95% within its own footprint

[jujigatami]

I've seen loads of CTers post that WTC7 collapsed "95% within its won footprint".

DOesn't that seem a little too neat, even for a CD?

I mean, come on, that would have to be possibly the neatest and most successful CD ever! I mean, to get 95% of the building where they want it to fall would take possibly the best CD planning ever!

Do real CD's fall "95%" within their own footprint? I highly doubt it.

Does anyone jnow what the real average percentages would be for a large scale CD?

[Arus808]

um, CD is about making sure that it falls within on itself. hence, within its own "footprint" so that surround structures (ie nearby buildings) wouldn't be affected by that building's destruction (keeping damage to a minimum)

HOw they dtermined that 95% figure is pure crap however.
Since pictures from that day show that WTC 1 , WTC 2 and WTC 7, debris were found up to 2 blocks away.

[jujigatami]

um, CD is about making sure that it falls within on itself. hence, within its own "footprint" so that surround structures (ie nearby buildings) wouldn't be affected by that building's destruction (keeping damage to a minimum)



Yeah, that IS the idea, but in reality no building ever collapses neatly in to its own footprint without "Leaking over".

I saw a real CD years ago in NEwark when they were demolishing a bunch of abandoned projects. The building came down neatly, but the rubble pile was stil huge, and exceeding the "footprint" of the building by probably 25% (just a guestimation).

I wonder what the real average is.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Per this pdf doc (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1ExecutiveSummary.pdf#search=%22dimensions%20wtc7% 22), WTC 7 was 47 stories tall, with approximate dimensions of 330' x 140 ' x 610'. Their claim of 95% would imply that 95% of the building's mass fell into 43890 sq ft area.

Here's the prelim NIST report on WTC7 (at least the PP slides):
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse Final.pdf#search=%22nist%20wtc7%22
also
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004WTC7StructuralFire&CollapseAnalysisPrint.pdf#search=%22nist%20wtc7%22

The problem with trying to examine the WTC 7 debris is that it is comingled with WTC 1 debris:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/wtc_footprint_2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/wtc_footprint_3.jpg

[einsteen]

I went through this line by line today. It seems not be easy to find this kind of information

http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion1.htm

very interesting, learned a lot.

[pgwenthold]

Sometime ago, I used the bottom figure to draw something that looked very much like the top figure. I concluded from the damage locations, that most of the buildings fell into an area about 15 - 20 times the size of their own footprint.

It's in one of the old threads, don't know where.

[Arus808]

Yeah, that IS the idea, but in reality no building ever collapses neatly in to its own footprint without "Leaking over".

I saw a real CD years ago in NEwark when they were demolishing a bunch of abandoned projects. The building came down neatly, but the rubble pile was stil huge, and exceeding the "footprint" of the building by probably 25% (just a guestimation).

I wonder what the real average is.


that's why i stated that you can't measure percentage of anything left over from A CD, because each demolition is unique. A smaller building could easily collapse 100% into its own "footprint" , say that it was only 4 stories. But a 30 story building could have been wired wrong, and fell like a domino (which has happened).

So 90%, 60%, 100% ... there is no way to determine any percentage and what would be considered "normal".

[kookbreaker]

Gravy had a top down photo after the collapse that showed a street blocked by the rubble of WTC7. It was not previously blocked. Perhaps he can post it again.

[Mancman]

Controlled demolitions do not always go down into their footprints, it's all about the specifics of each individual project. I've seen demolitions in which the building largely tips to one side and ends up mostly outside of it's footprint.

[jujigatami]

I don't think they would even bother doing a CD on a building 4 stories high. They'd get out the wrecking ball.

I seriously doubt that any CD firm would actually plan to demolish a building 100% within its own footprint.

I would think there would be a planned for debris zone, and there is most likely some sort of industry average for controlled demolitions of large buildings. I mean, a team of engineers would look at the building and say that this debris zone should be X in size. and they would plan for that when doing the demolition.

I understand that every demolition is different, but there has to be an average from all of the CD's in the last 10 or 20 years.

Something like saying that an average 20 story building needs a debris zone 200% of its footprint. So a building that it 100' x 100' would need 150' x 150' debris field.

I just looked at that and redid the math and thats actually 225%
of its footprint. and thats only adding 50'.

[rwguinn]

I don't think they would even bother doing a CD on a building 4 stories high. They'd get out the wrecking ball.

I seriously doubt that any CD firm would actually plan to demolish a building 100% within its own footprint.

I would think there would be a planned for debris zone, and there is most likely some sort of industry average for controlled demolitions of large buildings. I mean, a team of engineers would look at the building and say that this debris zone should be X in size. and they would plan for that when doing the demolition.

I understand that every demolition is different, but there has to be an average from all of the CD's in the last 10 or 20 years.

Something like saying that an average 20 story building needs a debris zone 200% of its footprint. So a building that it 100' x 100' would need 150' x 150' debris field.

