A Controlled Demolition is Hard!

[Alt+F4]

It really bugs me when the conspiracy liars say that prepping the WTC buildings for a controlled demolition wouldn’t be that hard, wouldn’t involve many people and therefore wouldn’t attract much attention.

On October 24, 1998 Controlled Demolitions, Inc. (CDI) performed a controlled demolition of Hudson’s Department Store in Detroit. Here’s some statistics comparing this building to WTC 1.


Hudson's Dept. Store
Height - 439 feet
Size - 2.2 million square ft.
Floors - 33
Constructed - 1911-1946

WTC 1
Height - 1,368 feet
Size -4.3 million square ft.
Floors -110
Constructed - 1966-1973

Here's the detalis on the Hudson's controlled demolition:

— A 21 man crew needed four months to complete preparations for the implosion design.
— A 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 used.
— 2,728 lb of explosives was used during the demolition.

BTW, Hudson's is the tallest structural steel building ever imploded.

Prepping WTC 1, 2, & 7 would take at least four times the time, manpower and supplies that was used for Hudson's but the best the CTers can come up with is a few "unusual" drills in the weeks before 9/11.

[HeyLeroy]

http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1233

24 October 1998, the World Record was set for the tallest building ever brought down by controlled demolition.
It was the J L Hudson Building (http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030225133807) in Detroit, Michigan. I watched it happen.

Let's look at some numbers:

J L Hudson Building:
439 feet high
2.2 million square feet
Preparation took seven months. The interior was completely gutted. The two basement levels had to be filled with dirt. The perimeter basement walls were bermed. The steel structural columns were torch-cut. Only then were they able to start setting the charges.

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.
Sourced from the above link.

Now let's take a look at the WTC buildings:

WTC 1:
1,368 feet
3.8 million square feet
WTC 2:
1,362 feet
3.8 million square feet
WTC 7:
570 feet
1,868,000 square feet
WTC 1, 2 and 7 were occupied around the clock. There were walls, desks, chairs, filing cabinets, computers, people, etc. And to top it off, the majority of the structural steel was on the outside of the building. There was no way to access them with cutting torches without being seen. There was also no way to plant thermite or thermate or nanothermite devices unobserved. No one has ever come forward, claiming that in the days preceding 11 September, they saw climbers on the outsides of these buildings, and no mystery devices were ever reported being seen.

As noted in the J L Hudson demolition, over seven miles of detonation cord was used, to wire over 2,700 lbs of explosive, in over 4,100 separate charges, with over 4,500 delays.
The combined height of WTC 1, 2 and 7 is over 7.5 times the height of the Hudson building.
The combined area of WTC 1, 2 and 7 is over 4.3 times the area of the Hudson building.
So I ask anyone who promotes the 'controlled demolition' theory to provide some hard numbers:
How much explosive was used to bring down those three buildings?
How many separate charges were required?
How many non-electric delays were required?
Where was all this blasting equipment hidden, along with approximately 30 (4.3X) to 52 (7.5X) miles of detonation cord?
How were charges set on the structural steel on the outsides of the buildings without being detected?

[kookbreaker]

It really bugs me when the conspiracy liars say that prepping the WTC buildings for a controlled demolition wouldn’t be that hard, wouldn’t involve many people and therefore wouldn’t attract much attention.


You gotta love that line of thinking. Goes against everything known. The entire CT/CD arguements goes as follows:

CT: The WTC was a controlled demolition!
Skeptic: How do you come to that conclusion?
CT: It looks like one!
Skeptic: That doesn't follow, in fact it really doesn't look like one if you...
CT: It fell into its own footprint!
Skeptic: Well, actually, no. None of them did, you see this map of local dama...
CT: They blew it up. Controlled Demolition. I say so.
Skeptic: Look, controlled demolition isn't easy. The demolition companies that do this stuff for a living...
CT: What do they know?!
Skeptic: ...a lot actually. But in any case, CD takes a lot of time and manpower
CT: They could have done it on the weekends..over a long period of time!
Skeptic: uh. When? The buildings were inhabited 24/7.
CT: They'd just sneak a little bit of explosive in at a time..or thermite!
Skeptic: But controlled demo is more than just putting explosives in a building...
CT: Not according the the hollywood movies I've seen!! Look at the X-files movie, just a soda machine full of explosives and it brings down the building!
Skeptic: That was a movie.. in real life you have to prep a building for demolition. Walls need to be removed so they can put the explosives right on the load bearing columns.
CT: They didn't need to do that!
Skeptic: Yes, they did. Every CD has been done that way.
CT: Hollywood says you are wrong. Anyway, they could have solved that by bringing in even more explosives!
Skeptic: And what? Put it in people's offices? Not only extra explosives Wouldn't some folks notice the large boxes marked 'Do not look in this box' on the side and detcord running out of them, down the hall and into the elevator shaft?!
CT: Detcord!? That is so last century. Radio control!
Skeptic: Radio control? are you kidding me? You want to trust high explosives to radio control in the area with the world's highest amount of radio traffic? Do you realise how dumb that is?
CT: They could do it, I saw it in a movie.
Skeptic: Look, they don't even use Radio control for explosives out in the middle of nowhere, let alone a major metropolitan area.
CT: The Covert op demo teams could have done it.
Skeptic: hoo-boy.
CT: Dude, covert op.
Skeptic: So you are saying that some secret team snuck explosives into the WTC, setting up the world's largest demolition project,yet ignored all the conventional techniques for CD by placing explosives away from the load bearing columns, used unsafe radio control in an area with heavy radio traffic, and managed to use an explosive that was inaudible outside the building?
CT: Well...it wasn't a controlled demoltion.. it was an unconventional demolition.
Skeptic: A what?
CT: An unconventional demolition. That's why the buildings didn't collapse in their own footprint.
Skeptic: Didn't you just tell me that the buildings falling into their own footprint was the major sign of CD?
CT: Well yeah, but they didn't. But it is still obviously CD.
Skeptic: CD?
CT: Errr.. Unconventional Demolition..UD!
Skeptic: You're joking, right?
CT: They also may have used thermite.
Skeptic: Any evidence for that?!
CT: Dude...covert op!

