It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fast Demo impossible? Not for CDI

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Travelers Building


Controlled Demolition Incorporated’s database on the removal of urban structures is the product of the demolition of over a billion square feet of high rise office buildings, hotels and residential structures, worldwide. Hands-on experience and knowledge of regional design/construction practices and materials permits design of the safe, efficient and cost effective demolition and removal of massive buildings in a matter of weeks instead of the months required by more traditional demolition methods.

The 451,000 square foot, 18-story, structural steel Traveler's Insurance Building blocked development of a valuable property in Boston's financial district. Controlled Demolition Incorporated’s team was able to complete asbestos abatement/environmental remediation, prepare the structure for implosion and drop the massive structural steel building just 2 weeks after our client's last employee vacated the premises. Controlled Demolition Incorporated's DREXS (Directional Remote Explosive Severance) System sequentially severed the 4 inch thick flanges of the buildings' support columns to drop the structure without damage to a Boston Fire Department facility just 30 feet away. The 60,000 cubic yards of debris generated by the implosion of this downtown office complex was so well fragmented that it was cleared from the site in just 6 weeks.


Imagine what a comparable team could do on a rush basis, skipping the formalities, mandated prep work, and the abestos removal.

Here are photos of the Travelers Bldg in Boston going down.



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 08:36 AM
link   
If it is just a matter of placing the charges, 3 days, working 24 hours/day (equivalent of 9 days work)?


[edit on 10-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Well,those white dust clouds in those pics definitely look familiar.



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
If it is just a matter of placing the charges, 3 days, working 24 hours/day (equivalent of 9 days work)?


I guess what you're saying--and I do have to guess--is that it's impossible?

I'd expect they'd have enough manpower on hand to do the job quick, and no union coffee breaks, if that's what you mean.

After all you have a NYC fireman saying he saw someone picked up by police carrying C4 explosives (recent thread). Seems the place was crawling with guys just itching for stuff to blow up.



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   


Mark Loizeaux, President of CDI, called Hudson’s the greatest dynamic structural control challenge the company had ever faced. CDI had to sever the steel in the columns and create a delay system which could simultaneously control the failure of the building’s 12 different structural configurations, while trying to keep the hundreds of thousands of tons of debris within the 420 ft by 220 ft footprint of the structure. CDI needed structural data to complete its design. Under CDI direction, Homrich/NASDI’s 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI’s implosion design. During that period, the lower two basements of the structure were filled with engineered fill and the perimeter basement walls bermed to 1st basement level with soil to support perimeter walls which would surely have failed under soil and hydrostatic loads once the horizontal support of the Hudson’s internal structure was removed by the implosion.

Double column rows installed in the structure between vertical construction phases, internal brick shear walls, x-bracing, 70 elevators and 10 stairwells created an extremely stiff frame. Columns weighing over 500 lb/ft, having up to 7.25 inch thick laminated steel flanges and 6 inch thick webs, defied commercially available shaped charge technology. CDI analyzed each column, determined the actual load it carried and then used cutting torches to scarf-off steel plates in order to use smaller shaped charges to cut the remaining steel. CDI wanted to keep the charges as small as possible to reduce air over pressure that could break windows in adjacent properties.

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.

www.controlled-demolition.com...


Seems as though the detailed steps needed to effect this CD would indicate that a "shoot from the hip" CD of WTC 7 is out of the question.

I think you'd be better off going the quietly planned and meticulously executed covert CD route.. Though the pitfalls of that theory are no less difficult to explain.



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Mirthful Me,

unfortunately you're comparing apples to oranges.


J.L. Hudson Department Store

Hudson’s was the tallest department store in the country and was second in square footage only to Macy’s anchor Store in New York. It dominated the retail market in the city through the 1970’s before closing its doors in 1983.

The store was built in 12 separate stages, the first in 1911 and the last in 1946. The complex had two retail basements and 23 above grade retail floors, including mezzanines. Two additional basements and six upper stories in a tower, provided storage and mechanical support for the 2.2 million square foot building. In all there were 33 levels in the structure.

Mark Loizeaux, President of CDI, called Hudson’s the greatest dynamic structural control challenge the company had ever faced. CDI had to sever the steel in the columns and create a delay system which could simultaneously control the failure of the building’s 12 different structural configurations, while trying to keep the hundreds of thousands of tons of debris within the 420 ft by 220 ft footprint of the structure.