I just looked at that and redid the math and thats actually 225%
of its footprint. and thats only adding 50'.

Controlled Demolition. The words explain it.
Controlled--That generally means you decide when, how and where it happens. These guys spen a LOT of time withe the drawings and blueprints to determine the HOW--well before the When. They don't just go in and say TLAR! and slap explosives onthe walls. They have to account for the WHERE--where do we need the debris to go? Over there? ok, we need to impart a horizontal velocity of n feetper second to this part of the building, and M fps to that part, so that by the time gravity finishes its work, the big chunks land here. Somewhere else? fix the numbers.
Then determine which parts have to collapse, in what sequence, to give that velocity to the various chunks. It all depends on where the "safe fall" zone is.
That's why some are collapsed vertically (almost)--by blowing the middle supports, then the outside (causes the outer walls to fall inward-toward each other!). some are dropped sideways (start at one end and work toward the other). Its all a matter of doing the damage in a way to get the results you need. then you have the demolition.
And no, they don't calculate anything past the general collapse stage, either. You cannot account for every chunk of building--but you do place your charges in such a way that they don't create outward-bound shrapnel.

At least, that is my understanding of the process.

[Gravy]

Whenever CTs give an exact number, it's always good to ask, "Oh, who measured that? Where can I read the report?"
I have no idea what percentage of WTC 7 fell in its own footprint, but it did make quite a mess.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790449b8276ba3e1.jpg

[Gravy]

I went through this line by line today. It seems not be easy to find this kind of information
Let's see, Google "building implosion" and the first result is the HowStuffWorks page you cited. Google "controlled demolition" and the first result is CDI's home page.

What, exactly, do you consider "easy?"

[dirtywick]

What I find odd is that if you're going to plan for WTC1,2, and 7 to be CD under some kind of ruse and plan it so planes only hit 1 and 2 and debris from both will fly over the other buildings and hit 7, and not only just some but a substantial amount so as not to create suspicion.

It's unfathomable.

[jujigatami]

Holy cow!

I've never seen that picture.

How ANYONE can look at that ans say the building is anywhere close to being in its own footprint is beyond crazy.

Unbelievable.

[Hellbound]

Holy cow!

I've never seen that picture.

How ANYONE can look at that ans say the building is anywhere close to being in its own footprint is beyond crazy.

Unbelievable.

Also interesting:

Look at the various items that give a sense of scale: Building windows, the height of floors on adjacent buildings, stariways, etc.

Compare that to the sizes of the chunks of debris.

Watch the CTers put their hands over their eyes and screen "60 microns!" until they're hoarse.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Also interesting:

Look at the various items that give a sense of scale: Building windows, the height of floors on adjacent buildings, stariways, etc.

Compare that to the sizes of the chunks of debris.

Watch the CTers put their hands over their eyes and screen "60 microns!" until they're hoarse.

Yes, well we've completely nailed down the "60 microns" nonsense. It is two specific sources, taken out of context. They are spitting in the wind if they keep trying to use it.

[Hellbound]

They are spitting in the wind if they keep trying to use it.

And this has stopped them exactly when...?

:D

They're the only rats I know that will rush onto a sinking ship.

[Pardalis]

I went through this line by line today. It seems not be easy to find this kind of information

http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion1.htm

very interesting, learned a lot.

Oh really? Did you miss this picture?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/88864522cafa8582c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1757)

This would be what WTC 7 (or 1 & 2) would have looked like inside, while people were working there.

The basic idea of explosive demolition is quite simple: If you remove the support structure of a building at a certain point, the section of the building above that point will fall down on the part of the building below that point. If this upper section is heavy enough, it will collide with the lower part with sufficient force to cause significant damage. The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's gravity that brings the building down.

Wouldn't it be more logical to say that the cause of the collapse of these buildings (the "trigger", as it were) was the damage they suffered, instead of your invisible, inconspicuous controlled demolition theory?

Let me guess... :rolleyes:

[firecoins]

I've seen loads of CTers post that WTC7 collapsed "95% within its won footprint".

DOesn't that seem a little too neat, even for a CD?

I mean, come on, that would have to be possibly the neatest and most successful CD ever! I mean, to get 95% of the building where they want it to fall would take possibly the best CD planning ever!

Do real CD's fall "95%" within their own footprint? I highly doubt it.

Does anyone jnow what the real average percentages would be for a large scale CD?
Its b.s.! Just look at the surrounding buildings that were damaged. They weren't in the footprint.

[Spins]

I went through this line by line today. It seems not be easy to find this kind of information

[removed url cos I'm a noob]

very interesting, learned a lot.
I notice the source of their info on building implosions was Brent Blanchard @ Protec.

[Gravy]

Oh really? Did you miss this picture?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/88864522cafa8582c.jpg

This would be what WTC 7 (or 1 & 2) would have looked like inside, while people were working there.
Yes, I fondly remember wearing my Dockerstm Detcordstm on casual Fridays in the autumn.