[HeyLeroy]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/619745c4b1764bd77.jpg

Most steel buildings have a web of steel like this...
http://www.debunking911.com/steelweb.jpg
The towers had most of the steel in this web on its skin to save office space. Like this...
http://www.debunking911.com/perimeter.jpg
Note: What's missing from the above photo are the core columns but they are not needed to show the difference in building construction. Conspiracy theorists will be quick to point out this photo doesn't show the core columns but this isn't here to show how many stick figures someone can create. It's here to show how the building had a vastly different design than the average building. If you're a conspiracy theorist just imagine your 47 box columns in the core. (The dark area in the center) The building will still be built differently, box columns in this image or not.(Source) (http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm)

ETA: I posted my summary (up under the OP) on my blog. A troofer responded that the buildings had been built with the explosives built-in(?!?); in case the buildings ever got old, 'they' could make one phone call and bring 'em down.

When I asked her what other buildings have been built with pre-wired explosives she went quiet.

The idea is nucking futs. What do explosives do as they age? They degrade; they become unstable, more sensitive to accidental ignition.

Great way to build a building.

[Comsat Angel]

I saw a programme on tv called "Masterblasters" last year, which detailed the 1) Labour Intensive, and 2) Verrry Slow, processes needed to demolish *any* structure, regardless of size. Prepping a building for demolition by default takes a long time, and lots of people, and lots of equipment, and lots of preparation. Did I emphasize the *lots* part enough? Not to mention the Halsey Homes ... (cont. Page 96)
I'm sure any expert in Controlled Demolition would demo - <ahem> - destroy any CT fantasy about how it would only take a few people a few hours on a single weekend to prep WTC1,2 and 7 for destruction.

[Alt+F4]

Due to bomb threats in the month preceding the attacks the WTC complex had been on a heightened state of security. Bomb-sniffing dogs combed the buildings and were withdrawn on 6 September. No explosives were found. How could the explosive charges have been placed, hidden and wired in four days?


Actually there is no corroborating evidence that bomb-sniffing dogs were removed in the days before 9/11. The "September 6" story was reported only once, in New York Newsday on 9/12/01. From the story:

"Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed."

Here's the link to the original story:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-nyaler122362178sep12,0,1255660.story

The Port Authority Police Department was in charge of security at the WTC, not some "guard". This story was never reported by any other media outlet, Daria Coard never made another statement about it.

PAPD Officer David Lim testified to the 9/11 Commission that he and bomb sniffing dog Sirius (killed in the attack) were on duty the morning of 9/11:

"On that fateful day, my job was checking vehicles that were entering the WTC Truck Dock for possible explosives. At about 0830hrs, I was in my office/kennel on the B-1 level #2WTC. About 15minutes later, I felt the bldg shake. I left Sirius in his kennel & responded to the mezzanine of #1 WTC to assist people coming out of the "A" stairwell."

His complete statement can be found here:http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/congress/9-11_commission/030331-lim.htm

[HeyLeroy]

Feel free to make corrections to my summary and use it (just let me know). I'll correct that point.

[MikeW]

The Newsday article said "the World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday". If the story is accurate then I interpret that as saying extra dogs were there during that time, then removed. The regular dogs, like David Lim's, were there all the time.

There is another fun bit of that article, though. It includes this:

Security guard Hermina Jones said officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against aerial attacks by installing bulletproof windows and fireproof doors in the 22nd-floor computer command center.

Which is then partly quoted on 911proof.com:

And a guard who worked in the world trade center stated that "officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against aerial attacks"

...as one example in support of the claim that "The administration's claim that terrorists crashing planes into buildings was not foreseeable is contradicted by numerous sources" (http://911proof.com/8.html). I'm not sure why, but the dishonesty of the "truth" movement still manages to surprise me.

[Coritani]

ETA: I posted my summary (up under the OP) on my blog. A troofer responded that the buildings had been built with the explosives built-in(?!?); in case the buildings ever got old, 'they' could make one phone call and bring 'em down.

When I asked her what other buildings have been built with pre-wired explosives she went quiet.

The idea is nucking futs. What do explosives do as they age? They degrade; they become unstable, more sensitive to accidental ignition.

