Why haven't demolition companies copied the WTC collapse?

[Hoping4Change]

According to Wikopedia, demolition companies spend weeks preparing tall buildings for controlled demolitions, and spend great effort determining where to set explosives. But doesn't the collapse of the towers show that this sort of preparation is needless since it seems that simply blowing up several floors near the top of a building results in a perfect implosion.

Maybe if just one of the WTC's towers imploded perfectly, the perfect implosion could be regarded as a fluke but given that both towers imploded perfectly suggests to me that building demolition is no science and that professional demolishers are pulling a fast one.

[JVS]

1. Not all buildings are designed the way the WTC was.

[Hoping4Change]

4. I haven't really followed this closely but wasn't the WTC

designed to withstand a plane crashing into it? And if this is so wouldn't the WTC be an example of a building that would be difficult to demolish?

[VTMechEngr]

26. It was designed to survive a plane hit and it DID!

Designers did not design it to survive the raging fire of a fully fueled plane though. It was figured a 707 might hit it at lower speeds while trying to land at the airport.

They did not design it to survive a larger plane traveling at 500 mph hitting it on purpose, and yet the factor of safety built into the design allowed it to survive.

[Hoping4Change]

34. If a 707 travelling at a slower rate hit the building would it

not also explode once it penetrated the building?

[VTMechEngr]

2. Oh yeah. So perfect they destroyed a building next to the towers!

[Hoping4Change]

14. But there again it was only a fire that brought the 3rd building down.

It also didn't need elaborate planning to bring it down.

[VTMechEngr]

21. I know it was the fire

I'm just an ass when it comes to conspiracy nuts. Try being an engineer and having to hear that crap.

[Sterling]

16. B7? Yeah somehow it fell without being hit by any major pieces of the WTC

Truly remarkable.

[VTMechEngr]

19. And the huge chunks taken out of the building?

[unblock]

3. yeah, so much easier to just fly a plane into the middle of the building!

:wtf:

[Hoping4Change]

5. Not fly a plane into it but just explode the upper floors.

[JVS]

7. Have you considered testing this theory at home?

[Hoping4Change]

11. Why the sarcasm?

[JVS]

6. Think of the money you could save. All that expensive wire and dynamite!

[Hoping4Change]

20. It would save money. What company doesn't want to save

money?

[readmoreoften]

8. I get your point.

You should use the sarcasm icon. People need that. Otherwise they genuinely think you're suggesting that demolition crews recreate 9-11. (sigh)

[Hoping4Change]

13. I am not being sarcastic. I am wondering why demolition companies

don't simply use a big explosion on the upper floors of a building (using explosives not planes) to imploded buildings. If you read for instance Wikipedia's description of controlled demolitions you'll see that controlled demolotions take weeks to plan. When both towers fell so perfectly when hugh unplanned explosions happened on the upper floors, why do demolition companies still spend so much time planning demolitions.

[LARED]

28. I suppose when demolition companies find a practical

and safe way to fly jumbo jets into building to demolish them, you will see them adapt those methods :sarcasm:

[Hoping4Change]

35. Nothing in my question mentions a plane to demolish a building.

I simply want to know why demolition companies spend time and money carefully setting explosives around buildings to ensure building will collapse into their own footprint when blowing up an upper floor apparently works just fine.

Furthermore, given that the WTC was a unique design and one ot the world tallest structures, students worldwide over the last 30 years studying controlled demolition must have used the WTC as a case study so I think it'd be interesting to know if they were taught whether a controlled demolition ot the WTC would be relatively easy or whether it posed certain difficulties.

[LARED]

41. I guess it all depends ob how you define "just fine"

The key word is controlled demolition. What you witnessed on 9/11 was a structural failure. There was no control. It only appears to have failed in a somewhat organized way. The towers did not collapse into their footprint like you would expect a controlled demolition. Debris was spread over 500 feet in some directions.

If you mean the collapse worked just fine when other building were damaged blocks away; if you mean both towers collapsing in a different failure mode is just fine; then you may have a point.

The WTC design allowed the pancaking to occur. Not all very tall buildings are designed like the WTC's. Also the upper floors were not blown up. After the impacts and explosions the towers remained standing, and most likely would have remained standing if the fires did not weaken an already compromised structure.

