC7 fell all over the place. It came down and spread up and down the block making a huge mess on all the streets north and south, east and west. There's nothing that looks like a footprint here:

[mirandapriestly]

102. LOL.welcome to DU!eom

[Bolo Boffin]

105. Um, miranda?

mindy11? Long banned for being a disrupter.

But hey! Your welcoming of obvious disrupters is duly noted.

[JackRiddler]

66. Wow!

Your picture clearly shows 90+ percent of the mass forming a hill within the literal footprint of the building walls. Scattered debris covers the (narrow) adjacent street and some hit the building opposite. How much of this fell from the building as opposed to sliding on to the street after the fall is unclear.

So what does "in the footprint" really mean? Can you show a CD of a building of more than 10 stories that left a tidier pile than this? (I guess not, since the vast majority of CD photos show substantial tipping, unlike WTC 7, CD or not.) At what pct. of the mass outside the walls is a CD no longer considered "in the footprint"?

[Ferry Fey]

12. What's the usual margin of error in demolitions?

How would the demolition industry define something falling into its own footprint?

Surely there must be a usual margin of error for that definition. Some factor that has to do with the height, the density, the percentage which lands within X feet of the exterior walls, that sort of thing.

The fitting of a "footprint" as used in the context of 9/11 is not a term defined by anyone discussing it in a 9/11 context. Is it used by those professionals in the demolition industry, and how would they define it?

And if we had that definition, do we actually have any authoritative description of the WTC7 debris field, that would quantify how much debris is where?

I don't think that photo allows you to claim the issue closed.

[bushatbooker]

2. Is Barclay St to the north of the 7?

[Bolo Boffin]

3. Yes, it is.

Imagine what Vesey looked like. It had debris from 7, 1, 5, and 6.

[bushatbooker]

5. It looks like more of the 7 fell north than south, right?

[Bolo Boffin]

11. It's really hard to judge how much is on Vesey from this pic.

You can see quite a lot of debris on Vesey, but you can't really gauge depth there.

Gee, I don't think a controlled demolition would have neatly put debris all over the other buildings like that.

[bushatbooker]

39. Well it's interesting that it looks like it fell to the North more

after all you skeptics made such a big deal about all the facade damage to its South face.

[Bolo Boffin]

42. It's interesting that you think the facts contradict the facts.

Why do you think that lots of debris on Barclay implies no damage to the south face of 7?

Why do you think this picture shows not much debris on Vesey? Why do you think you can tell anything about the debris level on Vesey with this picture?

[bushatbooker]

57. If the South face of the WTC 7 was so damaged as you skeptics

LOVE to bring up, it's funny it didn't spill more to the south.

[Bolo Boffin]

59. Again, how does this picture deny any volume of debris on Vesey?

How can you gauge from this picture how much debris spilled onto Vesey compared to Barclay?

If you can't even correctly understand what you're looking at, how can your theories be of any use to anyone?

[bushatbooker]

61. Perhaps you can find a better pic that shows 7 debris on Vessey?

And wouldn't you agree that MOST of the 7 fell literally it's own footprint?

[Bolo Boffin]

62. You seem obsessed with it. Why don't you go find it? n/t

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

65. I'll admit

I put the Kucinich avatar up there in order to yank a few chains around here...

...but first, I went to his website and looked through his issues. Except for the WTO withdrawal, I don't have any problem with any of his platform issues, and the dude was spot-on about Iraq, wasn't he?

Primaries are about heart, elections about your head, that's what Molly Ivans said. Maybe I'll switch on down the road, but right now, of the declared candidates (and the Big two undeclareds), I'm pulling for Kucinich. I want his issues to have a place at the table.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mindy11]

6. That clears it up!

I see what you're saying. The CTs are always talking about the footprint. How can anyone say 'footprint' anymore when, boloboffin, you've laid it out so clearly... I like your use of yellow lines and Ariel font.

