Madrid tower partial collapse..

Many people use the Madrid tower inferno as an example in trying to prove that the WTC towers' collapse was not caused by the crashes and fires.

However according to various news sources the Madrid tower did suffer partial collapse and in some photos we can see that floors have sagged and given way. I am no structual engineer so I will not even attempt to go into specifics, however when we bear in mind the significant size difference, method of constructiona and also the circumstances behind the fires - does the 'natural' collapse of the WTC buildings after the aircraft collisions really seem that unlikely?

Here are some images and links to reports describing the partial collapse:

Sections of a well-known Madrid office building 32 storeys high disintegrated on Sunday morning after a fire raged through the upper floors.
No one is believed to have been inside but firefighters say the entire structure is now at risk of collapsing.

The fire was put out on Sunday evening, but officials say the building's skeleton could have been weakened by the high temperatures.

Businesses and offices are to remain closed and transport has been diverted.

Large pieces of the Windsor Building plunged to the ground as the blaze destroyed its top floors, sending columns of black smoke into the night.
news.bbc.co.uk...

There is a report which contains the following quote:

View from the south-west side after the blaze as shown above.

The steel perimeter columns, even if they had been protected, or even concrete columns, would not necessarily be expected to survive the effects of such a 10-storey blaze.

A multiple floor fire can result in lack of restraint of columns over a number of floors due to heating which could trigger a collapse mechanism. However structural fire analysis of this structural form is required before such a conclusion can be drawn.
www.arup.com...

This implies to me that a complete collapse was a real danger in the Madrid Windsor building example, but luckily did not happen. When you bear in mind the extraordinary structures that were the twin towers and also the events that took them from us, it seems reasonable to assume that they would have collapsed from the trauma they sustained during the events of 9/11.

It may be the case that the collapse of one influenced the collapse of the other(s), the problem is there where so many factors and the building were built at a time when computer models were virtually non-existant.
As there has never been any similar incidents it is difficult to model any possibilities even now with our current technology and back then we had to rely on good old fashioned maths and physics.
The main 'conspiracy' behind the collapse of the WTC may simply be that we were too confident in our abilites and our modelling. But then to be fair no-one really expected anything like the events that occured to happen.

[edit on 16-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

The WTC towers were demolished, period. The Madrid tower was not built to withstand jumbo impacts and it was still standing, the WTC towers were built to withstand multiple impacts. The collapse would have been totally different if fire was the cause and it would have taken days if not weeks of constant fire to possibly bring them down. Do you really believe fire can bring down a building built to withstand fire, jumbo impacts, etc... in less time than it takes a pizza delivery guy to deliver my pizza?

To bring a tower down like 9/11 you need to destroy its foundation or else it ain't coming down and the timing of the explosives needs to be critical. Tower 7 was pulled by the firemen, we have this on video so nobody can deny that. They did something in a few hours what normally takes at least a month of planning, i just don't see the possibility. I am study engineering so it is easy for me to test different mathematical models and such. It is impossible to recreate 9/11 with just fire, the laws of physics hold strong and magic doesn't exist so you can't use that.

The Windsor inferno made the WTC1 & 2and especially WTC7 fires look like a weekend BBQ, reaching temperatures upward of 1000degC and burning unhindered for 18 hours. The sections of the building unburnt or not yet destroyed by fire did not collapse into dust down to the ground when upper floors collapsed on them. The falling debris was deflected by the resistance of the structure beneath it, fell in a non-uniform fashion, and slewed off the side of the building or came to rest on the still-intact structure beneath, as we know is supposed to happen according to basic laws of physics such as the mechanics of momentum and collisions. Only the sections of the building directly exposed to intense fire for extended periods collapsed, and the trusses did not "unzip", "pancake", flip-flop or whatever. Buildings do not collapse in this manner without the aid of explosives.

Until another steel-framed high-rise building collapses into dust and pickup sticks in perfect symmetry and at just over freefall speed due to isolated structural failure or fire, the global pancake collapse hypothesis is just that: a hypothesis, one whose expected effects have never ever been reproduced and never will be. And until we redefine the laws of physics from scratch, wax philosophizing about what we could have predicted and what computer models are capable of is moot.