Great way to build a building.

Now where have I heard this before? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57426)

[einsteen]

If you strictly use the official story you only need to break the structures between two floors at around storey 95 for example, you only need a few charges then. Then gravity does the job for you in the same messy way as 9/11.

[Mancman]

If you strictly use the official story you only need to break the structures between two floors at around storey 95 for example, you only need a few charges then. Then gravity does the job for you in the same messy way as 9/11.

Then you only have the small matter of explaining how the explosives still performed after a 500mph plane strike and a huge fire took place around them, why the buildings fell towards the sides with bowing columns which were clearly seen folding inwards, etc etc.

[HeyLeroy]

Now where have I heard this before? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57426)
Is that what was going on in that train wreck? When I saw the sheer size to shich that thread was growing, I realized monsters lived there and stayed away.
If you strictly use the official story you only need to break the structures between two floors at around storey 95 for example, you only need a few charges then. Then gravity does the job for you in the same messy way as 9/11.

And your point being....?

Tell you what, einsteen, there are some questions at the bottom of post #2. Can you try and answer them for us?

[einsteen]

Mancman, Leroy this is an anology, I don't say there were explosives where the plane crashed in, I only say if you want to repeat this tragedy you only have to blow up the storey that first fails. In order words you don't need much. The demolitionists have a point if they say you don't need much because the official story simply says you don't need them at all. The plane did the job now, if there was no plane you have to blow up one storey in order to give the falling mass enough momentum and energy...

[Coritani]

Mancman, Leroy this is an anology, I don't say there were explosives where the plane crashed in, I only say if you want to repeat this tragedy you only have to blow up the storey that first fails. In order words you don't need much. The demolitionists have a point if they say you don't need much because the official story simply says you don't need them at all. The plane did the job now, if there was no plane you have to blow up one storey in order to give the falling mass enough momentum and energy...

Eh? I thought CFs are always talking about how the part above the impact would not have had enough energy to destroy the larger, lower part?

Man, this Truth Movement is really contradcitory. :confused:

[HeyLeroy]

They also say that the top parts should've toppled off (no collapses), or ridden the collapsing towers to the ground undamaged.

Indeed, they'll pull any scenario outta their collective arses as long as it's something other than what actually happened.

[HeyLeroy]

Mancman, Leroy this is an anology, I don't say there were explosives where the plane crashed in, I only say if you want to repeat this tragedy you only have to blow up the storey that first fails. In order words you don't need much. The demolitionists have a point if they say you don't need much because the official story simply says you don't need them at all. The plane did the job now, if there was no plane you have to blow up one storey in order to give the falling mass enough momentum and energy...

I'm glad you're finally catching on.

[The Silver Shadow]

You gotta love that line of thinking. Goes against everything known. The entire CT/CD arguements goes as follows:

CT: The WTC was a controlled demolition!
Skeptic: How do you come to that conclusion?
CT: It looks like one!
Skeptic: That doesn't follow, in fact it really doesn't look like one if you...
CT: It fell into its own footprint!
Skeptic: Well, actually, no. None of them did, you see this map of local dama...
CT: They blew it up. Controlled Demolition. I say so.
Skeptic: Look, controlled demolition isn't easy. The demolition companies that do this stuff for a living...
CT: What do they know?!
Skeptic: ...a lot actually. But in any case, CD takes a lot of time and manpower
CT: They could have done it on the weekends..over a long period of time!
Skeptic: uh. When? The buildings were inhabited 24/7.
CT: They'd just sneak a little bit of explosive in at a time..or thermite!
Skeptic: But controlled demo is more than just putting explosives in a building...
CT: Not according the the hollywood movies I've seen!! Look at the X-files movie, just a soda machine full of explosives and it brings down the building!
Skeptic: That was a movie.. in real life you have to prep a building for demolition. Walls need to be removed so they can put the explosives right on the load bearing columns.
CT: They didn't need to do that!
Skeptic: Yes, they did. Every CD has been done that way.
CT: Hollywood says you are wrong. Anyway, they could have solved that by bringing in even more explosives!
Skeptic: And what? Put it in people's offices? Not only extra explosives Wouldn't some folks notice the large boxes marked 'Do not look in this box' on the side and detcord running out of them, down the hall and into the elevator shaft?!
CT: Detcord!? That is so last century. Radio control!
Skeptic: Radio control? are you kidding me? You want to trust high explosives to radio control in the area with the world's highest amount of radio traffic? Do you realise how dumb that is?
CT: They could do it, I saw it in a movie.
Skeptic: Look, they don't even use Radio control for explosives out in the middle of nowhere, let alone a major metropolitan area.
CT: The Covert op demo teams could have done it.
Skeptic: hoo-boy.
CT: Dude, covert op.
Skeptic: So you are saying that some secret team snuck explosives into the WTC, setting up the world's largest demolition project,yet ignored all the conventional techniques for CD by placing explosives away from the load bearing columns, used unsafe radio control in an area with heavy radio traffic, and managed to use an explosive that was inaudible outside the building?
CT: Well...it wasn't a controlled demoltion.. it was an unconventional demolition.
Skeptic: A what?
CT: An unconventional demolition. That's why the buildings didn't collapse in their own footprint.
Skeptic: Didn't you just tell me that the buildings falling into their own footprint was the major sign of CD?
CT: Well yeah, but they didn't. But it is still obviously CD.
Skeptic: CD?
CT: Errr.. Unconventional Demolition..UD!
Skeptic: You're joking, right?
CT: They also may have used thermite.
Skeptic: Any evidence for that?!
CT: Dude...covert op!
I had the exact same debate with a guy at my university. He eventually gave in when I told him how stupid he sounded when he was comparing a hollywood film to a real life situation. And yes, he used the X-Files reference as well! I'm just not sure how he got into U of T, Dylan couldn't even get into film school :D