[jwtravel]

47. Well, it should since that's a big part of how it happened.

You can't separate the plane crashing into the building and the ensuing fire into isolated events when discussing the buildings coming down. The damage from the planes was severe, to say the least. The weakening of the steel from the fire was the straw that broke the camel's back. Additionally, a great demolition company could have brought these buildings down with almost no collateral damage, rather than the huge damage to surrounding buildings that was seen, including a big chunk out of WTC7. Who knows, the best technique for bringing down buildings of this height might be partial disassembly, maybe even floor by floor dismantling down to a more manageable height, before implosion. There might not be a good way with buildings of this height to just blow it up as it stands. (albeit with a lot of prep work)

[Asgaya Dihi]

9. I'm not real comfortable with either story

Neither the conspiracy theorists nor the government has explained it well as far as I can see. There are some real questions, but the documentaries tend to concentrate too much on weak points.

For example they play those puffs as the tower fell again and again claiming that it's proof of explosives, but when you compare it to other buildings going down we have ribbons of flashes going off rather than the occasional puff or few the tapes show. It doesn't look much like what they say it is.

On the other hand I've seen clips where the distance from camera to tower was figured and the tape adjusted for the speed of sound, there were clear booms and ripples well before the tower showed signs of distress, let alone of falling. And why did we have slag in the rubble if nothing ever got hot enough to melt?

One of the better articles I've seen on the subject was posted on common dreams recently, I don't totally agree with it but it's more honest than most in trying to separate proof from doubts and weak theories from stronger ones. It's the tact that I think should be tried, even if we don't agree on where to draw the specific lines. Working the weaker points too much just discredits any doubts on the stronger ones.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0427-29.htm

[Hoping4Change]

23. Thanks for that link. I suppose I would like to see an article

interviewing demolition experts. I would love to know if the WTC collapse made them rethink their theories or procedures.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

10. things that make you say hmmmmmmm

good one!

[Kailassa]

12. No need for any explosives. The official story is the fire did it.

It's terribly easy, really. Enough aircraft fuel burning, lighting paper and furnishings, and all the support structure will collapse into dust and matchsticks, and the metal supports in the basement not only melt, but still be glowing red and molten 3 weeks later.

Amd try googling for towers "gold bars" tunnel, or something like that. There are a lot of interesting background stories.

[UCLA02]

24. Check the 9/11 boards...

Many theories propose that the jet fuel should not have caused the steel to melt and burn so hot for so long.

[Kailassa]

36. yes, I was being facetious.

A great many things happened that day which the official story does not explain.

[Warpy]

15. How about because the WTC was unique?

Other buildings are simply not constructed that way.

[Sterling]

17. Why not?

Seems all buildings since the 70's should have such an easy method of clearing them away when they are no longer useful. This design is under used IMHO.

[Hoping4Change]

39. Given that the WTC was so unique, it must have been a case

study for the last 30 years for those who study controlled demolitions in colleges and universities worldwide. I would imagine hundreds of papers have been written about a controlled demolition of such a unique structure. I would love to know, whether experts thought a controlled demolition would be relatively easy or whether it would pose particular challenges.

And following your point I wonder if it was designed to implode easily.

[Hoping4Change]

18. I have heard that the towers were constructed to withstand

planes hitting them, so wouldn't that mean that they were designed to withstand easy demolition. Wouldn't this sturdiness be the thing that made them unique?

[Warpy]

22. The were constructed to withstand impact, which they did.

They were not constructed to withstand an impact followed by an explosion and an enormous and very hot fire.

[VTMechEngr]

25. Exactly.

The planes nailed the building at 500 mph and they still stood. Even with 40 percent of the load bearing structure gone, they still stood up. That was a great engineering design.

But.

A raging fire will still bring a building down. Steel doesn't need to melt, as it looses half its strength at temperatures well under that of burning fuel. People forget that a house will burn hot enough to melt steel in some pockets and it is simple wood, paper, cloth, and plastics. I work in an office and I can say there is plenty of materials to burn very hot.

The floors were supported by trusses, which any Civil Engineer can tell you are very sensitive to heat. That combined with already OVERSTRESSED columns being weakened by the heat led to the collapse. Why collapse straight down? Think about the physics. What was the downward force? Gravity. What was the horizontal force? ??? Its as simple as Inertia.

[Sterling]

27. Have yet to see that.

Sounds interesting. I would like to learn more about buildings falling into their own footprint from fire damage.

[LARED]

29. A suggestion

if you are interested in learning about buildings collapsing from fire damage you should find some engineering papers that address the WTC collapse.

