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.

 

Massive Fire Skyscraper Dubai

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 11:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Guenter
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Now let's just see if this one "falls into is own foot print" as well as the WTC ones. After all it's a "massive fire".


Take a fully loaded 767-223 - 160 feet long, 155 foot wingspan, between 16k and 24k gallons of jet fuel and slam it into a building going several hundred miles per hour is going to cause more structural failures than a simple fire that breaks out from another source.

You guys keep going down this road on what burns at what degrees while ignoring whats in plain sight - A massive aircraft destroying internal structural supports coupled with the fires created from the aircraft and fueled by combustible material on the inside of the building. They have done testing on support structures used in the world trade center and have proven they can fail by just exposure to fire over a certain amount of time. Factor in the fact they were structurally compromised and failed.

Secondly the towers did not fall into their footprint. The damage to other buildings proves it.

If the fire here burns out of control then at some point you are going to have a compromised support structure.
edit on 20-2-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Looks like the fire started on multiple floors.

Massive fire erupts inside Dubai skyscraper


Right now authorities have no exact cause of the fire, but say that it appears to have started on different floors.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 01:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

One of those buildings wasn't hit.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 01:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: ventian
a reply to: Xcathdra

One of those buildings wasn't hit.


WTC 7 actually was hit and severely damaged by debris from one of the collapsing towers. With that said we could move over to the 911 thread so we don't completely derail this thread.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 01:41 AM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Has it free fall collapsed yet?



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 02:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

Nope, it`s out now.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Take a full beer can in the face at 500mph and let us know how that works out for you.

Light structural engineering is second-hand to me, and I never had a problem with aircraft damage to be sufficient to fell the WTC. People get confused because of the delay. This does not exclude other influences, and I surely have problems in the lihap-mihap arena too.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Now how did I know there would be some poor confused 9/11 Truthers in this thread... Enough evidence alone they literally have no clue.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 02:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

originally posted by: Guenter
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Now let's just see if this one "falls into is own foot print" as well as the WTC ones. After all it's a "massive fire".


Well, seeing how this building in Dubai didn't get hit by 115 tons of loaded airplane going at about 400-500 miles an hour, in one hell of a fireball that blew blaming debris for several blocks nearby, I do not think it will collapse like the WTC did. A partial collapse is possible if the fire is really hot and left to burn out of control, and supports are weakened, but a total collapse would require a catastrophic event (you know, like, say, an earthquake, a typhoon, A BIG ASSED COMMERCIAL JET HITTING IT AT AROUND 500 MILES AN HOUR) for total collapse.

That is, providing the building was built to code, properly, with the right materials by competent workmen and architects, with all proper precautions in place. Remember, this is Dubai. It is very rich, and very corrupt.


Dont forget building 7,nist said office fires caused a total collapse,no jet fuel involved,but despite the earth shattering revelation that office fires can level high rise buildings they still design and build these structures in the same way so any building with a fire out of control is at a risk of total freefall collapse,i know it sounds crazy but nist said it so it must be true.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 03:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: amurphy245
so any building with a fire out of control is at a risk of total freefall collapse,i know it sounds crazy but nist said it so it must be true.


Please show us in the NIST report exactly where they said that....



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 03:20 AM
link   
We all know the CIA,FBI, Illuminatti, skull and bones, the Zionist and Obama are doing false flags everyday. This fire is weird. It's a gut feeling and I have no proof,.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 03:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
We all know the CIA,FBI, Illuminatti, skull and bones, the Zionist and Obama


You left out the Boy Scouts, Space Patrol, World Intelligence Network and International Rescue



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 03:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: amurphy245
so any building with a fire out of control is at a risk of total freefall collapse,i know it sounds crazy but nist said it so it must be true.


Please show us in the NIST report exactly where they said that....


They never implied that other buildings were at risk but that is the logical conclusion you draw from their findings, they just attributed the building 7 collapse to office fires.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 03:56 AM
link   
a reply to: TsukiLunar

I can prove that the fire was started using nano-nukes. Anyone that thinks this fire could start by another other way is just a blind sheep. I'm risking my reputation and disappearing to get this vital information out because I don't agree with what's happening and the public have a right to know. I just want to do the right thing.

Please buy my book for details.

Alternatively, please view my YouTube channel and make sure you don't skip through the ads.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 03:57 AM
link   
never mind.. I don't want to drag this thread off topic.
edit on 21-2-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 03:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I don't need any readings to prove it, it's obvious. If you don't believe me you're clearly just a shill. I can't speak to you any more.

P.S. Please buy my book



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 04:03 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

He can't because the NIST report conveniently left WTC7 out of it...



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 04:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: AgentSmith
a reply to: Xcathdra

I don't need any readings to prove it, it's obvious. If you don't believe me you're clearly just a shill. I can't speak to you any more.

P.S. Please buy my book


Right after you show the radioactive readings from your nano nuke claim.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 04:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Guenter

Have you ever been in the aftermath of a tornado? A curious thing can often be seen amongst the devastation that seems impossible: things like pieces of straw driven into wood, brick, even people and animals. Now as we all know, a piecee of straw is a pretty harmless thing, and certainly less hard and less dense that wood or concrete, and that under normal circumstances, straw can't be driven through wood like it was a nail. However, given sufficient force and velocity, a piece of straw can turn into a flechette round. An empty or full beer can, launched at extremely high speeds, is not harmless, and will do some pretty heavy damage to whatever it strikes.

So if tornado force winds (which have been estimated to reach the sound barrier in some cases) can fire straw through wood and concrete, a 100 ton plus jet going 500 mph striking a steel and glass cage building can cause serious enough damage to destroy it.

Your other arguments are the same ones truthers have been parroting for the past 14 years, all of which have been given reasonable answers. The Empire State building was not a comparable incident for a number of reasons. And though a possible plane impact was figured into the WTC design, they were planning for a smaller plane accidentally hitting the building at about landing speed. They never thought they would be dealing with a plane flying head on at cruising speeds, which is a HUGE difference.

After 14 years, and still, no one can provide a solid, irrefutable piece of evidence for controlled demolition, nor even a reasonable theory of how it would even be accomplished under the circumstances.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 04:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: hellobruce

He can't because the NIST report conveniently left WTC7 out of it...


Wrong again.
www.nist.gov...


Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1A)




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join