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.

 

China's Tallest Building Catches Fire, Does Not Collapse

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
It's all triangles. Pyrimids are just 3d triangles. a 2d one has just as much strength as a 3d one when in the right direction.


Yes, correct.


I'm training to be an architect, so i'm bound to know more.


Really? Who specs buildings? You, who designs toilet seats? I'm too tired for this.


I do know what I'm saying, and garrentee you that a square shape reinforced on its sides with triangles could support the pyramids on top of it.


I know you know what you are talking about. Yes, the triangle is an engineering wonder. Could you gaurantee in writing. Like your AIA? Or not? You're correct but so am I. Have you learned structures in your architectural classes yet? I'm not trying to degrade.

Triangles are "da bomb"




posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 10:21 PM
link   
(Double posted by accident, ignor please)

[edit on 16-8-2007 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Well what do yu want, it's simple truth that the WTC was built poorly. Anyone can say that it could have survived 42 or something plane crashes, but I highly doubt that any building can survive one given the circumstances. 3 would be a miracle(when it comes to larger planes). But the WTC circumstances made it so it simply could not survive large/medium craft crashes. Anything can survive a little prop plane or small private jet. but once you get on the cargo and civilian larger jets of 100 and above passengers, then you're in no mans land.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
Well what do yu want, it's simple truth that the WTC was built poorly.


Oh look triangles!




No matter how poorly a building is constructed you still won't get it to defy physics. But I would love to see proof that they were poorly built, if you have it that is?

Read this...

911research.wtc7.net...

And btw are you training to be an architect, or an architectural drafter?
I trained as an engineering drafter and my understanding is the WTCers outer mesh structure was VERY strong. That kind of design usually is, why would it be any different in the towers? It's very design creates redundancy, any loads created by damage are just absorbed by the rest of the structure. So how did a gravity fed collapse eject pieces of the outer mesh, weighing in the tons, up to 600 ft away? Please explain that, oh wise architectural one.

What happened to the massive core during your pancake collapse, must have been the syrup, huh?



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 01:58 AM
link   
The Shanghai Tower was recently shown on the Discovery Channel.

dsc.discovery.com...

Very interesting how they construct it. Looks really nice.

here is a clip
youtube.com...

As for the fire,
"The fire shattered windows and sent smoke billowing from the unfinished building until it was extinguished about one hour later."
news.bbc.co.uk...
To me, it seems this fire was being fought.

From most of what I've read on this site, firefighters did not try to put out the fires in wtc7, which lasted around 7 hours.

Regardless, this entire comparison is crummy. Both buildings were designed differently. The only tall building in the range of the wtc7 height, and with 7 hours or more of fire that I could find was Caracas Office building in Venezuela. But, I don't know the design of this building. If it indeed is a all steel structure, maybe a debunker can tell me why this building didn't globally collapse and WTC7 did?

www.cbsnews.com...

This is a better comparison than the shanghai tower, imo.






[edit on 17-8-2007 by DoomX]


[edit on 17-8-2007 by DoomX]



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 04:03 AM
link   




Story here
Military helicopters doused one of Venezuela's tallest buildings with water Sunday, bringing under control a blaze that many feared would cause the 56-story tower to collapse, officials said.

Two floors and some staircases in the east tower of the downtown Central Park building collapsed. But by Sunday afternoon the temperature inside had dropped, lessening the danger of a collapse, said Caracas Fire Chief Rodolfo Briceno.

''Engineers have gone up there and inspected,'' Briceno said. ``It is very solid.''

Neighbors were allowed to return to their residential buildings late Sunday, but firefighters were working through the night to keep the fire from lower floors.

Forty of the 100 firefighters battling the blaze were injured when they inhaled poisonous gases, fire officials said. The fire started on the 34th floor around midnight Saturday. The building was empty at the time.


Interesting this...

A 56 story Steel structure.

Lets look at some more photos.




This is from debunking 911.com


The Parque Central was a 56 storey government office building in Caracas, Venezuela. The fire started on the 34th floor and climbed to the 47th floor. That's not similar to the WTC 7 because the fires were on the lower levels. The building didn't have a tube in a tube design like any of the WTC buildings either.


