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.

 

9/11 WTC Video

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   
okay hopefully this will help put and end to this conspiracy BS
take a look at this video it clearly shows the 2 jets flying into the towers from different cameras
WTC jet barrage
i dont think this has been posted here as of yet, so dont msg me about repeat postings.

[edit on 7/12/2006 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Dec, 7 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   
I don't think anyone denies that 2 planes crashed into the towers - it's the way in which the towers collapsed that is interesting.
Several poeple haev claimed that the actual collapse of the towers, especially tower 7 - the lesser known small tower which didnt get hit by a plane, was a little bit too similar to a controlled explosion.

To cut a long story short - when the building collapsed it collapsed at freefall speed which would point to a controlled explosion to bring the building down.
If the building had just collapsed without any 'extra help' each floor beneath the next would slow the rate of collapse - it SHOULD have taken something like 40 seconds to collapse as opposed to 15.

Take a look at the video on this link to see for yourself.
Please watch it - I used to be totally sceptical but this has certainly made me think.

www.jonhs.net...



posted on Dec, 7 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by razor1000
okay hopefully this will help put and end to this conspiracy BS
take a look at this video it clearly shows the 2 jets flying into the towers from different cameras
WTC jet barrage
i dont think this has been posted here as of yet, so dont msg me about repeat postings.

[edit on 7/12/2006 by Mirthful Me]


Nothing new here.
Why would you think this would end any conspiracy theories?
The debate is not whether or not planes flew into buildings the debate is about the cause and manor of collapse of 3 buildings that day.



posted on Dec, 7 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Regardless, I still find this compilation useful.




posted on Dec, 7 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Watch the North tower go down (2nd building to go down). I swear I see squibs on floors below the collapse (right side of building).

Watch it closly and tell me what you think.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Squibs? Freefall Speed? Building7?......

These are the debates that SHOULD have been put to rest eons ago!

Squibs: Watch any controlled demolition video. Watch how a squib works. IT explodes...then DECREASES in intensity. These squibs do NOT. They INCREASE with intensity as the collapse gets closer. Also, watch the "squibs" on the lower floors. You will see there isn't any failure in structure around the area of the squib until the global collapse reaches it.

Freefall Speed: Um...none of the buildings fell at freefall speed.

Building7: no it wasnt hit by a plane, but it received severe structual damage by the collapse of the tower. The building had MAJOR fires burning on MANY floors. (as much as 20)



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Squibs? Freefall Speed? Building7?......

These are the debates that SHOULD have been put to rest eons ago!

Squibs: Watch any controlled demolition video. Watch how a squib works. IT explodes...then DECREASES in intensity. These squibs do NOT. They INCREASE with intensity as the collapse gets closer. Also, watch the "squibs" on the lower floors. You will see there isn't any failure in structure around the area of the squib until the global collapse reaches it.

Freefall Speed: Um...none of the buildings fell at freefall speed.

Building7: no it wasnt hit by a plane, but it received severe structual damage by the collapse of the tower. The building had MAJOR fires burning on MANY floors. (as much as 20)


Building 7: received severe structural damage
. Every pic shows that there was damage, but sever enough for a strong built building to fall straight down with such ease. I have my doubts CameronFox.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Squibs: Watch any controlled demolition video. Watch how a squib works. IT explodes...then DECREASES in intensity. These squibs do NOT. They INCREASE with intensity as the collapse gets closer.


And your "argument" ends here, unless you're going to make a leap of logic to therefore say that no explosives could do that from within the building.

I agree that the charges were not typical RDX derivatives, but that's about as far as the above observation will take you.


Also, watch the "squibs" on the lower floors. You will see there isn't any failure in structure around the area of the squib until the global collapse reaches it.


So you can see inside of the building as it collapses? Tell me how so I can do it too.


Freefall Speed: Um...none of the buildings fell at freefall speed.


Building 7 accelerated at free-fall. Whether or not it was "free-fall speed" can't be determined because a large part of the collapse was obscured. But for what wasn't: it accelerated as if encountering no resistance. This has been established pretty conclusively, unless you want to argue over small margins that are ALWAYS present in ANY form of applied math.