Like you, I'm going to start asking people to end their insane 'footprint' rhetoric. It's time to spread the word. I mean, just look at all that debris on the other side of your line! That's just so insane - you couldn't even drive a 4X4 down that street. What are people thinking about?

God Bless the United States of America!
Mindy

[Bolo Boffin]

9. Welcome to DU, mindy11!

BTW, I didn't make the picture, I just found it as is, and thought I'd bring it to everyone's attention.

Thanks for all the enthusiastic support.

[wildbilln864]

14. so please give us the ...

link where you found it "as is", bolo?

[Bolo Boffin]

15. Over at the James Randi Educational Foundation forums.

Tell you what, I'll just give you the link to the Conspiracy Theories forum:

http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64

Free your mind, wildbill. The rest will follow.

[wildbilln864]

16. my mind is free bolo,

thanks :hi:

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

29. This is the kind of thing to tell the moderators.

They will take care of it how they see fit.

Thank you for your concern about how I want people to see how sharp I am. It is misplaced, however.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DoYouEverWonder]

75. Whow Bolo

Looks like tonight's your lucky night. :rofl:

[DoYouEverWonder]

8. Neither did WTC 1 or 2

A far bit of both buildings convenently fell into the Plaza or blew away.

So? WTC 7 was a sloppy job? This wasn't suppose to look like a typical CD.

[jberryhill]

10. Aha!

Those sneaky bastards even thought of doing a controlled demolition that wasn't supposed to look like a controlled demolition.

Dang.

So this nails it. Any deviation from something that looks like a CD is PROOF of how they did the CD in such a way as to make it look like it wasn't a CD.

Clever.

[Bolo Boffin]

13. And everybody sang:

Goalpost, goalpost
Where will it be today?
Move That Goalpost
Further and further away!

I mean, really.

[DoYouEverWonder]

47. WTC 7 came down the way it was suppose to come down

Some of the building fell to the north and south a bit outside of it's footprint. Which is pretty good considering this was a 47 story tall building, in very tight quarters east and west. They did an excellent job of avoiding damage to the next door buildings.

[mhatrw]

86. Goalpost?

Show us a cleaner example of implosion of any building anywhere near the size of WTC-7.

[Bolo Boffin]

94. Are you deliberately misunderstanding this?

(looking around for traps)

WTC 7, we are assured, even by you in this post, looks "exactly like a CD".

Now, faced with this picture, DoYouEverWonder exclaims that WTC 7 is NOT supposed to look like a CD.

What's that noise? It's the sound of goalposts moving.

[mhatrw]

98. No, it is the sound of you setting an obvious trap with a moronic nitpick.

WTC-7 looks exactly like the expected CD of any building that large.

The fact that DYEW fell for your infantile argumentative nitpick is unfortunate, but it doesn't make the OP more than what it is -- an infantile argumentative nitpick meant to trap people into responding exactly as DYEW did.

[Bolo Boffin]

101. I set no trap! Ezlivin was in it when I happened along!

I was talking about whether or not WTC 7 "fell into its footprint," not "did it look like a CD".

The big hint here, in case you missed it, is the TITLE OF THE OP.

[wildbilln864]

17. please can anyone explane....

why #7 collapsed completely when building #6 was betweeen the towers and #7 and #6 didn't collapse? There seemed to me to be alot more damage done to 6 than 7 yet 6 didn't collapse like 7.

[jschurchin]

18. It's Magic!

Where is James Randi when we need him. He can show us how this magic trick was done. He has ALL the answers, don't ya know wildbill:sarcasm:.

[wildbilln864]

21. lol...

:rofl:
good one js.

[Bolo Boffin]

22. You're closer than you think.

But it wasn't a controlled demolition. The building fell apart internally first, spilling out onto Vesey Street. The east penthouse went first as the east side of the building collapsed under it, leaving the internal west to fall out into that space. That drug the west penthouse down (the point at which most CT sites begin their videos, halfway through the collapse). Finally the facade falls over the heap, collapsing down just like a magician's curtain. If viewed from the point at which most CTers start the tape, it does seem like magic. It's the fall of the eastern penthouse that shows much more going on behind the facade.