You notice the oxymoron on this statement.. Here I will bold it for you.
So according to this statement WTC 7 had fires in the lower levels... Where?

Also I didn't know WTC 7 was tube in fashion.. can someone prove this right?? I don't want it proven wrong.. I want it proven right..

Btw I am googling images since the person above me seems to have broken his Google button.

Anyway that's all for those images.. seems that this building wasn't covered alot... so few pictures to show..

Anyway...

I am still waiting for those seriously intense fires that were in WTC 7..





[edit on 8/17/2007 by ThichHeaded]

[edit on 8/17/2007 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   
So what I am reading is the tallest building in China catches fire and doesn't collapse
and its being compared to the 911 attacks, namely Building #7.
Let's compare apples to oranges that would make a better contribution then this!
The building in China didn't collapse because>>>>?
a. no jet fuel
b. no other burning building collapsed on it or near it
c. they put out the fire?
d. The US government wasn't involved
pay attention to the letter d as this is the most valid reason!



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   
I have to correct myself. I was saying "vernicular structure" when I ment funicular. I don't believe vernicular is even a word. It's been too long since college. Although, the principles were still correct.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Hilarious.

This is like saying there was a car accident the other day but no one died.
Not all car accidents are fatal.
Not all buildings are the same.
Not all building fires are the same.
Not all building will react the same way to fires.

Take a building of similar height, similar structure, similar weight as the WTC, using 1867 building codes or whatever crap the used, slam a plane into it, let it burn, then see what happens. If it doesn't collapse, then you have an argument.
Otherwise, it's not just comparing apples and oranges, it's like comparing apples with....I don't know.....Pluto or something.

"but what about building 7"
lmao!
Oh please. Why do you think no one was around when it collapsed? Did the NWO or aliens or whoever people are blaming nowadays secretly warn people they had magically set up invisable explosives in the building?
Or did the firefighters who were actually there and actually saw the structural damage to the building clear everyone out because they feared it would collapse as they all state in interviews.
Yeeeaah....I think I'm going to go a. and believe people who were actually there over some random people on the internet who have no idea what they're talking about. I don't know....that just makes more sense to me.

[edit on 17-8-2007 by ThatsJustWeird]



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
Trianles/pyrimid like shapes are the stongest. Every engineer knows this. Every modern bridge is built in this style for this reason:


I took what you were saying the wrong way. You were correct in your thinking. It was me who was a little drunk last night. Take care.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I have to correct myself. I was saying "vernicular structure" when I ment funicular. I don't believe vernicular is even a word.


VernAcular is actually a term that is used in architecture, just very old architecture. Timber frame houses and such like.

en.wikipedia.org...

Has nowt to do with the steel structures, but is a long-standing passion of mine. Mind you, some of the trusses used in old timber frame structures have been replicated in modern steel buildings. The new Welsh parliament building thingy is one example.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Fire load - I may have mistated it FUEL LOAD I believe is correct term
Also LIVE LOAD - aka the weight of the contents of a building.


Ok. I'll give you this. There are two types of load (other than wind load and earthquake load). Dead and Live. Dead load is the weight of the members themselves plus the weight of office furniture, carpet, etc. etc.

Live load is the load added when people start walking around.

Hence dead and live.

I'm guessing fuel load has something to do with dead load. But, I'm still wondering how fire adds any more weight to these things. Please clarify.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Hilarious.

This is like saying there was a car accident the other day but no one died.
Not all car accidents are fatal.
Not all buildings are the same.
Not all building fires are the same.
Not all building will react the same way to fires.


So I see you find the same irony in the thinking we do when you compare some strip mall collapsing, some freeway falling, or some damn bridge..

Next time you state something lets make sure you guys haven't done it 1st. The difference between us and you guys is this..

We take actual real world Highrise fires and try and find an idea of what happened, not some strip mall or some freeway.

Thanks for the laugh I needed that..


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

"but what about building 7"


I am still waiting to see those intense fires.. wanna show proof of those.. instead of laughing at something so simple..

SHOW ME THE FIRE!!!

Is it actually that hard.. This is proving my point BTW.. Why indeed did WTC 7 fall..

