Photo of Madrid skyscraper fire (still standing)

Still standing as of today.

wow. i thought skyscrapers all 'pancake' after a few hours! what a surprise. obviously that raging inferno is nowhere near as hot as the WTC big smoke. fascinating.
perhaps the laws of physics are different in spain, and steel doesn't lose integrity when you boil a pot of water, or lightup the candles on a birthday cake.

billybob, so the fact that this building was a small fraction the size of a WTC tower or had a completely diferent internal structure don't matter at all?

Originally posted by djohnsto77
billybob, so the fact that this building was a small fraction the size of a WTC tower or had a completely diferent internal structure don't matter at all?

Not to mention there wasn't thousands upon thousands gallons of gasonline in there either...

Originally posted by TrueLies

Originally posted by djohnsto77
billybob, so the fact that this building was a small fraction the size of a WTC tower or had a completely diferent internal structure don't matter at all?

Not to mention there wasn't thousands upon thousands gallons of gasonline in there either...

I don't know if it was the jet fuel as much as it was the design and speeding projectiles, with the subsequent fire, that brought the WTC down.

It was the impact that weakened the external column structure of the WTC.
All the interior framing is supported and the weight of the floors are supported
by the massive built up plate columns on the exterior of the building. Once the
impact weakened the structure, The remaining intact columns could not support
the increased KIP loading. Thus the pancaking effect. Subsequently, as each
floor pancakes it adds an increasing amount of KIP loading on the remaining
structure, thus the total collapse.

These are two entirely different buildings, with different structures and
effects. Different engineering principles would apply.


[edit on 13-2-2005 by TheHorseChestnut]

all hail the glorious leader. the leader is good. all hail the glorious leader. the leader is good.
the leader loves pancakes.
there was no jet fuel in WTC7.
the mechanics of the collapse of tower 2, show the top portion of it completely disintigrate first, and THEN the tower below the impact line starts to 'pancake'. if the official lie were true, the upper UNDAMAGED portion of the building, that is the floors above the impact damage, would have stayed cohesive until they had crushed all the floors beneath them, and then would not have started 'pancaking ' themselves until the rubble from below had compressed enough into the ground to offer some resistance to the INTACT top portion of the building.
watch it. the top section completely collapses onto the lower eighty odd floors, and the lower WEAKENED, DAMAGED area FULLY SUPPORTS the collapse of the top portion without budging. it is not until the top has disintigrated that the floors below begin to 'pancake' in NEAR FREE FALL.
i don't buy the official smoke and mirrors story, because it is INANE. you do. oh, well. whatever.

this little building is clearly a 'towering inferno', burning MUCH hotter and LONGER than either of the clearly SMOULDERING(see all the smoke?) fires of the WTC.

Theres a small difference between a fire and a jet liner smashing into a building going hundreds of miles a hour. Not even getting into the fact that these buildings are not the same size or design.

Originally posted by billybob
wow. i thought skyscrapers all 'pancake' after a few hours! what a surprise. obviously that raging inferno is nowhere near as hot as the WTC big smoke. fascinating.
perhaps the laws of physics are different in spain, and steel doesn't lose integrity when you boil a pot of water, or lightup the candles on a birthday cake.

Nah, It's nothing as exotic as that, Billybob. According to the reports that I have read, the building was built with concrete columns, not steel.

Originally posted by billybob

the mechanics of the collapse of tower 2, show the top portion of it completely disintigrate first, and THEN the tower below the impact line starts to 'pancake'. if the official lie were true, the upper UNDAMAGED portion of the building, that is the floors above the impact damage, would have stayed cohesive until they had crushed all the floors beneath them, and then would not have started 'pancaking ' themselves until the rubble from below had compressed enough into the ground to offer some resistance to the INTACT top portion of the building.
watch it. the top section completely collapses onto the lower eighty odd floors, and the lower WEAKENED, DAMAGED area FULLY SUPPORTS the collapse of the top portion without budging. it is not until the top has disintigrated that the floors below begin to 'pancake' in NEAR FREE FALL.
i don't buy the official smoke and mirrors story, because it is INANE. you do. oh, well. whatever.

this little building is clearly a 'towering inferno', burning MUCH hotter and LONGER than either of the clearly SMOULDERING(see all the smoke?) fires of the WTC.

Not sure what your driving at here. The impact clearly set in motion the series
of events that led to collapse. No on factor leads to building collapse, it is
always a series of events. Plane hits the building and takes out sections
of the exterior Column supports. Then the loads are transferred to the
remaining columns, and transmitted to the other members in the interior.

The interior members were largely open web steel joists, which would have
warped considerably unde the heat and impact, thus further affecting the
overall loading of the floors. No engineer can build a building to withstand
such an impact. There are two factors which drive structural engineering.