The damage caused by the falling North Tower and the fires that burned unfought for hours were enough to cause this "magician's act", no explosives needed. It is regretable that most CT sites feel the need to enhance the effect by misdirecting their audiences from the first part of the collapse. But then, most CT sites thank you for your financial support.

[jschurchin]

26. Thank you for the information.

Maybe you can tell me what exactly caused the failure of columns 79 and 81, which went to bedrock, and carried the load supporting the east penthouse. Also perhaps you would know, without speculation, what caused truss 2 to fail. You see, truss 2 carried the load of the floors above floor 7 by transferring the load above, by way of a girder between columns 77 and 80, to bedrock.

There were 24 core columns in this building, and according to you, they all failed and "spilled out onto Veasey Street". It was indeed a magicians trick. Except, it didn't happen that way. Something caused these columns to fail at approximately the same time. Please don't tell me about some "roaring fire" or "massive damage". The available evidence doesn't support that claim.

Do me a favor bolo, next time you go to the BA, take your hero Randi with you. See if he can figure out this Magic Trick.

[Bolo Boffin]

30. Roaring fires. Massive damage. Plenty of evidence.

It will be repeated until you get it, because that's what happened.

The NIST final report on Building 7 is due in Spring. So why don't you toss in a few ad homs about them if you can lay off of James Randi long enough.

Tell me something, j. Why do they put fireproofing onto steel structures?

[jschurchin]

38. Please don't change the subject.

And answer my questions. What caused core columns 79 and 81 and also truss 2 to fail?

Please try to stay on subject here. I know it is difficult, it takes some thinking and some engineering background to accomplish.

Do you understand the piping system that was in place to provide the day tanks with their fuel in WTC 7? If so please enlighten me. Tell me how a double wall, pressurized, fuel delivery system works. Do you know?

Do you understand the routing of the piping and that from the damage in evidence the piping could not and was not damaged. How is it a fuel delivery system that starts in UNDERGROUND tanks on the FAR east side of the building under the loading docks and runs, through a double wall piping system, in the sub levels of the structure, were compromised by damage to the SOUTH/WEST corner and SOUTH front of the structure above ground.

Please Bolo, enlighten me. Tell me how a double wall diesel fuel system in the interior of the structure between columns 58,59, 61,62 and 64,65 was compromised. Enlighten me, call Randi, see if he can conjure up something for you, or better yet, maybe he knows how it happened.

One last thing, please don't ask me stupid questions. They insult my intelligence.

[Bolo Boffin]

40. Massive structural damage, unchecked fires. No change of subject.

Your posting in defense of a controlled demolition of WTC 7 couldn't insult your intelligence any more than my simple question: why do they put fireproofing on steel structures?

Why do they?

[jschurchin]

45. Good Luck

Evidently you are not interested in any type of meaningful conversation. I have provided you with more than a couple question's of which you have provided NO answers. Either you do not know, or you just don't want to know. Either way I am done playing with you.

Good luck boloboffin, just remember though, "fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life young man".

[Bolo Boffin]

46. Thanks for the advice.

You learned that from experience, no?

[mhatrw]

89. To keep all them (except the 9/11 three) from falling due to extensive

raging and often multi-day fires.

[Bolo Boffin]

108. You've got fireproofing rated for multi-day fires?

Don't you want to be a millionaire?

[mhatrw]

113. Interesting that many steel framed highrises have burned out of

control for days, but none ever collapsed until three did on 9/11.

[DoYouEverWonder]

93. Roaring Fires?

:rofl:

Oh please, the corner of one floor or the other isolated fires that flared up and then went out do not make for a roaring fire.

Oh and don't bother showing me the pictures of smoking billowing up from the roaring fires in WTC 5 & 6. We've already debunked those.

