What has shelf life of explosives got to do with it the trade centre was regularly closed and was so approx a month before hand so it could have been a rolling programme.
The tallest building ever demolished with explosives (25ish floors) took 24days of just setting explosives, and with no concealment from anyone. To carry out such an activity on a 110 floor building and conceal from the people working there would take years. Therefore, shelf life becomes an issue.
Further info here:
Under CDI direction, NASDI/Homrich's 21 man crew needed 3 months to investigate the structure and 4 months to complete preparations per CDI's implosion design.
In 24 days, CDI's 12 person loading crew placed 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on 9 levels of the structure. Over 36,000 ft. of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay devices were installed in CDI's implosion initiation system. As the implosion required the detonation of a total of 2,728 lb. of explosives, CDI implemented 36 “primary delays" and an additional 216 “micro-delays" in the implosion initiation sequence in an attempt to keep detonation overpressure to a minimum.”
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/article/jl-hudson-department-store-detroit-michigan
Remember, according to twoofers, they claim explosives went off down the building as it collapsed. This means that explosives would have had to have been placed throughout the building. Given that no demolition expert would do this other than to control the direction of collapse, this tells us that CD is extremely unlikely.
That and the fact that no other demolition has ever started so far up a building (they nearly always start near the ground level, and use gravity to bring the rest of the building down). And no CD with explosives has ever occured when the building had a severe fire happening in the area where the collapse started.
I hope you see how unlikely CD is.
And unless you are an explosives expert and would know exactly the type that would be used there is no point quoting sites that suit your ideas.
I took the radical approach of researching what explosives are used on steel structures. Aside from cutting or semi cutting steel beams prior to demolition (I hope you see this makes the CD theory even more silly when the building was occupied), I tend to quote sites that provide evidence to back up what I am saying. Sites that have no biase on 9/11 issues, such as a private company that deals in explosives:
http://material.eng.usm.my/stafhome/termizi/EBS419E Blasting Tech/A_EXPLOSIVES.pdf
-I showed before
RDX mentioned here:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/building-implosion1.htm
As for the list of buildings you give these are all basically within the footprint of the trade centres and some where actually attached to them so yes they would be damage but they would probably be evacuted too.
Attached to them underground, but all were seperate buildings above ground. WTC7 is included in this description. Remember, large chunks of debris was thrown out during the collapse. Not something you would ever see in a CD. The North tower especially threw out debris as it went down, very different to any CD.
my point is far more would have been damaged if the buildings had toppled in opposite directions you would then have up to half a mile of death and destruction.
Not when the collapse started so far up. While the height allowed the debris to hit buildings like WTC7 etc, if the collpase had started at the bottom, it could have toppled and taken out even more buildings. But given the damage was so high up, this wasn't going to happen.
I will wait for your thoughts on the youtube link
I saw bits of the youtube film on Saturday. No way was I going to to sit through 2hrs of it though!
I went through it, and found much repitition. Things like claims that WTC7 would not have collapsed as NIST claimed (beam 79 failure). This of course is misleading.
What NIST actually claim is:
5. How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.
According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.
Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.
The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line—involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, and 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm
I saw nothing in the film you put up about structural deformation that the firemen saw:
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
So you see that structural deformation was observed, they could not fight it, and they evacuated the area as they knew collapse would occur.
Also, note that in the actual collapse, the penthouse at the top is the first part to collapse (look it up on youtube). The steel work in WTC7 is far from a normal arrange, as it was built over a substation. The NIST study took all these factors into consideration, and used computer modelling, with the aid of private companies to put together the most likely cause of collapse. Also, note that not a single explosive trace was discovered in the wrekage of any of the buildings. Given the amount that would have been needed, this points to the fact that none were used.