The building had MAJOR fires burning on MANY floors. (as much as 20)


Pic? Fires give off light, you know. Usually easy to see when they're of any significance.

And anyway, fires don't cause steel framed skyscrapers to collapse. Ever. Only happened on 9/11 (--allegedly--), but given the nature of what we're discussing, you can't use those buildings as examples.


The Cardington tests of fire upon steel frames were, as far as I'm aware, the longest-running and most detailed studies ever done on this subject, from at least the late 1980's into 1998 and beyond. Here is what was concluded from them, in June 2000:


Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.

This project was the first major effort to understand this behaviour using computational models of the Cardington fire tests. A full explanation of the mechanics that are responsible for the robust behaviour of unprotected composite frames in fire has been achieved and will be presented in detail in this report. Reaching this new understanding has been a laborious process, and numerous blind alleys had to be investigated along the way, however obvious the answer may now seem to the researchers involved in this project. It is possible that the conclusions will not seem obvious to others who have not been directly involved, however considerable effort has gone in to presenting the results of the project to provide as much detail as possible. Approximately 40 supplementary reports and over 10 technical papers have been written and appear as an appendix to this report. This amount of work has ensured that the conclusions presented have been verified by a number of independent approaches. Mutually reinforcing arguments were developed from the results of different computational models, application of fundamental mechanics and the analysis of test data. It is therefore with a great deal of confidence that these findings have been presented for close scrutiny by the profession. Once this new understanding of structural behaviour in fire is widely disseminated, discussed and understood, the way will be clear for completing all the other tasks which are necessary for full exploitation of the knowledge gained. This will lead to safer, more economic and rational design of steel frame structures for fire resistance.


guardian.150m.com...


[edit on 8-12-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Hello Notsosmart....

I have posted photographic evidence of hte collaspe of WTC7...although it appears to have fallen straight down...it WAS in fact leaning.











posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 11:07 AM
link   
How significant do you think that leaning is? Controlled demolitions, KNOWN controlled demolitions, that are supposed to come straight down, have leaned MUCH more than that.

So what are you showing?

Nothing.


The building, and you can't contest this, fell almost COMPLETELY into its own footprint. It leaned very slightly in the direction of Vesey street, but there can be no doubt that if this were a controlled demolition, the executers should have been pleased with their success.




posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by CameronFox
Squibs: Watch any controlled demolition video. Watch how a squib works. IT explodes...then DECREASES in intensity. These squibs do NOT. They INCREASE with intensity as the collapse gets closer.


And your "argument" ends here, unless you're going to make a leap of logic to therefore say that no explosives could do that from within the building.

I agree that the charges were not typical RDX derivatives, but that's about as far as the above observation will take you.


Also, watch the "squibs" on the lower floors. You will see there isn't any failure in structure around the area of the squib until the global collapse reaches it.


So you can see inside of the building as it collapses? Tell me how so I can do it too.


Freefall Speed: Um...none of the buildings fell at freefall speed.


Building 7 accelerated at free-fall. Whether or not it was "free-fall speed" can't be determined because a large part of the collapse was obscured. But for what wasn't: it accelerated as if encountering no resistance. This has been established pretty conclusively, unless you want to argue over small margins that are ALWAYS present in ANY form of applied math.


The building had MAJOR fires burning on MANY floors. (as much as 20)


Pic? Fires give off light, you know. Usually easy to see when they're of any significance.

And anyway, fires don't cause steel framed skyscrapers to collapse. Ever. Only happened on 9/11, but given the nature of what we're discussing, you can't use those buildings as examples.




[edit on 8-12-2006 by bsbray11]


The "Squibs" appeared sometimes 20 floors below. I am assuming, within a second, you would see some sort of damage to the exterior sections where these squibs appear. We can also ask... how? where? and when? were these devices were installed.

bsbray... what is the actual time of collapse on WTC7... 1 & 2 did not fall at freefall speed..WTC7 is a lot tougher to determine with the evidence that is available.

Why dont we use the windsor tower as an example... all the steel appears to have given out. The concrete is what kept that standing.