The NIST has done an incredible amount of excellent analysis in this area.

[jwtravel]

48. Not just fire damage, damn!

Fire damage was NOT the only cause! A jet aircraft with almost full tanks slammed into each one at 300-500 mph. Even if there were no fires, I'd be willing to bet that those buildings would have been condemned and torn down (at least the floors above the strikes and several floors below) due to the severity of the structural damage. The ensuing fires weakened the steel of an already weakened structure and sealed each building's fate. They did NOT come down into their own footprint, not even close. I don't have an exact number for the area of debris scatter, but the photos I've seen show the scatter to be at least 1-2 blocks in every direction from the former towers.

[simonm]

45. lol

The engineers must have overlooked the small detail about planes using fuel. Yeah, thats it. :sarcasm:

[rman]

61. Then why did WTC7 collapse in a similar way?

Not entirely identical, since the collapse of 7 started at ground level. But similar in that it to did completely collapse due to fire - in spite of the fact that it was not constructed like the towers.

[mirandapriestly]

30. The safety precautions and the need to prevent

debris from flying too far off, etc.are why controlled demolition preparation takes so long usually. You know, making sure asbestos and other toxic agents were removed or contained ahead of time, THOSE are the things that would take so long. OBVIOUSLY, this was not too much of a concern in preparation of 9-11.

[Hoping4Change]

33. Point taken however great effort is spent planning where to set

charges so that the building implodes into its own footprint. To a lay person it doesn't seem to be all that difficult to collapse a buiding into its own footprint.

[mirandapriestly]

42. The Landmark Tower fell in it's footprint

relatively. It looks remarkably similar. So I'm not sure what the point of this thread is.
http://www.dfw.com/multimedia/dfw/news/archive/0318implosion1/index.html

[Jazz2006]

55. The Landmark implosion is vastly different than the WTC collapses.

It fell in its own footprint (unlike the WTC towers) and it was not at all like the WTC collapses.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=85665&mesg_id=86162

[Christophera]

57. Idea Was To Avoid Costly Clean Up-Many Birds With One Stone

The state of economic affairs was quite bad with regard to clean up the towers. Let us count the ways a few benfitted by the towers falling as if in a terrorist attack.

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/01/real-reason-wtc-was-targeted.html

[Sinti]

31. You can't depend on a fire to bring down a building

Even a raging hot fire, and even if the building's construction is similar to WTC. This one burned for 26 hours and one floor had a complete collapse.

The Madrid Windsor Building

The tower was built using normal strength concrete and before modern fire proofing standards, without any sprinkler system. It was undergoing a complete refurbishment, including the installation of various active fire prevention and resistance measures, when the fire began at around 11pm on 14 February 2005. Fortunately the building was empty of people at the time.

Entire story with pictures at the link:
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1205

In fact, what happened at WTC has never happened before or since. :shrug:

[rman]

32. 3 buildings: the towers and WTC7

3 flukes, 3 glitches...

While all other severely damaged buildings did not collapse on their own accord:

[Christophera]

37. Yes-Invest In Muslim Demolition Companies-Efficient Uses Of Cheap Fuel

Existing demolition contractors will be driven out of business however, so it's not a good idea for the economy.

Muslim demolition contractors are able to extract over a million times more energy from petrolem products per given volumes. Obviously the reason Allah gave them all the oil.

[Hoping4Change]

38. What with the sarcasm? Two building imploded into their own

footprints because of a massive explosions on the upper floors. I simply would like to know if demolition companies have re-thought their practices given that these towers imploded without any careful planned explosives.

[mirandapriestly]

43. The original post is sarcastic

I'm sure you are not really asking that that the wtc be used as an example as to how to do demolitions in the future. So what's up with the double standard?

[simonm]

46. Home Based Business Idea - Make lots of $$$$$!! Any takers?

Now anyone can start their own demolition business in their spare time. The only tools you need are a few sticks of dynamite and lots of jet fuel.

Step 1.) Torch a few floors.

Step 2.) Blow up a few floors. Doesn't matter where you place the explosives. Don't worry about silly stuff like load bearing columns or architecture.

Step 3.) PROFIT!!

Note: Proven to work on any building up to 110 floors since 9/11.

Patent Pending.

[jwtravel]

49. You forgot a minor ingredient - a multi-million dollar jet aircraft

slamming into your building of interest before the fires set in. It isn't good science to ignore the effects of that event - we'll never know how much structural damage was caused by the impact, but it isn't negligible.

