Can somebody explain...

why the WTC towers were "exploded" during their controlled demolition, chucking debris in all directions








But WTC 7 fell neatly, producing - as some have estimated - only 10 per cent of its debris field outside its footprint?





Why were different types of demolition used?

I'm sure that there are more then a billion threads on that Topic. Why do we need another one?

Originally posted by Hellas
I'm sure that there are more then a billion threads on that Topic. Why do we need another one?

I've never seen one. Not one that asks specifically about the difference.

I believe that the point of the ostentatious outward explosion of the main towers was simply for theatrics. In other words, it was meant to look devastating in order to create a lasting impression in people. WTC 7 was ancillary to their plans and was simply brought down in an efficient manner since no one was really watching it anyway.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
why the WTC towers were "exploded" during their controlled demolition,

How about showing some proof that there was a controlled demolition?
Why did nobody notice the tonnes of explosives needed, the km of det cord to wire it all up, all the holes bashed in the walls?

Why were different types of demolition used?

What makes you think any sort of demolition, apart from 2 planes was used? Where is your proof demolitions were used?

I guess dereks thinks your question is invalid because be believes they were not destroyed with controlled demolition. Lets assume they were not for sake of argument. They still seem to fall down in different manners. I think the only plausible reason for this is that WTC 7 had a more traditional skyscraper design whereas the main towers tube-frame structural system.

The first two towers demolition was so that is shocked and awwed everyone who say them come down. Also the twin towers had so much structure as apart of them that the movement of debris was needed to bring the towers down.

Building 7 was a cover your tracks move. No one really knows exactly what kind of information was in building 7, but it did have offices for the FBI, CIA etc.

Originally posted by Chanheitanakhar
I think the only plausible reason for this is that WTC 7 had a more traditional skyscraper design whereas the main towers tube-frame structural system.

Wrong.

Neither had the traditional grid layout for the columns.

They both had a core column/ext column layout.

Towers had truss floors, while 7 had traditional beam floors.

And IIRC, 7's core had some provisions to withstand wind loads, while the towers had none.

reply to post by dudly

Building 7 was a cover your tracks move. No one really knows exactly what kind of information was in building 7, but it did have offices for the FBI, CIA etc.

This has always been one of the more curious and bizarre conspiracy justifications to me. I just don't understand the percieved logic here. They destroyed a building because it had "secrets" in it? I mean, were the secrets inscribed on the structure? If your secrets were written on paper I would think the last thing you would want is for the building to come crashing down and spilling all that paperwork around lower Manhattan for all the world to come find things. If they were on computer programs then all you need is a delete key; would you really want your hard drives spewing rolling around the streets were anyone could pick them up?

The towers were a quarter-mile high and thus felled debris in a larger area around the bases. WTC 7 was only a fraction of the height of the towers.

And yes, the same explosives that were used in the towers were used in WTC 7. Listen to the collapses. They're all the same.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
And IIRC, 7's core had some provisions to withstand wind loads, while the towers had none.

You don't remember correctly because you haven't done the research. Yes, the towers did have provisions to withstand 100mph winds. You people don't even research do you? You just type a whole bunch of words on the screen that you think or want to be the right answer.

Please, research before you type. Thanks.

If you think about it the twin towers were too tall and skinny to be able to implode them in a conventional controlled demolition. Building 7 was a perfect candidate for that type of demolition.

If they tried imploding the towers the apposing walls would collide with each other in stead of lying in top of each other, and the debris would have ended up outside their footprints anyway.

I can't guarantee the validity of this story but it sure is interesting...

The towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built. It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings.

The projected cost to disassemble the towers: $15 Billion. Just the scaffolding for the operation was estimated at $2.4 Billion!

100777.com...

If this is true then it looks to me like someone made a deal with Larry...An extremely convenient one wouldn't you say?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
You just type a whole bunch of words on the screen that you think or want to be the right answer.

Irony.

Let me complete the entire thought for you.