And please show me where i said a fire ALONE caused the building to collapse! Fires DO give off light...was it night time at the time WTC7 collapsed? How much media was at the side where the damage was reported. The media was blocked from going near WTC7.. I can post quotes (as I have in the past) from Firefighters that were there until the time of collapse. They ALL reported MAJOR fires. ALL of them.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
The "Squibs" appeared sometimes 20 floors below. I am assuming, within a second, you would see some sort of damage to the exterior sections where these squibs appear.


You shouldn't assume so, because the outer perimeter columns were linked to each other, and to spandrel plates that held them in place. They were not so dependent upon the internal structure to fail only because of localized internal damages.

This is why the whole of the outer perimeter around the impacted floors did not collapse, but was only knocked out where the plane acutally knocked them out, rather than also failing because of truss failures or etc.


We can also ask... how? where? and when? were these devices were installed.


Yes but you admit that this has nothing to do with the above point and that you're dragging in other topics to dilute the above information, to play it down?


bsbray... what is the actual time of collapse on WTC7... 1 & 2 did not fall at freefall speed..WTC7 is a lot tougher to determine with the evidence that is available.


It's acceleration (that of free-fall) is determined here: www.studyof911.com...


Why dont we use the windsor tower as an example... all the steel appears to have given out. The concrete is what kept that standing.


The Windsor Tower was not exactly a steel-framed building, so much as a reinforced concrete building. The only steel that failed was the thin exterior beams that were about the size of a pipe you'd see in your plumbing. This is why they failed -- but only after a whole day of intense fire that you can't even BEGIN to compare to the WTC.

And yet the WTC had much thicker, larger beams, and many MORE of them, and yet they fall after about an hour of fires that are obviously much less intense?



And please show me where i said a fire ALONE caused the building to collapse!


Dude, for the debris impact damages to have contributed, they would have had to have hit somewhere other than a CORNER of the building, or way up on the upper floors. Do you understand this?

A) The building fell FROM THE BASE, SYMMETRICALLY.

B) The collapses were not LOCALIZED to the impacted areas!

The collapse of 7 had nothing to do with where any observed fires were, OR where any observed damages or possible damages were!


Fires DO give off light...was it night time at the time WTC7 collapsed?


Was it night time when the towers were on fire?


How much media was at the side where the damage was reported. The media was blocked from going near WTC7.. I can post quotes (as I have in the past) from Firefighters that were there until the time of collapse. They ALL reported MAJOR fires. ALL of them.


No, they haven't, and I imagine this is like your blanket statement that all engineers also disbelieve demolition, which was also demonstrated to be wrong. So I'll be waiting for you to back up your assertion that ALL firefighters reported infernos in that building.

[edit on 8-12-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Building7: no it wasnt hit by a plane, but it received severe structual damage by the collapse of the tower. The building had MAJOR fires burning on MANY floors. (as much as 20)


Care to show some visual evidence for this? Not just eyewitness testimony. Thanks.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   
7 World Trade Center was roaring. I remember being pulled off the pile like just before. It wasn't just before. It was probably an hour before 7 came down. –Firefighter Kevin Howe
graphics8.nytimes.com...

Hayden: By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.


Firehouse Magazine: 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.


Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. –Deputy Chief Peter Hayden /zwtrs

There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn't feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse.
Q. It was on fire, correct, Captain?
A. Yes, it was on fire at that time. Then they said it suffered some form of structural damage. These things were going on at the same time. The fact that we thought we found Ganci and Feehan and his place at 7 World Trade Center. Made the decision to back everybody away, took all the units and moved them all the way back toward North End Avenue, which is as far I guess west as you could get on Vesey Street, to keep them out of the way. –Captain Ray Goldbach
graphics8.nytimes.com...

So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too.
– Capt. Chris Boyle /e7bzp

Someone gave a Mayday. I guess it was someone trapped under one of the pedestrian bridges. We started to go under there to look. One of the Chiefs pulled us out of there. He said don't go under there. ..We searched that building and then we started making another move in and we got pulled out again, because I guess the Chiefs were getting more in control of the situation. They pulled everybody out of there. ...that was probably like four or five o'clock before we stopped. –Firefighter Todd Fredrickson graphics8.nytimes.com...