[Graham2001]

I've always be amazed by 11/09/01 CTs who seem to think that Controlled Demolition is easy.

Back in 1997 the old Royal Canberra Hospital was demolished. It was intended to use Controlled Demolition to do this.

However the contractor hired was a shonk who decided to (amongst other things) double:jaw-dropp the amount of explosives he first thought of when planning the demolition.

As a result instead of the building collapsing into its own footprint debris was thrown a considerable distance and someone was killed.

The coroners report into this disaster is one of the things that I recommend CTs look at whenever they try to tell me that the WTC was taken down using Controlled Demolition.

For the details check out:

The Executive Summary (http://tinyurl.com/c5kr5)

Event Chronology (http://tinyurl.com/2e3pgk)

Coroners Findings (http://tinyurl.com/2ewvcl)

[CHF]

Twoofer logic: the logistical problems involved in a real CD simply means that on 9/11 we saw a NEW kind of demolition - one that's way easier than a regular one.

[DemolitionDave]

I have been in the implosion business for close to 30 years now. There are a couple of glaring innaccuracies in this thread that I would like to clear up. Comparing the Hudson Building to the WTC collapse is kind of like comparing an apple to a cumquat.
When a building is demolished for commercial purposes the goal is to bring the building down and fragment the debris into pieces that are easily mangaged by the contractor for removal with the equipment he has available. Some contractors have bigger equipment than others therefore they require less preparation and the number of floors that are worked on is reduced. Almost any highrise can be felled by working on just 2 floors. The "major motion" floors actually drop the builiding. Any charges above the major motion floors are there to maximize the fragmentation of debris.
The majority of the man hours spent in prepping the Hudson building were spent on stripping the building of all combustibles (i.e.Carpet, furniture etc) which was a decision based on the cost of disposing of the debris. After the building is stripped, all that is left is concrete and steel which can be recycled for a profit.
The Hudson Building was situated less than 10 ' from the elevated People Mover track. This required the installation of 3/4" steel cables to augment the stuctural capability of the building and help "pull" the wall away from the track. This is time consuming too.
The actual explosives loading crew was 4 people for about a week. The shaped charges aer assembled beforehand. Shaped charges do not deteriorate. They have an unlimited shelf life.
I guess my point is that if a building was to be expeditiously imploded none of this prep would be required because there would be no effort to save the surrounding structures.
As illustrated in the Canberra implosion, shaped charges aren't even required to blast a steel framed structure. That guy found an old Dupont Blasters Handbook and used bulk explosives to drop the structure. By bulking the explosives he caused the steel to shred and ended up pitching it more than 1,000 meters away.

[HeyLeroy]

Welcome to the forum, DemolitionDave. Can you tell us what type of explosive is in the shaped charges used to demolish buildings?

[DemolitionDave]

Commercially available shaped charges are predominately filled with RDX. I have used some that were filled with HMX. They produced the HMX filled charges for high heat situations.

[ConspiRaider]

Commercially available shaped charges are predominately filled with RDX. I have used some that were filled with HMX. They produced the HMX filled charges for high heat situations.
Welcome, DD.

Is there anything about the collapses of the 3 buildings that indicates to you, the usage of RDX or HMX as initiators of the events?

[Arus808]

so, in your experience as a Controlled Demolitionist, you can say without a doubt that Thermite (or any derivative) is never used in CD?

[DemolitionDave]

No, nothing indicates to me that RDX or HMX initiated the collapse. The only thing you see when a shaped charge initiates in a building demolition are small flashes of fire.
I can only speak from my own expperience and that is the only time I have ever used thermite was to cut through heavily reinforced concrete (a bank vault) and to modify the legs of a blast furnace to accomodate the placing of shaped charges. Both were slow laborious processes. It's really nasty work. If the gases don't get you the red hot pieces of molten concrete usually do.

[Gravy]

Hey, it's the famous Demolition Dave, of demolitiondave.com! Welcome. I'm jealous. When I was a kid I loved to blow things up, but I wasn't smart enough to realize that people did it for a living. :D

Beware if you stick around here: you'll be hit with questions faster than an RDX blast.

[uk_dave]

No, nothing indicates to me that RDX or HMX initiated the collapse. The only thing you see when a shaped charge initiates in a building demolition are small flashes of fire.
I can only speak from my own expperience and that is the only time I have ever used thermite was to cut through heavily reinforced concrete (a bank vault) and to modify the legs of a blast furnace to accomodate the placing of shaped charges. Both were slow laborious processes. It's really nasty work. If the gases don't get you the red hot pieces of molten concrete usually do.