[Bolo Boffin]

99. WTC 7 was "fully involved."

"Some stuff was burning. Buildings were burning, 7 World Trade was burning from the ground to the ceiling fully involved."

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/modica.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51FIPMlrFf4

[DoYouEverWonder]

104. Fully involved

is a building engulfed in flames.

It doesn't not mean fully engulfed in smoke from numerous sources outside of the building.

Looks like the white smoke is coming from the street or the building across the street to the west. Probably the firemen putting out some of the burning cars.

[Bolo Boffin]

107. So you're saying that the fireman I quoted is a liar?

Hm. I wouldn't walk up to any FDNY personnel and say that. But, please, be my guest.

[DoYouEverWonder]

110. One fire supposedly said WTC 7 was fully involved in fire?

Was he familiar with the WTC? Most of the firefighters didn't know one building from another. Before 9-11, I wouldn't have either.

I doubt most NYers even knew which one was Tower 1 and Tower 2 before 9-11.

[Bolo Boffin]

115. Why don't you go ask him?

I'm sure he'd be able to fill you in on whether he knew WTC 7 or not.

[mhatrw]

114. Got some pictures of that?

Seriously.

Here it is coming down:



Where are the flames?

[Bolo Boffin]

116. That picture is more than halfway through the collapse.

Most of the inner floors have already collapsed there.

Pictures in a post above.

[mhatrw]

117. Yes, just like in any CD implosion.

Where are the flames?

[Bolo Boffin]

118. Since we can't see what or where the internal structure is in that picture...

there is no telling.

I don't see flames in that picture. I do see a tremendous amount of smoke.

From other pictures and videos, it's clear that there are flames and plenty of smoke coming from WTC 7.

For example, here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51FIPMlrFf4

And here:



Here:



And here:



And here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WVBAYEEeAg

Pay close attention to what the firemen say in that last video.

[mhatrw]

119. Because eyewitness testiminony trumps the lack of flames

engulfing any significant portion of WTC-7 in any photos or videos from any side at any time.

[petgoat]

20. I guess the official explanation would be that WTC6 was only

8 or 10 stories tall, and so not subject to the stresses on WTC7.
Also WTC7 may have had the fuel oil fires.

Also WTC7 had the SEC and the CIA and Rudy's command bunker, while
WTC6 only had the Customs Service.

[petgoat]

19. Has a 47-story building ever been subject to CD before? nt

[KJF]

24. Don't think so

I vaguely remember the tallest building ever to undergo explosive demolition was about 30 stories.

That's what this link says, too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.L._Hudson_Department_Store_and_Addition

[KJF]

23. NIST says:

The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building.
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

[mirandapriestly]

25. heh heheh, Yoohoo, boloboffin, where are you?lol.eom

[Bolo Boffin]

32. What word is the MAGIC word in that statement?

The one so seldom seen in CT propaganda about 9/11.

"Mostly."

Oh, I've seen it a couple of times. But, mostly, that word appears to get in the way of this nice, neat word picture that CTists like to paint, so it falls by the ways. Be so good as to correct your website (if you have one) and your rhetoric and pass it along, won't you?

[KJF]

37. First of all..

... say how much debris you think is in the footprint.

[mhatrw]

91. Because it was EXACTLY as neat as you would expect with

the best controlled demo implosion possible for a building of that size.

Show us a neater implosion of a skyscraper if you contend otherwise.

[quickesst]

28. Using...

your brand of logic, shouldn't spectators be able to stand in the street in front of a building that is being demolished by a controlled demolition, and observe the collapse up close? I wonder why they cordon off the areas around these events hundreds of feet from the site? I'm sure, according to this brand of logic, they would be in no danger if they pulled up an easy chair and enjoyed the show, say, ten feet away, perhaps twenty feet, maybe thirty? Or could it be that the laws of physics dictates that at a certain point the building will lose it's capability to sustain it's "footprint", collapse, and spread outward, following the path of least resistance. The oct arguments aren't getting any better, but their ability to mis-lead and re-direct is getting fine-tuned for sure. This is not a winner. Please try again. Thanks.
quickesst

[Ezlivin]

31. Check out the CD of the "second tallest" building to be demolished

This took place in Fort Worth, Texas. The old Landmark Tower, a 30 story tower, was demolished. "Officials will create a 15-block safety perimeter around the area beginning at 5 a.m. Saturday," news reports said.

