A request about 911.

If anyone out there is aware of a building to ever collapse from structural failure and pancake onto it's footprints then render into dust, can you show me please.

A very simple request, no place for flamings or insults. All i want is material demonstrating what I ask for.

A video, Pictures, Data, an article. Anything that demonstrates a building that pancakes from structural failure and then melts steel columns and render the whole building into dust.

If you are not aware of such an event, you are not alone.

So far, it's no where to be found.

Don't think it ever happend...not even the towers at WTC did what you describe.

Steel was weakened, not melted.
Whole building wasn't rendered to dust...not even close.

Originally posted by sensfan
Don't think it ever happend...not even the towers at WTC did what you describe.

Steel was weakened, not melted.
Whole building wasn't rendered to dust...not even close.

Is a figure of speech. The building turned into mostly dust, the biggest thing in the whole building was reported to be a key pad of a telephone...

So the large pieces of steel and concrete don't count as debrit for some reason?

Look what i meant in this video.

Google Video Link

Canyou give me a synopsis of the video? It's an hour long... I'm busy watching hockey :-)

Originally posted by sensfan
Canyou give me a synopsis of the video? It's an hour long... I'm busy watching hockey :-)

Yeah sorry about that but i watched it a while ago and i am on dial up...

From what i recall it's a video that shows a very good gathering of evidence that what happened on that day is not compatible with the official story.

There is some interviews with experts who makes very good points and very interesting assessments of evidences.

There are some eye witness accounts that were not aired that day.

That's about it on the overall look of the video, except in details.

And the dust part is towards the end too...

I wish i could just tell you the time exact but i would have to load this video over night to do that.

If you ever have the time to watch it, i suggest watching it. It's a good video.

Originally posted by sensfan
I'm busy watching hockey :-)

Well lets not disturb hockey with the real world...

Societal control in action...

I'd love to see these pics of concrete. Here is a pic, or two, of the WTC rubble. If you could pls, maybe at the commercial or something, point out where the concrete is?









A clue, it's all that grey dust. Along with furniture and people and stuff.
But never mind, hockey is more important...

Yeah no need to watch the video sesfan, the pictures anok posted shows what i mean.

But if you ever have time to watch the video, it's a very good video and i suggest everyone to watch it.

I posted this on another thread this is a great picture of what a natural collapse looks like. Even though it is different it gives a decent representation of how much of the collapse has a lot of the building still in place and not blown to pieces everywhere. This building was nowhere near as strong as building made with steel reinforced concrete, but you can kinda of look at it, and hopefully with some basic logic you can see that WTC 7 was no natural collapse.

Original Thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here's a pic from a fire in 1906:






images.google.com...://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/hb2n39n9wc/FID3&imgrefurl=http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/hb2n39n9wc/&h=600&w=7 50&sz=105&hl=en&start=1&sig2=E5nHQWBZA8DPcW8DHwlFsQ&tbnid=rp-2p5gjLv6t5M:&tbnh=113&tbnw=141&ei=GmNKRva7HpPsgwS5uMDcAw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmelted%2Btwis ted%2Bsteel%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

Originally posted by nick7261
Here's a pic from a fire in 1906:

images.google.com...://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/hb2n39n9wc/FID3&imgrefurl=http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/hb2n39n9wc/&h=600&w=7 50&sz=105&hl=en&start=1&sig2=E5nHQWBZA8DPcW8DHwlFsQ&tbnid=rp-2p5gjLv6t5M:&tbnh=113&tbnw=141&ei=GmNKRva7HpPsgwS5uMDcAw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmelted%2Btwis ted%2Bsteel%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

Don't forget to add the earthquake part.

Title:
[Steel melted and twisted from fire. Unidentified building.]
Date:
1906
Subject:
Earthquakes--California--San Francisco--Photographs
Fires (damage)--Photographs
San Francisco (Calif.)--Pictorial works
San Francisco Earthquake, Calif., 1906--Photographs
A1104

AAC

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation

Don't forget to add the earthquake part.

