Im not gonna go to any fanboi thingsies, Im a man unto myself only...
Here are some pics, none of them about WTCs..Just for fun!
Pics of demolished buildings, and pics of buildings that fell due to earthquakes etc.. Food for thought, as it seems youre all hungry after such serious dogfighting
http://www.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/de_construct ... 285597.php (this one is simply COOL, no other reason
)
http://www.blasterexchange.com/resource ... php?res=19
Heres some good ones, of different kinds of controlled demolitions, both implosions to buildings own footprint, and of directed side collapses.
Ive seen a couple of this type myself, where very high chimneys were collapsed to the side. The demo guys spent days measuring the thing and planning the explosive charges, for there was just one direction where the chimney (tens of meters tall, brick) could fall without damaging the factory around..
http://www.biggerblast.com/ Here, some nice videos as well, "Welcome to Advanced Explosives Demolition ", also very nice pictures.
And heres a nice collection of toppled buildings, toppled as in asymmetrically collapsed, due to asymmetrical failing of structures. This is what usually happens when some load bearing member is damaged, but not all of them, at the exact same time.
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/20 ... -over.html
http://images.google.fi/images?q=kobe+e ... s&ct=title Kobe Earthquake pics, via Google
"The role of the fire in weakening the steel where the collisions occurred is undoubted, as is the ineffectiveness of the fire protection foam, which seems to have been blown off. However, this can only cause a local collapse, depositing an unusual load on the floors below. It is their response, of a structure unweakened by fire or impact, that is significant, and this topic was brushed aside in the program. In fact, an erroneous graphic of floors collapsing on one another successively, "pancaking," was shown, while the collapse of the towers was quite different, the upper floors ending up on the bottom of the pile and the lower floors on the top. One commentator actually mentioned the buckling of the wall (without mentioning buckling), but did not follow up.
More detail was presented on the core, which contained the stairways and elevators, plus building services such as firefighting water (which was only interrupted in the North Tower). This core never appears in the videos as an element of strength, though the floor trusses were supported on it. One might suspect that when the outer walls failed, the core was simply pulled apart and collapsed. The collapse of the North Tower shows the TV antenna initially falling, though the walls were already clearly in collapse. The conclusion that the central core failed in this case pulling down the outside seems very ill-founded. In the views of the South Tower, there is no evidence at all of the core. In both cases, the collapse was simultaneous around the building, not asymmetrical.
It should be recognized that the damage to the towers was different, as the program made clear, so we have two examples of this kind of failure, not just one. The program stays away from the embarrassing conclusion that this kind of structure has an inherent failure mode, as I have suggested. Perhaps we must have further examples to make this clear. The Empire State Building was also struck by an airplane (a bomber) that did considerable damage, but there was no hint whatever that the building was in danger. One suspects that if an airplane struck a building with a volume skeleton, there would be no total collapse, only local damage. Rubbish from the collapsed part would fall outward to the sides, not pry the building apart from the inside."
http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/tech/failure.htm Just some blog musings...
Collapsed Building Ad Yanked
Vendors distance themselves from material inadvertently reminiscent of terrorist attacks.
http://pcworld.about.com/news/Sep142001id62064.htm
"The horrible image of the World Trade Center tumbling into destruction after a terrorist attack is not something any company wants to be associated with.
That's why PowerQuest has pulled an advertisement that used a demolished building to promote a new version of its Drive Image software. The ad was scheduled to run in 13 publications this month.
Other companies with images or products that might appear related to the disaster have also taken action to avoid criticism by a public that has become highly sensitized.
The publisher of the online role-playing game Majestic, an interactive thriller involving murder and corporate intrigue, suspended the popular game after Tuesday's attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon. Another computer game, in which players defend the World Trade Center from kamikaze pilots, has also been withdrawn. The game, WTC Defender, had been available for download at Angelfire.com. In the game, players had to shoot down planes heading for the twin towers. If an aircraft managed to get through, the buildings blew up. A note on the game site reads: "WTC Defender--the game has been removed. Please note--the game was not meant to offend anyone, my deepest condolences to all of you who have lost someone in this tragedy." "
Wow, nobody thought of planes as weapons, right?
Im just saying, get your heads out of your asses, every one of you. Both you "it was explosives" people, and you "IT WAS NOT EXPLOSIVES" people. How about some real discussion? Im looking at two groups headbutting each other in the face here, for the majority of over ten pages. Not constructive. Rather demolishing, Id say
Love, Missterious Penguin