Debris curtains protected nearby buildings from scattered debris which fell outside of the building's footprint. It was considered a successful demolition.

Here we see a nice tilt on the building as 364 pounds of explosives brings it down:


This photo shows the debris curtains used to keep debris from damaging the Baker building:


And this shows the footprint of the building and the resulting debris field:


Looks like a fair amount scattered outside the footprint of the building. And this was a very carefully executed CD.

[Bolo Boffin]

33. If the Landmark had ended up looking like 7 World Trade

Somebody would have been fired. The owners of buildings around the Landmark would make wallets out of the hides of people responsible.

So in your opinion, the WTC demolitions were not carefully executed? Do you think they were thrown together that day, or planned out beforehand?

[Ezlivin]

48. WTC demolitions had to NOT look like ordinary demolitions

While the occurrences on 9/11 share many similarities with CD, there are enough variations to allow doubt to be cast upon any claim of CD. As such they were exceptionally well-planned.

If this was indeed a covert operation (or false flag), the goals ostensibly would be to convince the American public (who influence politics to an arguable degree) that the buildings fell as a result of the "shock and awe" terrorism attack. The buildings could not look like the result of conventional CD. While they were brought down using the same principles of CD, the end result had to be "sloppier" to allow claims that it couldn't have been CD, but simply a building collapse.

Any speculation as to the operations or organization of such a group that engineered this is fairly futile. After all, ordinary citizens (such as myself) are being asked to divine the mind and intentions of mad men. I honestly don't know how these people think, what their motivations are or their ultimate intentions.

And, sadly, the postings of both OCTers and CT/Truth Seekers amount to dumping a bottle of water on the sun. I believe that the powers behind this are essentially untouchable, regardless of what damning evidence is uncovered.

[Bolo Boffin]

50. Wha??? I thought that WTC 7 "looked just like a controlled demolition"???

Isn't that what Dan Rather said? Isn't that what CT site after CT site says? "Look at this video - it looks JUST LIKE A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!!" They even play video of controlled demolitions side by side...

...and now you say that WTC 7 had to NOT LOOK LIKE A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION? AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE???

This is no way to run a truth movement.

[Ezlivin]

52. Think like an arsonist - then you'll understand

Arson is a fire that is supposed to look like an "accident" when it was actually done on purpose.

To the uneducated, an arsonist's fire looks like the result of chance events. Only a arson investigator can determine the true cause of the fire.

Now imagine if the arson investigator had already ruled out arson before beginning his investigation. He could never determine the true cause.

We don't have to imagine NIST,FEMA or other agencies ruling out a cause before investigating because that is precisely what they did.

So if you don't believe in arson and most of the evidence has been removed, how do you determine how a fire started?

[Bolo Boffin]

55. But...NIST is considering hypothetical blast analysis in their study of 7.

So how exactly has the "arson investigator ruled out arson" here?

[mhatrw]

88. Yes, it looked exacly like CD. Anyone with eyes can see that.

[Bolo Boffin]

100. BUT, BUT...Ezlivin said "The buildings could not look like the result of conventional CD."

(looking around for traps)

If they looked exactly like CD (your words), then the 9/11 planners failed, according to Ezliven!

This is no way to run a truth movement.

[jberryhill]

73. So then, "proving" CD one way or another is off the table?

"While the occurrences on 9/11 share many similarities with CD, there are enough variations to allow doubt to be cast upon any claim of CD."