Hudson's was a building complex, built in 12 different stages, of mostly pre-war design. It's an accretive jumble of various structures and building methods on a much larger footprint--nothing at all comparable to a modern steel-frame box, based on a simple column grid.

That is why I specifically chose the Traveler's building for comparison.



[edit on 10-4-2007 by gottago]



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Imagine a situation where WTC7 was demolished, not by CDI or any other commercial demolition company, but by an organized military/intelligence power, such as the CIA or Mossad.

Mirthful Me, you say there are pitfalls to demolition theory. There are going to be pitfalls with whatever explanation is finally given for WTC7, if that report is even remotely as bad as the report on the towers, yet laws of physics are public knowledge. You'd think someone would be able to explain how damage to one side of a building causes loads to transfer in such a way as to pull all 4 corners of the roof down simultaneously accelerating at free fall. It's not going to happen because it's impossible. Otherwise we would certainly have seen the structural calculations by now because it's simply plugging numbers into a calculator (or more quickly and in-depth: rent out a large processor and model it all: computer does all the calculations for you). If it's possible, it would have been done with those millions of dollars the engineers at NIST got. Even private citizens could produce simplified physical systems, using equivalent figures in place of more detailed structures. These "equivalent" figures are used all the time in engineering calculations.

Instead, the plans are classified and no one has a detailed idea, only vague nonsense such as "damage" and "fire", as if those two things are enough to quench any technical curiosity. No offense to anyone that believes the official story, but DUH.

At the same time, you're not going to load the building up with C4, let alone in a few hours, and bring it down that precisely. It would take professionals like CDI months, and I doubt they could even bring it down that precisely. And even if they could, you'd be able to hear it because they can only use commercial explosives like TNT or RDX.

When it seems both implausible, if not impossible with a commercial entity by conventional methods, and it also violates laws of physics to say that the building came down under its own weight and forces resulting from that weight, then you end up with the original taboo theory, really, that it was an inside job involving Western military factions. Not politicians, not asymmetrical damage and certainly not fire.

The reason no one can point to any mechanism, is because the real mechanism is beyond public scope.

[edit on 10-4-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   
bsbray11

I agree with most of your post but would clarify that I'm not suggesting CDI brought down WTC7; my purpose here is to show how quickly they could prep and drop a similar structure. I also agree it was obviously a CD and had to be a gov't team at work.

I also agree with Mirthful Me on the issue you cite as well, the perplexing nature of the event, either long-planned or quickly prepped, both have problems. But to me, long-planned just doesn't add up, due to the impossibility of guaranteeing in advance that the debris would hit the bldg and offer cover for it to be pulled.

But as you say the reality is that it had to be a CD, so I'm trying to get to the how--and also to put to rest the idea that these things take months to do.

[edit on 10-4-2007 by gottago]



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
These "equivalent" figures are used all the time in engineering calculations.


I'll vouch for that. Equivalent length comes to mind. Composite materials (like a composite steel deck with concrete on top of it) are designed by taking the stronger material (steel) and designing it as an equivalent amount of concrete. That way, the analysis is simplified by making the material homogenious.

BsBray is right. Equivalents would work.



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Someone is IGNORING THE IMPORTANT QUOTES...


... The store was built in 12 separate stages, the first in 1911 and the last in 1946. The complex had two retail basements and 23 above grade retail floors, including mezzanines. Two additional basements and six upper stories in a tower, provided storage and mechanical support for the 2.2 million square foot building. In all there were 33 levels in the structure.
...
No structural drawings of the facility were available, making structural analysis and implosion design a considerable task for CDI. The interdependency of the 12 different construction stages, with differing construction and variable column flange directions and bay widths created what CDI calls differential natural failure modes in each section of the structure which CDI’s demolition program had to cope with. These factors created an implosion design, preparation and dynamic control challenge for the 2nd and 3rd generation of a family recognized as the international founders of the commercial implosion industry (see ENR cover story October 1972).

Hudson’s was bordered on four sides by streets filled with critical infrastructure and flanked on 3 sides by poorly maintained, turn-of-the-century structures with huge sand-cast glass windows that occasionally broke in high winds. Lastly, Detroit’s elevated "People Mover" paralleled the east face of the 439 ft. tall structure just 15 ft away.