When the third building came down that's where we were (Stuyvesant High School). We were actually -- they pulled us all back. Actually they pulled us all the way back that far at the point because they didn't want any -- they didn't want us anywhere near it. Everyone was just running around. When the third building came down, we were on that corner in front of the school, and everybody just stood back.

They pulled us all back at that time, almost an hour before it, because they were sure -- they knew it was going to come down, but they weren't sure. So they pulled everyone back, and everybody stood there and we actually just waited and waited until it went down, because it was unsafe. They wouldn't let anyone next to I guess the two piles, we would call them, where one and two was. We stood back. We waited. –EMT Joseph Fortis graphics8.nytimes.com...

After that they decided to pull everybody out and I know -- what building was it? Building 5, I believe [sic], the other tall building there, the third building that came down, they were evacuating people. So everyone just pushed up West Street all the way up towards the high school there. I forget the name of the high school. –Firefighter Brian Russo graphics8.nytimes.com...

Then approximately I guess maybe two hours before number 7 came down, we went into Ground Zero and helped dig around and was there when they located Chief Feehan and one of the chiefs pulled us all out because they said 7 was going to come down. –Firefighter Kevin Quinn
graphics8.nytimes.com...

So then they aborted us from setting up the tower ladder because they were worried about now Seven coming down. So then they pulled us away. This is where I kind of start remembering a lot.

We came around, I think we took Murray Street down the west side, and we stopped the rig and pulled over to the side and we all got out of the rig. We were standing, waiting for Seven to come down. We were there for quite a while, a couple hours.

During that time a couple of the members felt like we were being useless just standing around. We wanted to do something. So we started trying to walk down, trying to get into the pile. We kept on being turned around from chiefs, because they didn't want us near Seven.

As we were walking, we had to actually get a little closer to Seven. So we turned and looked at Seven, and that's when all the marble siding started popping off the side because it was starting to go down.

We worked our way putting out the car fires, which I don't know if there was ammunition, because there was a lot of cop cars, but there was explosions. Tires were exploding. There had to be about 15 or 20 car fires. We put them out as we worked our way down. –Firefighter Thomas Donato graphics8.nytimes.com...

They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on.

Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there.

Finally it did come down. From there -- this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down. That's when they let the guys go on. I just remember we started searching around all the rigs. –Firefighter Richard Banaciski
graphics8.nytimes.com...

Then we were instructed to search through two or three buildings to make sure they were stable, and then they pulled everybody out because of the pink building. Was it 7 World Trade, that was going?
Q: Right. –Firefighter Adrienne Walsh
graphics8.nytimes.com...

We operated until they finally started pulling people back. ...They pulled us back, I think it was like probably between 4 and 6, because of Seven. Seven was the concern at the time. –Firefighter Fred Marsilla graphics8.nytimes.com...

They put another engine company in there which augmented us. And the stream was even good enough to almost reach Tower 7. And then what happened was, we heard this rumbling sound and my father pulled us all back and then with that Tower 7 came down. –Firefighter Peter Blaich www.firehouse.com...

These firefighters mention being withdrawn from a different part of the WTC site because other buildings were believed to be in danger of collapse:
So we were in there just for a few minutes maybe and the chiefs pulled us out. They told us we had to get out, so we got out, and then later on we went back in again, and they pulled us out once more, and that was it. –Firefighter Peter Giammarino hosted.ap.org...

We proceeded to go back one block to that post then slowly but surely every two minutes or so
when we started to regroup we were pulled back further and further and further until we were behind – until we were past Stuyvesant High School –Firefighter Dean Beltrami graphics8.nytimes.com...



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by CameronFox
Building7: no it wasnt hit by a plane, but it received severe structual damage by the collapse of the tower. The building had MAJOR fires burning on MANY floors. (as much as 20)


Care to show some visual evidence for this? Not just eyewitness testimony. Thanks.