So if I do indeed doubt CD, then why am I accused of being part of the conspiracy to cover it up, and why is it regularly proclaimed to be self evident from watching grainy videos?

I'll tell you a funny story, though. My undergraduate degree was electrical engineering with a minor in physics, and two of my graduate degrees are in electrical engineering (devices and materials). On the day of 9/11 I was in the office with another patent attorney (also an engineer), and we had been pretty busy with other stuff to pay close attention to what was happening. After everyone bugged out and we were the only ones left in the office, I popped over to Yahoo News and took a look at some of the still pictures of the towers collapsing.

We both looked at the pictures and said, "There's no way that an airplane did that, there must have been bombs." That was the initial reaction of two guys with extensive backgrounds in physics, and that was my personal starting point in considering the collapse of the towers. The more I've looked into this thing, and yes I've looked at every CT site out there, the more convinced I become that my initial reaction was mistaken.

So it is heartening to see a CT'er finally admit that there is enough variation from a CD to allow reasonable minds to differ here, without the usual accusations that anyone denying the "apparent truth" is a paid agent of the conspiracy.

[quickesst]

51. Again....

with the presumption that if cd were present, it has to be under ideal cd conditions. Why ignore the many other factors, such as no gutting of the building, cutting of key load bearing pieces, etc., which would, if done by cd would most definately result in a very sloppy demolition. The assumption that a building must fall with all material inside the outside perimeter of the buildings outline to qualify for cd is going way out there, plus ignoring the very real possibility that military cd is probably not identical to what civilians would use. Thanks.
quickesst

[Bolo Boffin]

56. Military CD probably not identical to what cilivians would use??

Pray, enlighten us with sources, links, evidence, thanks so much in advance.

[quickesst]

67. I didn't ...

state it as fact, only an obvious speculation on my part. While there may be, and I cannot state this as fact either, ordinance available to military personel that would not be available to civilians, I was actually leaning more toward method than physical material used. I would be curious to know what sort of mind would plan the purposeful destruction of an entire building, with the desire to make it look as though it were a natural progression of ongoing events, and use demolition methods that would point in the opposite direction. That's in addition to the absense of any preparation a planned, public demolition would entail, as again, the gutting of said building, and any structural weakening that would have to be done to ensure the desired affect. This sort of preparation could not have been undertaken in #7 without arousing suspicion. That is, if a faction of the gubment did indeed participate, one could deduce that more charges would have to be used to compensate for the lack of any pre-demolition steps, and one could speculate that given these set of circumstances, the collapse would not be near as efficent and "neat", as a carefully planned, public demolition. Anyway, as to your request for "Pray, enlighten us with sources, links, evidence, thanks so much in advance." Tell me why I should have to. You guys are sticklers for detail, so thanks in advance for explaining to me how probably=statement of fact. "Probably" could be a little presumptuous on my part, but could not be used in conjunction with a factual statement. As far as demolition, the alternative theory hasn't been conclusively proven either, hence the continuation of threads discussing the issue. Thanks.
quickesst

[Bolo Boffin]

68. OK.

I think the word you wanted is "maybe". Probably doesn't equal statement of fact, but it should be restricted to statements for which you have evidence of probability. Even possibly implies the existance of evidence - it means that something is possible, that something could be, and that there's no evidence that denies the possibility. Probably means a preponderance of evidence. But if you're just speculating, you should make that clear and not be surprised if someone gives you sources, links, and evidence to discount your speculation.

Fiction is one thing, truth is another.

PS: People get loose with terms, me included. One summer I worked at a ice-cream shop, and when I unlocked the door, I found that someone had busted a window and removed the cash from the cash register. I called my boss, who was also a lawyer, and told her we had been robbed. She freaked. She thought someone had held a gun to my head. What had happened is that we had been burgled. Burglary is not a real synonym for robbery. Anyway.