"And the herd will herd itself..."

[edit on 2005-11-16 by wecomeinpeace]

Where are the 'squibs' on WTC7? They seem pretty obvious in the other picture and there are some vague puffs of dust coming from WTC7 which can easily be interpretated as the air beings forced out as it collapses.
All the confirmed building demolitions we see are pretty obvious from the explosives going off, apart from the way the building falls which some people appear to have alternative explanations for, there does not seem to be any evidence of explosives going off.

There certainly don't appear to be in several feet long jets which are 'obviously explosives going off' like people seem to love pointing out on the WTC.

To bring a tower down like 9/11 you need to destroy its foundation or else it ain't coming down and the timing of the explosives needs to be critical. Tower 7 was pulled by the firemen, we have this on video so nobody can deny that.

Well everyone who watched/watched the fall of WTC 1 and 2 can see that the top actually does collapse down and the rest of the building collapses a bit like a banana peeling away below. Even if people try and say explosives are used they still can't deny that.

All you have on video is Larry saying they were going to pull the building, this also has the explanation that he was talking in firefighter terminology and they were referring to getting everyone out. The fact is no-one apart from him and the firefighters actually know what was meant, either theory is speculation and neither can be taken as fact.

This idea going round that because in some documentary a construction worker uses the term to 'pull the building' with regards to the demolition of building six means that is what Larry meant, makes as much sense as having two people saying they feel Gay and assuming they are both homosexual when one of them is merely expressing his happiness. If you stuck they both in the same documentary does that mean that the straight, happy, one is Gay? No of course not.

At left, firefighters pull a crib from the top floor of the destroyed residence.
www.flowersareforever.org...

Jacksonville, Florida Firefighters Pull Six from Apartment Blaze
cms.firehouse.com...

Does this mean they blew up a crib and six people? No - I don't think so.
So no-one has anything on video apart from a comment open to interpretation and a 'demolition' that appears to have been carried out with no explosives.





[edit on 17-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Where are the 'squibs' on WTC7? They seem pretty obvious in the other picture and there are some vague puffs of dust coming from WTC7 which can easily be interpretated as the air beings forced out as it collapses.

You ask "where are the squibs", but then you say you found some but you don't believe they are squibs. Is there any reason to continue discussing it? Is your mind seriously able to be changed?

All the confirmed building demolitions we see are pretty obvious from the explosives going off

1. The central columns in WTC7 are quite a distance from the perimeter of the building.
2. The central columns in WTC7 were steel, not SRC. There would be no concrete dust produced as they were cut.
3. Specific techniques and explosive/cutting-agent types would be used to reduce the appearance of squibs, for obvious reasons.
4. Watch for the streamers of smoke on the face of the building as it goes down.
5. Don't forget your "puffs of air" up the side.

...apart from the way the building falls which some people appear to have alternative explanations for...

The "fire did it" explanation for the collapse of WTC7 could not be classed as anything but extremely "alternative". FEMA thought so too when they described that hypothesis as "highly unlikely". What's your explanation then?

Well everyone who watched/watched the fall of WTC 1 and 2 can see that the top actually does collapse down and the rest of the building collapses a bit like a banana peeling away below. Even if people try and say explosives are used they still can't deny that.

Is this thread about the Windsor Tower, or 9-11 in general? Besides, I didn't see any banana peel on the Windsor Tower, the partial collapse of which you are comparing to the WTC towers.

All you have on video is Larry saying they were going to pull the building, this also has the explanation that he was talking in firefighter terminology and they were referring to getting everyone out. The fact is no-one apart from him and the firefighters actually know what was meant, either theory is speculation and neither can be taken as fact. This idea going round that because in some documentary a construction worker uses the term to 'pull the building' with regards to the demolition of building six...

You just gave us an example of where the term has been used to refer to demolition of a building. Now can you show an instance where any firefighters use the term "pull it" to pull a team out, instead of the terms "pull back" or "pull out"?

...means that is what Larry meant, makes as much sense as having two people saying they feel Gay and assuming they are both homosexual when one of them is merely expressing his happiness. If you stuck they both in the same documentary does that mean that the straight, happy, one is Gay? No of course not.