Seems fire isn't the reason.. cause you Official myth people cant even show me simple images of a INTENSE FIRE..



[edit on 8/17/2007 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I'm guessing fuel load has something to do with dead load. But, I'm still wondering how fire adds any more weight to these things. Please clarify.


I would think the fire would be lessening loads, considering all of the smoke coming out of those towers represents things like office supplies burning away into the air. Fire itself is just a chemical reaction, and I'm pretty sure it couldn't add any weight at all.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
So I see you find the same irony in the thinking we do when you compare some strip mall collapsing, some freeway falling, or some damn bridge..

Next time you state something lets make sure you guys haven't done it 1st. The difference between us and you guys is this..

We take actual real world Highrise fires and try and find an idea of what happened, not some strip mall or some freeway.

Thanks for the laugh I needed that..

This makes absolutely no sense and I have no idea what you're talking about or how it relates to my statement so I'm just going to smile and nod....smile and nod.


I am still waiting to see those intense fires.. wanna show proof of those.. instead of laughing at something so simple..

SHOW ME THE FIRE!!!

Is it actually that hard.. This is proving my point BTW.. Why indeed did WTC 7 fall..

Seems fire isn't the reason.. cause you Official myth people cant even show me simple images of a INTENSE FIRE..

1. Show me the explosives

2. You think I believe the official story because I don't believe this other CRAP? Why?
Ahhhh.....Don't you just love it when people make uniformed unintelligent assumptions

3. You won't find many pictures because the firefighters and policemen had more important things to worry about than taking pictures at that moment. You'll find a few though. And according to the firefighters and people actually there it was the structural damage they were more worried about, not necessarily the fires.



Powerful smoke machines?


Oh yeah, 7 was completely unscathed after all of this. The magic explosives remained in their exact spots fully functional.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 12:11 PM
link   


A unique aspect of the design of 7 WTC was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 square feet (186 square meters) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns would severely compromise the structure's integrity. Consistent with this theory, news footage shows visible cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately before the collapse, which began at the penthouse floors.

www.answers.com...-_note-NIST-june2004
Why would a building crack and bow if CD was used? For suspense?
Why do firefighters also report the building to seem unstable? To create more drama?
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...



The building has 2-foot- (60-cm-) thick reinforced-concrete and fireproofed elevator and stairway access shafts, whereas the original building used only drywall to line these shafts. The stairways are wider than in the original building, to permit faster exits. Steel columns are encased in much thicker fire protection. The building is being promoted as the safest skyscraper in the U.S.[

www.answers.com...-_note-NIST-june2004

Why is the new WTC7 built stronger? Maybe the old design wasn't as good as initially thought?



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Please learn to post what you have to say in one reply, or use the edit-button.
Reading five or six small posts from the same person, in a row, several times, is aggravating.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Fire itself is just a chemical reaction, and I'm pretty sure it couldn't add any weight at all.


It was a returical question. But, thanks for the explaination. That's what I would think also. But, fire load could be a thermodynamic term I'm not aware of or something.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis
Please learn to post what you have to say in one reply, or use the edit-button.
Reading five or six small posts from the same person, in a row, several times, is aggravating.


Your reading comprehension is not my problem. Have anything of substanance to add?



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by sensfan
I fail to see in the story where the structural integrity of the bldg in China was compromised by being struck by a high speed jumbo jet.

Apples and Oranges people....no use comparing the 2.

well your half right i suppose. you dont compare things that are different, you contrast.

now, here's the thing, it would have been much better for the truth movement if the building did collapse. why? there is only one anomaly with 911 that needs to be addressed, or rather one smoking gun.

the wtc buildings did not follow the path of least resistance, which defies newtonian physics. if this building in china had collapsed, it most certainly would have NOT collapsed straight down. it would have followed the path of least resistance.

i agree that no jet was flown into the building in china. however even though it has been cited that burning jet fuel and the impact of the jets are what caused the collapse of 3 buildings in NYC that day, it has never been proven, or even close to it.

now, agreed that the 2 scenarios are 'apples and oranges', it will wake some people up. this is a good thing.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join