[simonm]

50. WTC7 had no planes

But it fell straight down just like WTC 1 & 2. Even with possible structural problems on one corner of the building it still does not adequately justify the full symmetrical collapse.


WTC7 Collapse
Video:

http://www.911eyewitness.com/googlelowrez.html
(forward to 1:12:49)

[Christophera]

53. True, But Not Public Building An We Do Not Know How It Was Constructed

An obvious demolition to be sure. Many don't even know a third tower fell that day. America is dissociating the event. Too traumatic and it calls for real unity, and ..................... we didn't learn that in school. We learned "accept the control of authority together" which in collusion with media has made it much easier to accept by being responsive to the social fears media supported with "United We Stand".

[mirandapriestly]

60. I know , we learned to trust government and media

that they followed these ethical rules for the good of all; what a joke. The worst among us are sitting in Washington and ownership of major media has gone from 50 corporations to 5 in the last twenty five years, yet people, even on DU , "don't trust" anything unless it has a "corporate label".

[Christophera]

52. PA Engineer Stated Up To 4 Jetliners Could Impact Towers W/No Collapse

Seriously. He said the structure was like a mesh. You can poke quite a few holes in it before it loses it's strength. Also the cores of the towers are misrepresented by FEMA. They were steel reinforced concrete cores not multiple steel core columns.

http://concretecrore.741.com

[mirandapriestly]

54. Heh heh

Actually I think I could do a half assed demolition job after everything I've read since I started reading about 911.

[Christophera]

51. I Toy With Sarcasm As Communication Tool-Not Often, But Occasionaly

Here we see an explosion.



Not an implosion. It was a very controlled explosion however, so some term it implosion. Normally CD breaks a building into small chunks. The concrete core of these towers was turned into SAND & GRAVEL. Architects and engineers are probably rethinking their designs to save money on demoliton because the only way to get the effect in the image above is to build the explosives into the center or equilibrium of concrete or other stuctures and distribute them heavily. It is a very well contained series of explosions. Audio recordings also show that the high speed delays sequencing detonations racing down the towers show a rumbling which is characteristic of heavily contained detonation, at the least, firefihters comment on the sequencing here.

http://letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

[leftofthedial]

40. because the methodology used to demolish the WTC

is cost-prohibitive for any demolition company that does not have access to black ops budgets

[mirandapriestly]

44. heh-heh, you're right I think WTC techniques are probably

more likely to be seen in "insurgent" attacks in Iraq.;)

[Debunking911]

56. Leaving any part of the collapse out is deceptive

and the conspiracy sites always do. It wasn't the planes alone which brought the buildings down. It wasn't the fires alone which brought the buildings down. It was a combination of things. The buildings were weakened by impact. Even Building 7 was hit by steel columns and had a 20 story rip though the middle of the south side. It was hit so hard people on the scene said "it didn't look right", "Didn't look straight" after the hit. The towers were hit so hard some people were trapped in rooms because the building stayed tilted and the doors were jammed.

Even then the building stood for a while because the building was designed too. But the fireproofing was blown away from the steel trusses and the furniture was piled in corners of the impact floors. Already weakened steel was being weakened further by the fires. The building was NOT designed to withstand long periods of time without fireproofing. Nor was the jet fuel taken into account when they built the towers. Trusses expanded with the heat then sagged. When they cooled they contracted pulling the columns in. Once the columns lost the center of gravity the 30 stories worth of office building came crashing down on the floors stressing the bolts and other connections holding the building together.

We have never seen a demolition which peels open a building. The floors went straight down and the unsupported walls tilted out like a 110 level domino set on it's end. I have yet to see a demolition do this.

To expect this building to tilt over is to expect the columns and bolts on the level pivoting to hold the massive weight of a 30 story building. Impossible. The proof is you can't show me a photo of a similarly constructed tall building tilting over like that and surviving the fall.

[Hoping4Change]

58. Your post and website are informative. However if the collapses were

not out of the ordinary given the circumstances, many questions remain which not even your website addresses, one being why the steel was carted off before it was analyzed.

[Harper_is_Bush]

59. The assumption in your second sentance is illogical.

Even basic scientific honesty would dictate that you can't draw your conclusion:
"simply blowing up several floors near the top of a building results in a perfect implosion."

This was two buildings with the same building method tested in the same fashion.
To conclude that the results are then applicable to all buildings is (hopefully) willful ignorance in the extreme.