Just out of curiousity, what was your first reaction upon seeing footage of the collapse of wtc7?

Oh and welcome to the forum :)

[Gravy]

so, in your experience as a Controlled Demolitionist, you can say without a doubt that Thermite (or any derivative) is never used in CD?I think a conspiracy theorist would dismiss the question and answer as irrelevant. Just because something hasn't been used in the past doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't be used. The big question is, "is there a single shred of evidence that supports the CT thermite claim," and the answer, of course, is no.

[AK-Dave]

CT: Errr.. Unconventional Demolition..UD!

Has anyone considered the possibility that this may have been an ID - Intelligent Demolition? If there is anything we can learn from those who so valiantly fight the godless Darwinists, it is that you can never rule out the hand of god an intelligent unnamed entity that may or may not be a deity or advanced space alien. Why this Intelligent Demolisher would want to bring down those buildings is most likely beyond the comprehension of us mere mortals. Besides, like Intelligent Design, Intelligent Demolition does not need to rely on your materialistic facts or your godless scientific evidence.

[DemolitionDave]

My first reaction was probably the same as everyone elses. It looked like an implosion. Whenever a building is imploded the blaster strives for fluidity of motion. Ideally you want it to look like the structure is melting.
That was also the reason we were hired for the debris cleanup. (the owner of the company later got us thrown off of the site, but that is a whole 'nother story) The resultant debris pile was similiar to what you would expect to find after an implosion and we had the most experience dealing with similiar projects

[Gravy]

This place is swarming with Daves all of a sudden. Did I miss the memo?

[DemolitionDave]

How much does this Intelligent Demolisher charge by the hour? I can make him/her/it some serious $$.

[ConspiRaider]

Commercially available shaped charges are predominately filled with RDX. I have used some that were filled with HMX. They produced the HMX filled charges for high heat situations.
Great stuff, DD.

Another question (as Gravy predicted, psychic that he is):

Let's say that you, with your knowledge, were going to design the drop of WTC2 such that it appeared to fail near the impact point, with the 23 degree initial pitch, and then the top-down collapse. When in reality you, with your expertise at controlled demolition, initiated it with planted explosives / thermate / thermite / shaped charges or whatnot. How would you have done it? How many floors rigged? Which floors?

[uk_dave]

This place is swarming with Daves all of a sudden. Did I miss the memo?

Daves don't 'swarm'.... we sorta amble along at our own pace whistling at the pretty girls.

But if it helps, you can call me Brian.

[DemolitionDave]

For expediency sake, I would have worked on as few floors as possible certainly no more that 4. I would have cut the splice plates on the impact floor to allow for the incline.
I have learned in this business that if you get something to incline anywhere from 3 to 7 degrees it will collapse. There are certain exceptions but that is the general rule of thumb.

[ConspiRaider]

This place is swarming with Daves all of a sudden. Did I miss the memo?
If you only knew - it's even worse than you thought.

Dave

[uk_dave]

For expediency sake, I would have worked on as few floors as possible certainly no more that 4. I would have cut the splice plates on the impact floor to allow for the incline.
I have learned in this business that if you get something to incline anywhere from 3 to 7 degrees it will collapse. There are certain exceptions but that is the general rule of thumb.

How would you have felt about someone deciding to crash a bloody great plane at high speed into your carefully planned demolition prep?

[uk_dave]

See, that's where the troofers have got it wrong...it aint the 'new world order', it's the 'new dave order'.....

....available for weddings, funerals and bar mitzvahs

[Gravy]

DD, if you get this, I'm wondering if you have written (or videotaped, perhaps) anything on your experience with the WTC cleanup? Outside of this silly conspiracy stuff, it's always interesting to learn about people's experiences who were there.

[ConspiRaider]

See, that's where the troofers have got it wrong...it aint the 'new world order', it's the 'new dave order'.....

....available for weddings, funerals and bar mitzvahs
And we straddle the planet. Yer in the UK. Got a Dave in Alaska. Got me in Los Angeles. And it appears that Demolition Dave operates out of Canada maybe? Anyway we've got the planet bracketed. What about in The Azores?

"Dave's not here!"

[DemolitionDave]

I didn't videotape anythig,I thought it might be construed as a little sacriligious. I haven't written about it either.

[Gravy]

How would you have felt about someone deciding to crash a bloody great plane at high speed into your carefully planned demolition prep?...And your presence and work had to be completely invisible, and all this had to be accomplished in a building and on floors that are occupied 24 hours a day.

:eye-poppi

[Gravy]

I didn't videotape anythig,I thought it might be construed as a little sacriligious. I haven't written about it either.Thanks for the reply.

[uk_dave]

I didn't videotape anythig,I thought it might be construed as a little sacriligious. I haven't written about it either.

How do you feel about the woowoo's claims of controlled demolition of the towers, and Jowenko's response to being shown the collapse of WTC7?

[HeyLeroy]

eooOr1-icI0

[ConspiRaider]

eooOr1-icI0
That was thoroughly fun! Thanks!