[quickesst]

77. What you said...

OK. Burglary is not a synonym for robbery, and probably is not a synonym for is, which, unlike the robbery/burglary scenario, and I repeat, is rather obvious. And just to let you know, if I state something as fact, I will surely provide the sources, links, etc. when doing so. Thanks.
quickesst

[mhatrw]

87. It did end up looking EXACTLY like the WTC-7 implosion except

for the fact that WTC-7 was a harder job.

[Bolo Boffin]

84. BTW, a picture of damage to the Verizon building

From the collapse of WTC 7:



Maybe if they had put up some curtains...

[John Q. Citizen]

34. So? You don't think someone would take all that time and effort to do a

controlled demolition when they could just do a planned demolition a whole lot easier, do you?

I mean, nobody was going to get a ticket or be cited for not following industry standards or anything.

[Bolo Boffin]

35. But they couldn't be haphazard about it, could they?

I mean, the point is, it's sposed to look like a collapse. If they just throw a buncha explosives at a "planned" demolition, somebody might have seen, somebody might have given the game away...

So you're saying that this controlled demolition was carefully planned to look as much like a simple progressive collapse without explosions as possible, right down to a complete lack of explosives residue?

Dang, these guys are good.

:sarcasm:

[John Q. Citizen]

36. They weren't haphazard. They did what they needed to, but no more. n/t

What does a simple progressive collapse look like? I mean, without planning it?

No one ever tested for explosive residue. Read the NIST and FEMA reports.

Do you have a link to the testing for explosive residue? Or are you assuming that?

[mhatrw]

90. It looked EXACTLY like a CD.

If you still insist otherwise, please show us a neater CD for any building of comparable size.

[Bolo Boffin]

96. I believe the phrase we're examining here is "fell in its own footprint".

Why are you trying to change the subject?

(looking around for traps)

[mhatrw]

97. You might not see the trap because of the nitpick in your own eye. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

103. I'm sorry that your trap for me in the other thread didn't work.

I'm just crying over here...

:cry:

:hi:

[bushatbooker]

41. I think Skeptics fail to realize that when people say

a structure "fell on it's own footprint", it's more or less or relative phrase and seeing since a 47-story building NEVER collapsed or been demo'd before, I'd say it pretty much fell on it's own footprint.

[Bolo Boffin]

43. "pretty much" doesn't pack the same propaganda flair, though, does it?

Even less than "fell all over the damned place," which is what that picture shows.

[bushatbooker]

58. "barely fell all over the place"

is more like it when you take into account how tall it was and how close it was to it's neighboring buildings.

[Bolo Boffin]

60. You must not be looking at the picture in the OP.

Look at the debris on that building across the street. There's another pic in the thread somewhere that shows some wicked damage to that building. I'm going to stick with "fell all over the damned place".

[bushatbooker]

64. Barely

You seem not to understand, 7 imploded and fell own it's on footprint and THEN spilled a little bit outside it's footprint. I doubt a Demo company can pull a 47-story skyscraper and make it fall on its footprint without spilling over.

7 was a world record implosion.

[mirandapriestly]

44. This is so stupid

The reason controlled demolitions fall completely into "their own footprint" is the precautions taken when the demolition team really can't have additional destruction and loss of life because they will be liable for it and they aren't trying to make people think it is an accident. They have padding around the parts and all kind of barriers to prevent debris from falling over the place. Obviously, if they had done that , us "kooks" who don't believe everything CNN tells us, would have really suspected something. This is like the gem stating that it wasn't really free-fall, because it was a few seconds over free-fall, when in actuality anything anywhere near free-fall would be amazing with concrete floors and steel slowing it's downward path, unless something was removing those barriers which seemed to be in place at the beginning ...and fast!
You know it's bs, but you want casual viewers to think that free-fall is being "debunked" and for us to waste our time arguing it.

[Bolo Boffin]

49. Thanks for the warning label atop your post, miranda.

Do demolition companies ever "try[] to make people think it is an accident"?