Title:
[Steel melted and twisted from fire. Unidentified building.]
Date:
1906
Subject:
Earthquakes--California--San Francisco--Photographs
Fires (damage)--Photographs
San Francisco (Calif.)--Pictorial works
San Francisco Earthquake, Calif., 1906--Photographs
A1104

AAC

The earthquake caused the fires; the fires caused the steel to warp.

^That really means nothing.

I'll bet you anything you desire that the building in your photo burned for longer, in fact way longer, then the WTC towers fires, and were in direct contact with the fire. Only a very small percentage of the WTC towers columns were even near a fire, let alone close enough to heat up to failure.

Your steel looks pretty darn flimsy actually...

Nothing like this....

Yeah that really doesn't compare to the situation of the world trade center...

Any other buildings?

Quite obvious that is indeed flimsy stuff--most of it is strap steel, rivited together to make up I beams. Just had to hold up a roof, not 110 stories of concrete and steel.

Cool shapes though.

Originally posted by selfless
Yeah that really doesn't compare to the situation of the world trade center...

Any other buildings?

I'm not sure you should be so quick to dismiss what this photo shows. Namely, steel heated by a fire can weaken and twist like a pretzel.

I bring this up because I saw first hand a fire burn down a warehouse about a mile from where I worked. The steel frame of the warehouse was mangled by the fire, much like the pic I found from the SF 1906 fire. I didn't bother spending 4 hours on google looking for other pics because I know first hand what a fire can do to steel beams.

I just encourage you to be open-minded about the counter-arguments to the CT arguments. Even if explosives weren't used to bring down the WTCs it doesn't mean there wasn't a conspiracy of some sort. I've seen what has now been labeled "the truth movement" turned into a laughing stock too many times because over-eager CTers buy into every cockamamie theory that college kids who never took physics can dream up.

Originally posted by nick7261
I've seen what has now been labeled "the truth movement" turned into a laughing stock too many times because over-eager CTers buy into every cockamamie theory that college kids who never took physics can dream up.

I would have to disagree with that statement...

If you only take notice from the experts and not the opinion of people who aren't structural engineers then you are not as open minded as you claim to be.

There are countless videos of EXPERTS who talks about how the laws of physics were none existent on the day of 911.

This implying that it's not the laws of physics that was on hold but the official story that did not with held relativity to the laws of physics them selves.

An opinion is subjective. I think it's the official story that is ''cockamamie''...

Originally posted by nick7261
I'm not sure you should be so quick to dismiss what this photo shows. Namely, steel heated by a fire can weaken and twist like a pretzel.

anok made it clear why your photo was dismissible.

The fact that the building was subject to an earthquake and that the fire was much much longer then the ones we saw on 911 and to be honest, it doesn't compare to how the world trade center was turned into dust.

The picture simply does not cut the request.

Originally posted by selfless

Originally posted by nick7261
I'm not sure you should be so quick to dismiss what this photo shows. Namely, steel heated by a fire can weaken and twist like a pretzel.

anok made it clear why your photo was dismissible.

The fact that the building was subject to an earthquake and that the fire was much much longer then the ones we saw on 911 and to be honest, it doesn't compare to how the world trade center was turned into dust.

The picture simply does not cut the request.

The WTC wasn't turned into dust. There were hundreds of tons of debris at ground zero that I saw first hand. And Anok has no idea how long the building burned in the pic I posted. It's just a simple pic of a steel framed building whose columns were twisted and warped by a fire, just like the steel beams at the WTC.

Further, I'm telling you that I saw first hand a warehouse that collapsed due to fire. The steel framing weakened, twisted, and fell in on its own footprint. The difference was that it was only two stories tall, but you could never tell by looking at the burnt out building that it was 2 stories. All that was left was a pile of twisted steel on the ground. The steel beams of the roof collapsed and onto the entire 2nd floor, which then collapsed onto the first floor. I have no idea how long this process took because all I saw was the rubble the next day.

Sorry this wasn't the answer you were looking for.