Dave

[Myriad]

Hi, Demoltion Dave. As Gravy predicted, a few more questions (hopefully susceptible to short answers):

About how large (dimensions-wise) and heavy would a pre-assembled shape charge capable of cutting through a WTC core column (say, at around the 80th or 95th floors) be?

Since no building that large has ever been imploded, would charges of sufficient size be available in your own company's inventory, or "in stock" from a manufacturer or supplier? Or would it be a special order? Or do you make these up yourself from standard parts/materials?

How far would those charges project out when in place? Could an elevator in an adjacent shaft still pass by?

Besides making sure the debris is sufficiently fragmented, do the additional charges above the major motion floors also prevent buckling during the collapse that could otherwise eject debris horizontally? (That's worded like a leading question, but I really don't know; I always assumed that was one of the things that makes a demolition truly "controlled.")

Were you at the site long enough to get to the bottom of the "bathtub" at any point? If so, did you happen to notice any large solidified puddles of once-molten metal there? :rolleyes:

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Gravy]

Hi, Demoltion Dave. As Gravy predicted, a few more questions (hopefully susceptible to short answers):

About how large (dimensions-wise) and heavy would a pre-assembled shape charge capable of cutting through a WTC core column (say, at around the 80th or 95th floors) be?That part of the question is a little tricky, Myriad. The 47 core columns in the towers transition from a thick, built-up box column, to a thinner Wide-Flange column. Most of those transitions take place between the 77th and 95th floors, and the transitions are staggered, so that on most floors in that zone you've got columns of both types. I don't have the figures in front of me for the steel thickness at those levels. I'm guessing 2" max. IIRC, the limit of most commercially-available RDX cutter charges is about 1.5", but I may be pulling that out of my butt. Of course the sooper sekrit gubmint ordnance unit could make charges to cut much thicker steel. :(

[DemolitionDave]

Commercially produced shaped charges can cut up to 4" max. But, when you oppose them they can cut double the thickness of the steel.

The higher you go the thinner the steel.

[Gravy]

Commercially produced shaped charges can cut up to 4" max. But, when you oppose them they can cut double the thickness of the steel.

The higher you go the thinner the steel.
Wow, I was pulling that out of my butt. Thanks, Dave!

[ConspiRaider]

Wow, I was pulling that out of my butt. Thanks, Dave!
As a consolation prize, you are now an honorary GrDavey.

[negativ]

As a result instead of the building collapsing into its own footprint debris was thrown a considerable distance and someone was killed.

Interesting stuff.

Tragically Katie Bender was struck in the head by a fragment of steel killing her instantly. The fragment weighed 999 grams. It travelled a distance of 430 metres at a sub sonic speed in about 3.1 seconds after the blast first occurred.

:eek:

[DemolitionDave]

An RC2000 shaped charge could cut through those columns. The 2000 designation stands for 2,000 grains of RDX per linear foot. The dimensions are approximately 2" X 2" X 12". There are 4,000 grains per pound therefore the charge would weigh 1/2 lb. The standoff distance to the target is 3/4". These charges are commercially available. Implosion contractors keep an invnetory of them in case of an emergency project. They can also be made in the field via a "melt and pour" method. They are detonated by a standard #8 detonator.
Months prior to the first bombing of the WTC CDI was hired by Citicorp to investigate the structure and figure out how it could be dropped. CDI's conclusions were that the building could be dropped by working in the underground parking levels and the only way to prevent it would be to ban public parking. The powers that be didn't like that idea because they were generating sizeable revenue from public parking. Lo and behold several months later a bomb went off in the public parking area. It would have brought the building down but fortunately the parking space closest to the central core was occupied and the bombers had to park too far away.
One thing that all these 9/11 investigations are missing is the difference between "as designed" and "as built". It's been my experience that the difference can be as much as 20% (even in nuclear plants which is kind of scary). You can have a building designed by the best structural engineer in the world but when it's time to put the thing together, it is usually done by an ironworker with a 9th grade education. If it doesn't fit, they will make it fit. All of these computer generated models are worthless. They re all based on "as designed". Look at the Murrah Building in OKC. There wouldn't have been nearly as extensive damage if the building was built "as designed" All of the column/beam connections were faulty which caused almost the entire front of the building to collapse.
Just remember, every highrise you go up in ws built by the "low bidder". (and if you are ever in Mexico, never stay on a floor higher than you are prepared to jump out of)

[The Doc]

I don't mean to change the subject, but I should just mention I just finished watching a show called "Demolition Dynasty". I think every CT'er should be made to watch it so they can see exactly how much work goes into building implosions.

[DemolitionDave]

That showed was produced by a Geman Production Comany and they wanted to dramatize it. It was a big exaggeration. There wasn't any problem with the annex connecting to the main building. It was all fabricated. The only tough part was the fire station.
As a side note, almost every non family member on that program has died on an on the job accident.

[Gravy]

Wow, I had never heard that story about the CDI investigation. It was a stroke of luck – if one can call it that – that the truck bomb went off between the two towers, not directly beneath one.

Many of NIST's calculations take into account both design plans and as-built (or standard-of-practice) deviations, so that they're not modeling an "ideal" building.