Why wouldn't they have gotten padding and drapes for the other buildings, miranda? Silverstein felt free enough to announce the controlled demolition on the air, didn't he? Why couldn't they have waited long enough to pad the buildings?

Freefall isn't really being debunked here, in case you noticed. It's the idea that WTC "neatly fell into its own footprint," a claim you KNOW you have seen on CT sites. Does anything about that collapse look "neat" to you? Does it look contained in any way?

Come on, why didn't they go the whole nine yards, miranda? Why didn't they make sure that one of the towers just fell right over? They had to rebuild the Winter Garden anyway, and they wanted that spectacle...why not tip one of the towers over on top of the Winter Garden? Boy, that would have been some video, that would really be horrific!

It's a phrase, it's reality, I know you can learn to parrot it, miranda: "fell all over the damned place." You can leave off the "damned" if your sensibilities are offended.

[mirandapriestly]

53. It was a reply to OP and now, I see, a warning for your reply.

My point stands. The reason it wasn't neat and tidy was because they couldn't contain it as much as a "normal" cd. and most of us who question 9-11 don't have a "theory", you're the one with the theory: blame it on Islamic Militants, so you are the "ct"er.

[Bolo Boffin]

54. Nope, I'm not the CTer.

For that, I would have to have a theory myself. I don't. I have facts. I have reality.

[DoYouEverWonder]

69. Reality

is very subjective.

[Bolo Boffin]

70. You keep on thinking that.

It isn't as subjective as all that.

[Grateful for Hope]

71. With the current administration

thinking that it has the right to create it's own reality, reality does indeed become very subjective for explanations of any and all events occurring during it's "reign".

[vincent_vega_lives]

78. So all this is just going to go away in 2008 right? (n/t)

[Norrin Radd]

112. Rationalism vs. Empiricism...

So the age old debate between the two has been decided?

[vincent_vega_lives]

80. No not really

Reality is just reality. The subjectiveness is in the interpretation.

[wildbilln864]

72. you don't have shit...

except an opinion based on what you were told by Bush's flunkies! Just like everyone else!

[vincent_vega_lives]

79. "Bush's flunkies"

Care to define that? Anyone collecting a GS paycheck? Or just ones you don't like?

You need to get out of your sheltered world just a little. It's crap like this that makes me think we are arguing with stunted youth. :eyes:

[Chewbacca]

81. Sorry if this is a bit off topic;

Check out this excellent anti war video, and please help to spread it;

Guernica Iraq
http://911blogger.com/node/5219

[Contrite]

82. Not so fast

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm

Debris from WTC One had to fall across WTC 6 (and across Vesey Street, altogether a considerable distance) before it could impact WTC 7. (If that happened, there would be lots of debris on Vesey from WTC One.)

The debris generated by the collapse of WTC 7 spread mainly westward toward the Verizon building, and to the south. The debris significantly damaged 30 West Broadway to the north, but did not appear to have structurally damaged the Irving Trust building at 101 Barclay Street to the north or the Post Office at 90 Church Street to the east. The average debris field radius was approximately 70 feet.

[nebula]

83. The point is moot

because NO building collapsed by CD ever falls perfectly into its own footprint.

There is always going to be a certain amount of debris scattered beyond the actual footprint area after ANY controlled demolition. That's simply the nature of ANY massive structure collapsing in such a short period of time, no matter how neatly and controlled the destruction of the building is set up and executed.

Please! Use some common sense.

[mhatrw]

92. Exactly. This is the most bizarre of argumentative nit picks. n/t

[mhatrw]

85. That's funny.

[Bolo Boffin]

95. Why are you showing a video that starts halfway through the collapse?

(looking around for traps)

[mirandapriestly]

106. You like to make proclamations

that aren't based on fact.

[Bolo Boffin]

109. :wow:

:spray:

We seriously need a mirror smiley at DU.

[mirandapriestly]

111. Watch wtc7 flying all over the place!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eH-T4imUkRQ&mode=related&search=