IIRC, 7's core - on its own - had provisions to resist winds, while the tower cores - on their own - had none.

Better now?

Do you feel proud?

Do you see that you're now your own target?

"If this is true then it looks to me like someone made a deal with Larry...An extremely convenient one wouldn't you say?"

Ya think? Let's just say that no insurance carrier in their right mind would have paid a dime on those claims without aggressively pursuing a coverage defense which consists of:

1) reserving their rights

2) providing a comprehensive coverage analysis

3) hiring coverage counsel

4) extensively investigating and litigating the the coverage question (was this an actual terrorist act or was it an act of fraud?)

5) hiring construction, demolition, explosive experts to examine the mountain of evidence and testify on their behalf

Insurance companies have been known to deny coverage on claims which had a lot less damning evidence and for a lot less settlement money. If the insurers had done things by the book, the coverage issue should still be in litigation and would be for probably another decade.

But no, we don't want any court cases in regards to 9/11, do we now? The insurers quickly just handed out billions of dollars in settlement bucks without bothering to defend their interests, as per the policy. I don't know about you, but I've never dealt with such an "accommodating" insurance company.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
The towers were a quarter-mile high and thus felled debris in a larger area around the bases. WTC 7 was only a fraction of the height of the towers.

And yes, the same explosives that were used in the towers were used in WTC 7. Listen to the collapses. They're all the same.

But according to several posters here the towers "threw" debris outwards, so that it landed a significant distance outside their footprints. Look at the picture helpfully provided by SPreston (forgive his eccentric spelling.)




According to the conspiracy theory Building Seven fell straight down, with only 10 per cent of its mass landing outside its footprint.

How can these two different events be the product of the same types of explosives?

reply to post by ANOK


So you disagree with Bonez?

It seems worth asking though - why would the perpetrators care about the debris landing outside the collapse zone? As you point out, it did anyway. You seem to be saying that they didn't do a conventional demo on 1 and 2 because of the risk of the debris landing far and wide, so they blew them up, ensuring the debris flew outwards all over the place.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


Once again you skip right over the most obvious explanation for some facet of 9/11 so you can arrive at one more palatable to you.

The likelihood is that the insurance companies paid out because they saw no reason not to. As you correctly point out, it's unlikely that they would have settled the claims if they thought there was something suspicious about them.

Oh nonononono you've got it all wrong.

The debris fallout was fuelled by the airpressure buildup inside the building as the building collapsed, and while collapsing, exploded some 600,000 pound debris 400 feet away into other buildings. I kid you not!

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by ANOK

 

So you disagree with Bonez?

It seems worth asking though - why would the perpetrators care about the debris landing outside the collapse zone? As you point out, it did anyway. You seem to be saying that they didn't do a conventional demo on 1 and 2 because of the risk of the debris landing far and wide, so they blew them up, ensuring the debris flew outwards all over the place.

Yeah I see your point, but perhaps it would have been more work to do it in the conventional way when it wouldn't make any difference anyway. Whatever method was used was perhaps simpler to set up, because it didn't require so much accuracy as to how and where the 'explosives' were planted and in what sequence there were detonated.

I'm sure even with the amount of damage it caused, they would have wanted to keep it to a minimum where they could, thus WTC 7 was imploded to save buildings around it. No point in making unnecessary damage.

(But obviously to the OSers all this was just shear coinkindink, but if you consider the big picture it don't look good for the OS)

I don't really like to speculate on what could have been used as the 'explosive' because it's hard to say, and really in the end it doesn't matter if it was space beams or a frozen fish. You don't have to know what did it to know asymmetrical damage and fires didn't.

Originally posted by DaRAGE
Oh nonononono you've got it all wrong.

The debris fallout was fuelled by the airpressure buildup inside the building as the building collapsed, and while collapsing, exploded some 600,000 pound debris 400 feet away into other buildings. I kid you not!

So why didn't the same thing happen to Building Seven?