Why do you say they fell in their own footprint??
Clearly, that is a false meme.
Developers may have to think even more creatively in the future. The world's tallest skyscraper, the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, is at 2,722ft (829m) vastly taller than anything that has been levelled before.
The highest-reaching tower to be peacefully demolished was the 47-storey, 612ft (187m) Singer building in New York, which was taken down manually between 1967 and 1968.
How exactly someone would go about dismantling the new breed of "mega-tall" structures like the Burj Khalifa is unclear.
The 15-floor P&O building in the City of London was demolished from the bottom up
"The short answer is that we don't know," says Antony Wood, executive director of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat.
However, demolition experts have extensive experience of taking apart edifices of an earlier vintage. At present, buildings in closely-packed downtown urban districts tend to be dismantled manually.
There are a number of ways to do it.
One method involves the team of engineers dismantling the building top to bottom, floor by floor. However, fire or structural damage might render this unsafe.
Because clearly it is well recognised as a fact. I note that despite my request not to misquote me, your very next post does exactly that. I said 'virtually'. They came straight down as everyone bar you apparently saw.
Where do you expect 110 floors to go? Do you expect them to be stood up nice and neatly but compressed like a concertina? I see you are a subscriber to Metabunk Metaphysics as well. Anything to promulgate the OS, no matter how outlandish or absurd.
Because clearly it is well recognised as a fact.
really? I think your "facts" need further review.
1. An outline or indentation left by a foot on a surface. Also called footmark, footstep.
2. The surface space occupied by a structure or device: the footprint of a building;
Definition of VIRTUALLY
1 : almost entirely
Its true the buildings didn't topple over but they most certainly DID NOT come "straight" down- most material followed the path of least resistance- down..but a lot of material was ejected, thrown outward and otherwise did not come straight down. Over 40 other buildings were damaged by this "own footprint" BS.
Its a false meme. Cling to it if you must.
Well I am sure people will be very impressed by your re definition of the term as used in demolition parlance.
Perhaps you can show some aerial pictures where they manage to bring down a 110 storey building exactly in its own footprint all nicely wrapped up in a bow.
Nobody is disagreeing that's it's hard to bring down a building "in its own footprint". Impossible really.
But you suggested that it was suspicious that it was "virtually in its own foot print". (about 20x the area of its actual footprint)
Look at the images above, are you saying you would have expected a wider debris field? Or that you would have expected the building to topple like a tree?
It is accepted demolition parlance to refer to a 'straight down' demolition, (as opposed to a 'fall over demolition), as falling in it's own footprint.
For disambiguation please refer to:
Can you provide an actual reference for that claim? (One that does not use a fake video).
Anyway, of course SR realizes that the debris is not going to be neatly inside the borders of the footprint. What is being debunked is that the debris field is anything near the actual building footprint.
And why on earth would be people be muddying the water saying "in it's own footprint", when they could just say the vastly clearer "straight down"?
Here's an actual demolition company discussing a building being demolished in it's own footprint, which actually is:
(click on the Kingdome link on the right)
It's simple... I don't understand why anyone would make a big deal out of it.
If any CT er was to claim any building fell literally in it's own footprint, they would need carting off and force feeding pharmaceutical drugs.
Everyone knows what it means in reality... it is simply accepted parlance and that is it. It just says it fell straight down without toppling or going in any other direction. I.e. as it fell 'it remained virtually, (apart from some ejecta) in it's own footprint'... obviously when it hits the ground it will not remain within it's footprint.
Because its not true.
You use the meme as some sort of flag of "evidence" to support your beliefs...but its false. You are basing your belief on an error of fact.
But saying "virtually" is ok??
"virtually" means almost in its entirety. This was not even remotely the case. "some ejecta"? nice attempt at backpedaling.
Actual controlled demolitions have almost NO ejecta and are ingeniously free from almost all collateral damage if done properly.
The ruins of WTC look NOTHING like any controlled demolition. They did not fall "virtually" in their own footprint. The debris field spread for blocks and damaged over 40 other buildings. Huge junks of the facade simply fell outwards not "straight down into its own footprint". In that respect it looked nothing like a controlled demolition.
denial and desperate
Unbelievable... I would have at least thought you would assimilate the egg analogy but it appears you are in denial and desperate.
The buildings 'FELL virtually in their own footprints', like the eggs... what happens when it hits the floor is different and obvious that it will dissipate over an area, even bouncing and traveling out as the energy dissipates.
Show me where 7 went out of its footprint as it was falling.
I note the video's stop and do not show the aftermath and where the debris finished up, they were not 110 storeys high, you have a ring stadia falling over, (toppling inwards).
Carry on if you wish to discredit yourself further.
Lol... A dome???? Apples Pears Comparisons... DESPERATION maybe?
Yes it is a figure of speech which most people understand. It differentiates from a building falling out of perpendicular... which many do even in well planned demolitions let alone by chance.
Why are there huges chunks falling outside the footprint?
Was this building in the "footprint"- by ANY stretch of the definition.?
or this building?
Can YOU show ANY controlled demolition with a top down initiation and huge chunks of material falling well outside the footprint with the overall debris field being 20X larger that than the actual or even "virtual" footprint?
This thread is about the claims that the towers fell in their own footprint, you can start another thread about WTC7 if you like.
I think the distinction perhaps misses the key point though. We all agree the way in which the towers appeared to collapse, we can see it in the videos.
- They did not topple over like trees
- They appeared to disintegrate downwards, starting from the impact floors
- They appeared entirely unlike any controlled demolition using explosives
- They looked a little like Verinage demolition without explosive.
- Lots of debris was ejected and fell outside the footprint of the building
Can we all agree with that? Oxy?
Yes I remarked on that. If that had not miraculously righted itself, and had fallen off then no one would say that tower fell in it's own footprint, (figuratively).
You still can't provide a single reference that would indicate anyone other than 9/11 truthers would consider the above "in its own footprint".
If part of the building is falling at a distance away from the footprint that is twice the length of the foot print, then is it still in the footprint?
Debris fields X20 is still consistent as with the eggs. Even carefully planned and well executed demolitions will have masses of debris outside the literal footprint
Debris fields X20 is NOT consistent with a controlled demolition. Most controlled demolitions have very little debris outside the literal footprint.
See any "ejecta" or debris hitting the ground and "bouncing".
The straws are getting further from your reach Ox.
Can you show me a demolition,let alone a damage collapse, (other than a dome or an arena or a tent) which collapses in it's own footprint literally?
Unbelievable... A stripped down building frame with hardly anything of substance left.
really? WTF did you expect? controlled demolitions typically do not involve fully loaded and occupied buildings.
Disregard it if you must but it disavows your assertion that its "physically impossible" to demolish buildings without lots of debris outside the footprint.
There are plenty more- I am sure you will not watch - simply disregard in favor of your "virtual" reality.