Dave, it would seem that the inspection process would also have to be a culprit in a flawed building like the Murrah (most people don't know that about 80% of the people killed there were killed by the progressive collapse, not by the blast). I've read a few hundred pages of inspection reports of WTC steel fabrication and construction. To a layman like me they're impressive: strict criteria and schedules for how the inspections were done and what was rejected, letters back and forth between engineers and fabricators to clarify specifications and sign off on repairs of errors, yearly structural inspections of the finished buildings, etc.

I'm not asking you to comment on the WTC in particular, but is it your opinion that the inspections process of high-rises (in the U.S. at least) is inherently flawed and too easily worked around or corruptible?

[A W Smith]

Dave I am familiar with as designed and as built. In all instances drawings must be re-done and put on file in the towns respective building departments and engineers and architects still have to sign off on them. Also the building official must inspect and sign off many times during the many stages of construction. While it may be possible for an iron worker to burn off the end of a WF thats too long and elongate the holes to achieve bolt up on something like a low rise single level shopping mall. Thats not the case in a high rise. I think your statement in general is an insult to all construction professionals from your so called "9th grade educated" iron worker all the way up to the Leslie Robertsons of the world.

[DemolitionDave]

I wasn't trying to insult anybody, but hey I guess the truth hurts.
I have been on countless highrise projects where the building inspector never showed up. Try and find accurate "as builts". Good luck. In the demolition business we would absolutely love to find "as builts". Even in the 1 in 100 chance we do find them there are huge discrepancies. Sometimes I think they ar purposefully destroyed for liability reasons.

Case in point, over a dozen high rises in Miami Beach had to be demolished because the contractor cut corners and used beach sand to try and save money. The high salt content totally eroded the rebar.

Just 2 weeks ago the goverment found out that a contractor building a nuclear waste containment facility in Hanford Washington had falsified all the geotechnical borings.

L'Ambiance Plaza in CT. One miss applied bolt cause the entire structure to collapse killing a bunch of people.

Homer City Generating Plant. The chimney was up over 400' when someone realized the concrete in the bottom of the concrete was rotten. When that chimney was dismantled they found all kinds of debris dumped into the pours. (even a bunch of rubber boots)

I could go on and on.

[ktesibios]

IIRC, reading the various NIST reports on the collapse of the WTC towers indicated that they were very aware of the difference between "as designed" and "as built" and went to considerable trouble to work out as much as possible about the "as built" configuration of the buildings.

[DemolitionDave]

How about the "Big Dig" in Boston? Do you want to talk about the building inspection or lack of on that project?

[pomeroo]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/619745c4b1764bd77.jpg




ETA: I posted my summary (up under the OP) on my blog. A troofer responded that the buildings had been built with the explosives built-in(?!?); in case the buildings ever got old, 'they' could make one phone call and bring 'em down.

When I asked her what other buildings have been built with pre-wired explosives she went quiet.

The idea is nucking futs. What do explosives do as they age? They degrade; they become unstable, more sensitive to accidental ignition.

Great way to build a building.



I used to argue with a psycho on a libertarian discussion forum. He imagined that ALL of the really tall buildings in NYC were wired with explosives, just in case.

How must the world appear to such pathetic souls? Every stray cat is a unicorn, black helicopters constantly hover overhead, and every shrub conceals a man in black.

[uk_dave]

I wasn't trying to insult anybody, but hey I guess the truth hurts.
I have been on countless highrise projects where the building inspector never showed up. Try and find accurate "as builts". Good luck. In the demolition business we would absolutely love to find "as builts". Even in the 1 in 100 chance we do find them there are huge discrepancies. Sometimes I think they ar purposefully destroyed for liability reasons.

Case in point, over a dozen high rises in Miami Beach had to be demolished because the contractor cut corners and used beach sand to try and save money. The high salt content totally eroded the rebar.

Just 2 weeks ago the goverment found out that a contractor building a nuclear waste containment facility in Hanford Washington had falsified all the geotechnical borings.

L'Ambiance Plaza in CT. One miss applied bolt cause the entire structure to collapse killing a bunch of people.

Homer City Generating Plant. The chimney was up over 400' when someone realized the concrete in the bottom of the concrete was rotten. When that chimney was dismantled they found all kinds of debris dumped into the pours. (even a bunch of rubber boots)

I could go on and on.

It's interesting that you raise that issue.

In the UK we have a thing called the CDM (construction design and management) regulations. A right royal pain in the arse they can be too.

Mostly they are concerned with health and safety during construction of commercial buildings, and there is a big emphasis on 'as built' details being provided on completion.

One reason for this was given to me many years ago and was basically concerning prestressed concrete elements.

It would seem that many concrete buildings were coming to the end of their useful lives and a large amount of demolition was being undertaken. During these demolitions, there were incidents of prestressed beams being 'unloaded' and exploding, causing injury to the demo workers. So, apparently, one of the reasons for the cdm was to be able to provide an accurate record of the structure so that prestressed members could be indentified and the danger reduced.

Of course, only time will tell if this actually works in practice.


anyway...ermmm...carry on everyone...

[DemolitionDave]

You don't have to look much further than the NIST report on the fireproofing.