What the hell are you talking about?

At left, firefighters pull a crib from the top floor of the destroyed residence.
www.flowersareforever.org...
Jacksonville, Florida Firefighters Pull Six from Apartment Blaze
cms.firehouse.com...

Did they say "pull it"?

Does this mean they blew up a crib and six people? No - I don't think so.

If a man has a heart attack, does it mean his heart is going to hit him in the jaw, or that he experienced a cardiac arrest? If he gets locked up, does that mean you can't open him without a key, or that he is to be imprisoned? These semantics prove nothing. Anyway, you should probably add your opinion on that issue to this thread to keep yours focused on the Windsor Tower as you originally intended.

...and a 'demolition' that appears to have been carried out with no explosives.

See my second post on this link for my thoughts on this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and another here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 2005-11-17 by wecomeinpeace]

Yes I'm so sorry, I got distracted by your WTC7 montage you're so proud of and NCM's comments on the subject - why did you post them in this thread exactly? I assume you got confused and put them in the wrong place. A bit of a nerve really in criticising me for commenting on the subject when I was not the one that brought it up. If I am not allowed to comment on it then please refrain from mentioning it.

How similar are the constructions of the WTC towers and the Madrid tower? Are they actually a fair comparison to be making from a construction point of view? Any experts here that can comment on this?

The main point that I was trying to make is that some people keep talking about the Madrid tower in a way implying it suffered no serious structural damage to the main framework. However it did demonstrate the capability of floors to collapse in on themselves. As I said I am not a structural engineer and I do not know what the significant differences are between the WTC towers and the Madrid building - but I do think it is important that people are not under the illusion that the place was gutted and retained all of it's structural integrity - because it didn't.

[edit on 17-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by AgentSmith
A bit of a nerve really in criticising me for commenting on the subject when I was not the one that brought it up...Yes I'm so sorry, I got distracted by your pictures of WTC7 and NCM's comments on it, why did you post them in this thread exactly?

As a comparison between the collapse modes of WTC 1, 2 & 7 and the partial collapse of the Windsor tower, as was the intent of your original post, and as was the entire focus of mine in response. Your follow-up post completely shifted tack to a debunking of the squibs on WTC7, the squibs on the towers, and a discussion of the semantics of the Silverstein "pull it" comment, without mentioning the Windsor Tower once. But hey, we can take the discussion elsewhere if you like. Just trying to help.

[edit on 2005-11-17 by wecomeinpeace]

Yes fair enough, sorry my head is a bit cloudy this morning - I think I'll wait until I get my head together before posting any more as I keep opening fire on my foot! LOL

Never the less, I do think it is important to make it clear that the meaning of what Larry said as being an order to demolish the building is a theory and should be portrayed as such.
When it has been said that it could equally mean something different and he himself has said he did not mean it in the sense of demolishing the building, to say it is what he meant is wrong and an incredibly arrogant thing to do.

As the 'official' story is that the building collapsed due to the fire anything else is a theory. These are all theories and they should not be stated as fact, this can lead people to what could be a wrong conclusion. If the 'evidence speaks for itself' then putting words in people's mouths and stating theories as facts should be unnecessary.

As you said though that is enough of that topic, when I have caught up with it then I will comment in more detail in the appropiate thread.

(I realise you didn't do this by the way).

[edit on 17-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Yes I'm so sorry, I got distracted by your pictures of WTC7

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Yes I'm so sorry, I got distracted by your WTC7 montage you're you proud of

Ouch! You went back and edited to add a little caustic barb to that one, I see. Tsk, tsk, tsk...

BTW, congratulations on winning a seat on the council, old chap.

Cheers dude Congrats on your bar going black too! Only you and Val have that honour I believe?

Sorry about my sarcy comment, you know how I am - the problem is I actually suffer from the delusion of thinking it's funny... heheh..

Anyway, I think I will do some more reading before I make a REAL fool of myself...