Griff... as i mentioned in the past... not many firemen carry their Nikons with them while fighting a fire. You KNOW noone but EMS were allowed near the area. Read some of the quotes I have posted... THEN please show me some pictures of explosions prior to the collapse.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Where's the rest of your response? None of what you just posted is conclusive of ANYTHING except what we already know: there was fire, and localized damage.

Again, where is there evidence of either impact damages OR intense fire from where the building BEGAN collapsing? Ie, from the bottom! Not from the corner, not from way up in the upper floors, and not from the few floors that had fire recorded on them! From the BASE. And it was symmetrical. Imagine the implications of THAT!

And there was a massive explosion reported, COMING FROM THE BASE, as it began its collapse sequence. And then it subsequently dropped right down into its footprint, accelerating at free-fall.

I'm going to assume that you have nothing else to say in regards to everything else in my last post, because you aren't responding. So therefore, IF YOU'RE PAYING ATTENTION, none of those same arguments should slip into your posts unless you actually find something substantial to back any further assumptions or claims you make, because ignoring what we post just to continue posting the same things over and over and over gets us nowhere and is imo disrespectful to genuinely concerned members.

[edit on 8-12-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Sorry my responses are not coming fast enough....I do have REAL things to do with my time as well.... I was responding to one part of your post becasue i needed to use up the entire post space with the quotes you asked me for. You accused me of using a blanket statement...


When I get some more time...I will gather the information you requested.

Also, can you provide me with the quote or quotes in regards to the explosion prior to the collapse? Also was there any known seismic evidence recorded beofre and during the collapse?

No need to get testy... Its Friday !



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
You accused me of using a blanket statement...


Yeah, and you've done nothing to rectify that, unless you think you just posted the statements of every single firefighter there on that day.

In fact, not even all of the testimonies you just posted stated ANYTHING about a major fire, or fires at all.


Also, can you provide me with the quote or quotes in regards to the explosion prior to the collapse? Also was there any known seismic evidence recorded beofre and during the collapse?


Yes and yes.

For eyewitness testimonies, I point you here: www.studyof911.com...

Look under "Building 7 - Explosions" and you'll find a couple of videos that have audio of explosions in them coming from WTC7.

Look under "Eye/Ear Witness Accounts" and look at "Secondary Explosions Every 15 - 20 Minutes". This was AFTER both towers had already fallen!

Also look at "Speaking Out - An Interview with Craig Bartmer". This is testimony of a police officer there on 9/11 -- Craig Bartmer. This man has a good deal to say, and his interview is in three parts. In it, he discusses explosions and etc. regarding WTC7 before/during its collapse.



For the seismic stuff, check this out:




Ok, this is in rows. It starts at the top and goes left to right, then it breaks to the next line and continues. Notice after WTC1 has collapsed, which was also after WTC2 collapse, there begin a series of 'further collapses'.





Above is the seismic record for the actual collapse. LaBTop has shown in posts that, when the time stamps from this are matched up with time stamps of the penthouse collapse, there is a seismic event with energy equivalent to the WTC impact events, with more energy than the total global collapse of WTC7 itself, that takes place BEFORE the penthouse collapses!

LaBTop lays this out towards the bottom of this link: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Sorry my responses are not coming fast enough....I do have REAL things to do with my time as well.... I was responding to one part of your post becasue i needed to use up the entire post space with the quotes you asked me for. You accused me of using a blanket statement...


When I get some more time...I will gather the information you requested.

Also, can you provide me with the quote or quotes in regards to the explosion prior to the collapse? Also was there any known seismic evidence recorded beofre and during the collapse?

No need to get testy... Its Friday !



Its too bad that thier has never been a steel building like building 7 collapse due to fire, before or since 911.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse. Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.

The One Meridian Plaza Fire
One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire starting on the 22nd floor, and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".
The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.

The First Interstate Bank Fire
The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss.
A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:
In spite of a total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.

The 1 New York Plaza Fire
1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours.

Caracas Tower Fire
The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began on the 34th floor and spread to over 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Sorry wrong button....


[edit on 8-12-2006 by CameronFox]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join