As designed- 2"
As built- 1/2"

I have never heard of pre placing explosives but I have worked on structures where thin walled PVC pipes were installed prior to placing the concrete to serve as explosives loading tubes in the future

[Gravy]

Dave, I wonder if you've read Brent Blanchard's comments on the WTC conspiracy theories in this paper (http://tinyurl.com/z6zyc), and if so, do you generally agree/disagree/have anything to add? Thanks!

[DemolitionDave]

I wouldn't read Blanchard's garbage. He has no experience with explosives,blasting or demolition. He is not an engineer either. He maintains an implosion website and during the day he monitors vibrations on pile driving jobs.
He is a self proclaimed "expert"

[HeyLeroy]

Come on, DDave, don't beat around the bush; tell us what you really think!

Seriously, you should at least read it before you tear it apart.

[DemolitionDave]

Brent Blanchard is to the implosion industry as the Chickenhawk is to Foghorn Leghorn. "Quit Bothhering me boy"

There was an ABC Documentary on Explosives demolition where they referred to Blanchard and his sidekick as the "Beavis and Butthead of the Implosion industry" :D

[uk_dave]

did you mention which company you work for, dave?

[njslim]

We in the fire service consistantly run in problems caused by undocumented
or half ass modifactions to the building (ie laying down a new roof on top
of the old one providing plenty of fuel and void spaces for fire). In my
town some of the old timers still talk of "big one" in the late 1970's where
entire strip mall was lost. Crew advancing line into store adjacent to fire
realized fire was running over them in cockloft (attic) - were just able
to evacuate them and other crews before fire spread through entire
complex. Later turned out some idiot working in building had decided to
chop big ass hole (almost 3 ft) through the fire partition which divided the
cockloft.

[Gravy]

You don't have to look much further than the NIST report on the fireproofing.

As designed- 2"
As built- 1/2"The requirements varied quite a bit, depending on the structural element. The chart below shows the requirements for the new non-asbestos SFRM. The use of Asbestos SFRM had been banned in 1970, when such material had been applied up to the 38th floor of Tower 1.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879045c901f56c313.jpg

Correspondence in the appendixes of NIST NCSTAR 1-6A indicate that the thickness of the SFRM was being checked, and sometimes had to be corrected, during construction.

NIST concluded that it wasn't the thickness of the applied SFRM that played a major role in the collapses, but that much of it has been blasted off by the aircraft impacts.

[HeyLeroy]

Hmm, checking the Implosionworld and Protec Documentation websites, Blanchard never really claims to be in the demolition industry, only to document demolitions and study the events.

[Gravy]

Hmm, checking the Implosionworld and Protec Documentation websites, Blanchard never really claims to be in the demolition industry, only to document demolitions and study the events.The paper is worth a read. Protec had seismographs in the area, which didn't record any blasts prior to the three collapses. Protec documented some of the cleanup and conventional demolitions of the remains. And they interviewed several CD experts who were on the scene when building 7 came down, who saw and heard no signs of charges going off. There's nothing surprising in the paper, but it's interesting.

[HeyLeroy]

I agree; it appears well researched. I've linked to it several times.

[Myriad]

DemolitionDave, thanks for answering my questions above (regarding size of charge). I don't have anything to add or anything further to ask, but I'm enjoying this interesting and informative thread.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Kiwiwriter]

Demolition Dave, welcome to JREF, and thank you for bringing your hardheaded experience in this field to bear on the Woos and Troofers.

[Dog Town]

I have worked on structures where thin walled PVC pipes were installed prior to placing the concrete to serve as explosives loading tubes in the future

I call BS! Name one building with this design!

[DemolitionDave]

George P. Coleman Bridge in Norfolk Virginia.

[A W Smith]

George P. Coleman Bridge in Norfolk Virginia.


a steel swing bridge?

[Dog Town]

George P. Coleman Bridge in Norfolk Virginia.

Thought we were talking buildings. Not bridges, but you did say stuctures, not buildings. So you are saying, the bridges concrete pillars, have pipes in them for explosives later?

[fezzic]

Controlled Demolition has a short writeup on their website wrt bridges such as the George P. Coleman bridge.

Example... The 2,600 foot long, 4 lane wide spans were floated from their original location to rest on temporary piers designed for later removal with the assistance of Controlled Demolition Incorporated. Using its DREXS (Directional Remote Explosive Severance) System, Controlled Demolition Incorporated segmented the spans into 300 ton sections which matched the lifting capabilities of Tidewater's equipment. The heavily reinforced concrete pier caps and caissons were subsequently segmented by Controlled Demolition Incorporated to facilitate their removal.

I thought that temporary structures would possibly have them since they would be only there until their purpose was fulfilled and then have to be removed.

I am pretty sure that places with highways and subject to invasion (South Korea and West Germany come to mind) would have arrangements to make dropping bridges and overpasses (to block the road) as easy as consistent with military needs.

[DemolitionDave]

The Japanese have a much more stringent inspection process than we do and look what still managed to happen.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20070211a3.html

[kookbreaker]

This is the same Japan that leaked a little 'something' about 7 years back?

I remember sales of radiation detectors on the West coast suddenly increased 10 fold.