WTC Towers: The case for controlled demolition

sj wrote:


Other than the WTC and the building next door, has such a "pancake"
collapse ever occurred before in a modern building?

On Jul 5, 4:01 pm, [Only registered users see links. ] wrote:

Could it have taken an extra 0.001s per floor?


If they toppled sideways, which direction would they have fallen?



As I understand this is the outline of your arguement:

If they collapsed by controlled demolotion then they would fall
straight down.
They fell straight down, therefore they collapsed by controlled
demolition.

Is that right?

On Jul 5, 4:01 pm, [Only registered users see links. ] wrote:

Could it have taken an extra 0.001s per floor?


If they toppled sideways, which direction would they have fallen?



As I understand this is the outline of your arguement:

If they collapsed by controlled demolotion then they would fall
straight down.
They fell straight down, therefore they collapsed by controlled
demolition.

Is that right?

Vandar wrote:

Then WTF was it? Looks like a well engineered 'collapse' to me.

Vandar wrote:

Then WTF was it? Looks like a well engineered 'collapse' to me.

Cardinal Chunder wrote:

Yah, sure. And what about the little building next door that went down
the same way? Owned by the same person?

The odds against three going down the same way are ASTRONOMICAL!

Cardinal Chunder wrote:

Yah, sure. And what about the little building next door that went down
the same way? Owned by the same person?

The odds against three going down the same way are ASTRONOMICAL!

On Jul 6, 10:32 am, pico <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

WTC7?

WTC7 was owned by The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey? Are you
sure?

Shill #312

On Jul 6, 10:32 am, pico <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

WTC7?

WTC7 was owned by The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey? Are you
sure?

Shill #312

pico wrote:

It is called a progressive collaspe, clueless