There have been a couple of total collapses as a result of fire :

Alexandria, Egypt. July 21, 2000. 6 storey structure -

A major fire had broken out at the six-storey factory on 19 July, causing it to collapse. Twenty-seven people, including 12 policemen and civil defence workers, were killed and nearly 40 others were injured.

(I haven't got a picture of it pre-collapse)

Story taken from here.


Motherwell, Scotland. 26 February, 2001. 4 storey structure -

Up to 100 firefighters have called to deal with a huge blaze in a complex of buildings in Motherwell.
About a dozen people in neighbouring flats had to be evacuated after the fire started in Dalziel Street, in a range of two, three and four-storey buildings.
Strathclyde Fire Brigade said the fire - during the early hours of Monday morning - was centred on a nightclub and gym premises set within traditional brick buildings.

Story taken from here.


June 3, 2002. St Petersburg Russia. A 19 storey block of flats is said to have totally collapsed after a fire of 1 hour duration.


Does any of this prove that WTC fell due to fire. I don't think so. However, it does show that buildings can collapse due to fire, if the 'correct' conditions are in place.

Perhaps it is more telling to look at fires which did NOT cause building collapse -

Meridian Plaza, Philadelphia, 38 floors, Feb. 23-24, 1991 - Started Saturday and burned for a total of 18 hours, causing significant structural damage to 9 floors

Broadgate, London, 14 floors, 1990 - During construction, 4.5 hour fire duration and temperatures reached 1000 ºC.

First Interstate Bank, Los Angeles, 62 floors, 1988 - Lasted for about 3.5 hours, causing major damage to four floors.

As I say, does any of this prove/disprove the various theories concerning WTC?

By the way, I was unaware that WTC 5 suffered a partial collapse after fire burned within it, uncontrolled, for 8 hours. Must have missed that one.

Original data taken from "Historical Survey of Multi-Story Building Collapses Due to Fire ", which was conducted by the
National Institute for Standards and Technology.

Study can be viewed here .

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Where are the 'squibs' on WTC7? They seem pretty obvious in the other picture and there are some vague puffs of dust coming from WTC7 which can easily be interpretated as the air beings forced out as it collapses.

WTC 7 squibs

notice the squibs rise up the building's side. If the floors were collapsing wouldn't they go down as each floor pancaked on to the other?

It's hard to comment as I have never seen a video of a building collapse due to fire to compare it to as well.
I've seen dozens of comparisons between the WTC building collapses and numerous controlled demolitions, but not once yet seen a comparison between a video of a fire induced or structural failure collapse and the WTC.
Of course there may be some examples, but I just havn't seen them!
Have we got any videos anywhere of collapses caused by fire and structural failure, so we can see if similar anomolies occur?
It's all very well jumping the gun and pointing out that it looks similar to a controlled demolition, but we need to also compare it the alternative to be sure.

It's like diagnosing a disease I imagine, many share the same characteristics at first glance, but the visible differences that differentiate between them are more subtle. It is important to get it right though, or it might be the difference between diagnosing between the common cold and HIV. The consequences of a mistake in either this case or the case of a disease are both severe.

[edit on 17-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

As I posted in the other thread:

www.concretefireforum.org.uk...

Dr. Pal Chana of the British Cement Association demonstrated the relative likelihood of floor collapse in a steel versus concrete framed building, using the vivid example of the Madrid Windsor Tower fire which raged over 26 hours on 14-15 February 2005. This former landmark office block of 30 storeys featured a concrete core throughout, but with concrete columns up to the 21st floor and steel columns between the 22nd and 30th floors. Remarkably, despite the intensity and duration of the fire, the concrete floors and columns remained intact however, the steel supported floors above the 21st floor collapsed, leaving the concrete core in-situ and exposed.

Let me repeat that : “the concrete floors and columns remained intact however, the steel supported floors above the 21st floor collapsed, leaving the concrete core in-situ and exposed.”

As it is clearly notable in the photographs posted above. The strucutral framing of the core, and all of the floors below 21 were made out of reinforced CONCRETE, not steel.

Thus, the Windsor tower can’t really even be considered a steel framed building.


You might as well compare the perfomance of a wood framed house in a fire to the WTC if you are going to use the Windsor tower as a comaprison.