Photo of Madrid skyscraper fire (still standing)

We don't need another thread devolving into a 'debate' on the WTC collapses. If anyone is really interested, go use to search function, because everything that's going to be said already has been.

That's it, I'm going to bed. I'll check on this tomorrow.

Really your statement can be debunked quite easy ' WTC-7 ' Total collapse due to fire with steel and all. It was right in front of my eyes I didnt even think about it.

It was even in that first link I gave

They were never designed to take a impact of a plane that size because there was none that big at the time the towers were built. And a huge plane impacting a buildings does make a difference because it can shear of protective coatings on the steel.Also water lines that supplied the fire sprinklers were severed by the plane impact

The size of the planes is irrelavent. What matters is the kinetic energy, which is given by 1/2mv^2 and therefore the mass and velocity are equally important:

This is a repost of a calculation I did in another thread a while back:

The engineers on public record that also say they the towers could have survived a 747 at cruise velocity. A boeing 707 and a 767(the impact airliners) are only slightly different. The 767 is a little heavier, while the 707 is faster.

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707 is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767 is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

Here is the physics

The Kinetic energy(1/2mv^2) of a 707 at 600 mph is 5,607,720 Kilojoules

The Kinetic energy(1/2mv^2) of the 767's that struck the towers are:

AA Flight 11 at 470 mph is 3,950,950 Kilojoules
UA Flight 175 at 590 mph is 6,227,270 Kilojoules

Therefore AA flight 11 had 30% less energy than the towers were built to withstand. And UA Flight 175 was only within 10% more.

So we can rule out that it was the actual impact and stress that caused the towers to fall. The collapse is attributed to the melting of steel and not the stress caused by the impact. And we already know that it not physically possible for jet fuel to melt thousands of tons of steel that's has a melting point of 700-1000 degrees more.

In other words the towers could not physically collapses due to the airliners attacks.

[edit on 14-2-2005 by Indigo_Child]

Have you even seen a picture of the WTC after the plane hit? The steel in the outer frame was SEVERED where the plane hit. Severed steel can no longer hold any weight!!!!

Anyway it's obvious that some people cling to conspiracy theories that fit their preconceptions and state of mental health (talking to crystals anyone?) no matter how much evidence contrary to the meaningless drivel they espouse is presented.

Wow thats some fancy physics but you forget the simple fact that the planes didnt bring the towers down they took the hits and stood. If they couldnt take the impact they would have fallen right then. Its was only part of it. Are you saying those impacts did not weaken steel or strip protective coatings of the steel? The fire brought the towers down helped with the plane impact.

Even one of your numbers is higher then what any designer could have figured a plane at the time could do more then a 707 at top speed.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Are you saying those impacts did not weaken steel or strip protective coatings of the steel? The fire brought the towers down helped with the plane impact.

No, I am saying that it is physically impossible for the impacts to lower the melting points of steel. The impacts could not have caused hundreds of thousands of tons of steel and concrete to collapse. Therefore, that can be factored out. This is why the official explanation cites fires.

I am also saying that WTC-7 suffered absolutely no impact from anything.

Alrighty then, this HAS degenerated into the same people arguing the same thing and the search function will reveal that there are already numerous threads about the WTC collapse. Please post your thoughts and comments in one of the WTC threads if you like but try to stay on topic in this one eh?

Your right FredT this goes nowhere



[edit on 14-2-2005 by ShadowXIX]

Originally posted by FredT
Alrighty then, this HAS degenerated into the same people arguing the same thing and the search function will reveal that there are already numerous threads about the WTC collapse. Please post your thoughts and comments in one of the WTC threads if you like but try to stay on topic in this one eh?

Fred, but, this is the topic? Dgtemp posted this topic to show that steel high rise buildings do not collapse, no matter how severe the fire. To show the transparency of WTC. This is a WTC thread. That IS what we are discussing.

[edit on 14-2-2005 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Fred, but, this is the topic? Dgtemp posted this topic to show that steel high rise buildings do not collapse, no matter how severe the fire. To show the transparency of WTC. This is a WTC thread. That IS what we are discussing.

Indigo_Child, please read through the quotes below and tell me if you can see any difference between the Windsor Tower in Madrid and the WTC towers.

Bright orange and red flames devoured the building, initially ravaging the upper floors before spreading downward, stripping away its metal and glass shell in twisted pieces to expose the smoldering concrete skeleton. Giant fireballs were seen rising into the night sky as parts of its sides collapsed, raining fire and molten metal onto the streets below

source

The dean of Madrid's architectural college, Ricardo Aroca told the Europa Press news agency that he believed it "not very likely" the edifice would collapse given its thick concrete supports.

source

The head of the Association of Architects of Madrid, Ricardo Aroca, said the building probably will not collapse on its own because its central structure is concrete, which resists heat better than steel or other metals.

source


Are you sure you want to compare this building with the WTC towers?