Integrity and costs... Which costs are always on the forefront. We have
to stay in budget.

It seems that some of the very top floors have already collapsed.

I love circular excuses..LOVE THEM.....

example: the A fact caused the B fact..oh wait did you know that fact A alone cannot cause B? Oh well thats because we are not taking into account fact C...BUt But fact C has never ever caused B ever, well thats because A is diferent because C is present ...hence B is posible....

Very good I hop e most of you re read the God freaky LOOONNNNG thread on the colapse of the towers on 911, when we said they were designed to withstand a airliner crash, the argument was the Fire " show me a steel reinforced building that can withstand the heat" some said.... well there are now 2 (two) examples of that: the Venezuelan Inferno for 6 hours and this one..NONE OF THEM PANCAKED TO THE GROUND, hey I did not know American eng. were stupid and Spaniards and Venezuelans were at the forefront of reinforced steel beam building... CONGRATS....

Now I know the circular explanation coming....

This buildings were not impacted by airliners
This buildings were different in structure....
The poor WTC was weakended beyond its structural integrity and collapsed......

Sorry I am not buying..... just think for a second what are the chances of....

35 minutes of 2 airliners flying towards the WTC with NO intervention of any kind.....
almost 20 minutes of the second airliner "lost" after the first impact and NO response from any kind...?
2 110 stories buildings falling perfectly pancaked with 2 completelly diferent airliner crashes

1 president saying he say the first video at 10 AM in the morning when the first hit was not on TV till much later than that one....

Sorry.....
If I wo the lottery Id buy a huge supercomputer and run a program to show that th ecolapse is not posible, but then again the day Id do it the FBI or worse would be knocking at my door....

Why do yuo think there has been no simulation ever?

Mor einfo on the madrid fire ( I know spanish)

It burned for 9 hours the temps were in the order of 1832 degrees F
No colapse and the biulding basically ceased to burn due to fuel exhaustion ( no more things to burn...no more fire)
th e authorities have sealed the area and will asess the Building state, to determined how to destroy it.....

Fire started in the number 21 floor....and spread quickly

Originally posted by kix


Now I know the circular explanation coming....

This buildings were not impacted by airliners
This buildings were different in structure....
The poor WTC was weakended beyond its structural integrity and collapsed......

The cause of the event and the structure of the building

Yeah those are not important factors in understanding why a building collapsed Why would anyone want to consider such meaning less facts.

It does not matter if a building is 10 or a 100 stories hit by a plane,missile , fire or earthquake they all fall down the same way.

[edit on 13-2-2005 by ShadowXIX]

Here's a few links a relevent quotes-

CNN-
"CNN journalist Monica Sanz reported from the scene that the upper floors of the building appeared to be tilting."

BBC-
Several top floors have slumped onto lower ones, and Madrid fire chief Javier Sanz told local radio the 106m (350ft) tall building was still unstable.

"It is clear the structure has been damaged and has suffered high temperatures, and we cannot be certain that a pillar, girder or some other structural element will not collapse," he said.

Re uters-
"MADRID (Reuters) - The biggest fire in Madrid's history gutted a 32-storey skyscraper in the Spanish capital's financial district on Sunday without causing injuries but raising fears the charred tower could collapse."

So this bulding is 350ft tall and the Twin Towers were 1,350ft tall. Yeah thats the same thing it only has a 1000ft on it. Why shouldnt it act exactly the same in a fire as the Towers did when hit with a jet liner.

[edit on 13-2-2005 by ShadowXIX]

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
So this bulding is 350ft tall and the Twin Towers were 1,350ft tall. Yeah thats the same thing it only has a 1000ft on it. Why shouldnt it act exactly the same in a fire as the Towers did when hit with a jet liner.

[edit on 13-2-2005 by ShadowXIX]

Shhh, let them have their fun. Little details like a jetliner loaded with fuel impacting at high speed have no bearing on the 'facts'

Please, someone debunk this fact for me.

Never in the entire history of high rise steel buildings, has a building collapsed completely or imploded upon itself, due to a fire, no matter how severe.

The first person who debunks this will get a thousand points from my own total. Do it, it will be arranged.



[edit on 13-2-2005 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Please, someone debunk this fact for me.

Never in the entire history of high rise steel buildings, has a building collapsed completely or imploded upon itself, due to a fire, no matter how severe.

The first person who debunks this will get a thousand points from my own total. Do it, it will be arranged.



[edit on 13-2-2005 by Indigo_Child]

Here you go

One New York Plaza- Aug. 5 1970 it was 50 stories and collapse due to a fire.

Can I have my points now

Theres more on the list but that was the highest
www.haifire.com...