Mark Loizeaux, President of CDI, called Hudson’s the greatest dynamic structural control challenge the company had ever faced. CDI had to sever the steel in the columns and create a delay system which could simultaneously control the failure of the building’s 12 different structural configurations, while trying to keep the hundreds of thousands of tons of debris within the 420 ft by 220 ft footprint of the structure. CDI needed structural data to complete its design. Under CDI direction, Homrich/NASDI’s 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI’s implosion design. During that period, the lower two basements of the structure were filled with engineered fill and the perimeter basement walls bermed to 1st basement level with soil to support perimeter walls which would surely have failed under soil and hydrostatic loads once the horizontal support of the Hudson’s internal structure was removed by the implosion.

Double column rows installed in the structure between vertical construction phases, internal brick shear walls, x-bracing, 70 elevators and 10 stairwells created an extremely stiff frame. Columns weighing over 500 lb/ft, having up to 7.25 inch thick laminated steel flanges and 6 SIX FREAKING INCHES inch thick webs, defied commercially available shaped charge technology. CDI analyzed each column, determined the actual load it carried and then used cutting torches to scarf-off steel plates in order to use smaller shaped charges to cut the remaining steel. CDI wanted to keep the charges as small as possible to reduce air over pressure that could break windows in adjacent properties.

...

Even with all the precautions to control overpressure, the age, existing cracks, and poor condition of glazing windows in vacant structures on the north, east and west sides of the J.L. Hudson complex, window breakage was a concern. CDI had seven glass company crews on standby to handle any problems. Although Homrich/NASDI has placed over 2,000 yards of soil over utilities in the four adjacent streets, emergency utility crews were also standby "just in case."

When the button was pressed at 5:47 PM, assembled officials, contractors, former Hudson patrons and an estimated crowd of 20,000 watched the store begin to pivot at its southwest corner. The controlled collapse moved north and east through the structure, folding the walls inward.

When the dust cleared, a debris pile averaging 35 ft tall and as high as 60 ft tall where the tower had stood was all that remained of the venerable Detroit department store. Woodward and Farmer Streets were clear of debris , while it would take a couple of days to clear the pile of debris hanging over narrow Grand River Ave.


There simply is no comparison to be made here as far as rigging times.

Odd... the pile was up to SIXTY FEET TALL? Compare that to the height of the WTC buildings... it was 1/3 the height at it's "peak" which was a small section.

[edit on 12-4-2007 by Pootie]



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 01:31 PM
link   
The quote mentions (1) 18 story building..........

The towers were each 110 stories and had much more square footage.

One again a lame attempt is made to bolster the 'CT'



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
The quote mentions (1) 18 story building..........

The towers were each 110 stories and had much more square footage.

One again a lame attempt is made to bolster the 'CT'


The quote mentions:

- "12 different construction stages, with differing construction and variable column flange directions and bay widths created what CDI calls differential natural failure modes in each section" So basically, TWELVE SEPARATE BUILDINGS.

- "Columns weighing over 500 lb/ft, having up to 7.25 inch thick laminated steel flanges and 6 inch thick webs, defied commercially available shaped charge technology" NOT modern construction... But Griff can fill us in on the VAST difference here Ferret."

- NO CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS

- Backfilling takes time.

- WTC 7 had ~300,000 LESS square footage OVER TWICE AS MANY FLOORS. (hint: it is easier to demo VERTICAL BUILDINGS)

- I don't think you read... JL Hudson had 23-33 floors... NOT 18.

Nevermind. You are a trolling.

[edit on 12-4-2007 by Pootie]



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pootie
But Griff can fill us in on the VAST difference here Ferret."


I think you did a well enough job yourself. There is no comparison. Funny how when we want to compare a building to the trade centers, they call "apples to oranges", but when they want to compare a totally different CD to the WTC, it's all ok.



posted on Apr, 13 2007 @ 04:03 AM
link   
Pootie, Griff,

Thanks, my point exactly. Hudson's was a logistical nightmare to bring down. Just a cursory glance of the CDI description will tell you that.

Sigh. Really you have to wonder sometimes. Yes a Cessna and an F-22 are both airplanes, a Trabant and a Ferrari F1 are both cars. Hudson's and WTC7 are both buildings. Similarity ends there.




top topics



 
3

log in

join