EDIT:

I just wanted to add one more quote

Firefighters, battling a skyscraper office block blaze, have estimated that the temperature in the 106m-high Windsor skyscraper reaches 1500 Degrees Celsius.

source


[edit on 14-2-2005 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Another steel building that was struck by a plane and suffered intense fires was the Empire state building. No it did not fall either.

Indigo_Child, the two buildings had totally different types of building structures with different types of passive fireproofing. Are you sure that you can compare the two?


[edit on 14-2-2005 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The WTC7 building's foundation was damaged due to the other falling buildings as well as may have had damage from falling debris on the building. Again combined with the heat of the fire, it caused a devestating weakening of the structure.

I don't believe it. Have you seen pictures of the steel girders that WTC7 was built with? They dwarfed regular girders. That building had thicker steel in it than most buildings.

Those were the transfer trusses. WTC 7 was a unique building. Half the building was built over an existing electrical substation. The weight of the building was redistributed at the 6th floor through transfer trusses. Interestingly enough this is where the first indications of a problem were observed. Early in the afternoon, several hours before it finally collapsed, a bulge in the exterior wall in this location was noted. The fire department used a surveyor’s transit to monitor this situation. (a standard technique)




[edit on 14-2-2005 by HowardRoark]

Back to the original topic.

Is everyone here willing to agree that the Windsor tower was nothing like the WTC buildings and that to compare the two is an apples to oranges situation?

WTC7 collapsed from the bottom, just as any demolished building would. I don't believe a fire could have done that. The entire building should have stood, even after being completely gutted.

Look, you can see the charges going off in sequence. Watch the right side of the building.

st12.startlogic.com...

I hope you're happy in the Matrix. I guess you're just not ready to be unplugged. I'll stay out here in reality.

Isn't it strange how all the WTC buildings were destroyed, and others right next to them were practically undamaged in comparison?

www.funnysnaps.com...

[edit on 14-2-2005 by Moe Foe]

Originally posted by Moe Foe
WTC7 collapsed from the bottom, just as any demolished building would. I don't believe a fire could have done that. The entire building should have stood, even after being completely gutted.

If the transfer trusses failed, then that is exactly what would have happened. The building would have collapsed from the bottom up. Remember that there was evidence that these trusses were impaired well before the actual collapse.

Look, you can see the charges going off in sequence. Watch the right side of the building.

st12.startlogic.com...

No, that is not what I see. I have personally witnessed 6 building implosions and they don't look like that. For one thing those are not "flashes" those are puffs of dust. The building was already going down at that point.

When a building is brought down by explosives there are bright flashes and very loud reports from the explosions. The building seems to hang in the air for a second then it starts to drop, building speed.

In that video, the building is already going down when these puffs of dust escape. My guess is that the air pressure on each of the floors built up and escaped through the breaking glass as the structure failed.

Isn't it strange how all the WTC buildings were destroyed, and others right next to them were practically undamaged in comparison?

Quite a number of buildings were destroyed.

I think it is even funnier that no one has yet provided any evidence of the sound of the so-called explosives. That is the biggest nail in the controlled demo theory coffin. You can't escape it. Anyone who has ever personally witnessed the intentional demolition of a building will tell you that the explosive reports are very very loud. You can easily feel the shock-waves in your chest a quarter mile away.

But, once again, we are drifting off topic.

How does the fire in the Windsor tower relate to this?

In what ways was the Windsor tower similar to the WTC towers? In what way was it different?

I already pointed out a couple of posts ago one very significant difference.

unless you have evidence to challenge those differences, then Fred T is right, this thread is devolving into a rehash of old arguments.






[edit on 14-2-2005 by HowardRoark]

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.





[edit on 13-2-2005 by Indigo_Child]

Unless explosives were set up during construction of building with imploding such building structure in mind at a convenient time in history.

Originally posted by dgtempe
Unless explosives were set up during construction of building with imploding such building structure in mind at a convenient time in history.

dg, I think it is a safe bet that you have never worked on a high-rise construction site, nor do you have much experience with explosives. Otherwise you would realize just how silly that idea is.

Well, Howard, you got me there. Its speculation on my part. A possibility.
This NWO has been in the works for many many years.

a couple of problems with that theory. No highrise building goes up without every part of the structure being inspected several times in the process.

two, explosives are by their very nature unstable chemical compounds. They don't age well. Most explosives become even more unstable with time. For example, old TNT "sweats" nitroglycerin.