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.

 

No Steel-Structured Building Has Ever Collapsed Due To Fire

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   
No steel-structure building has ever collapsed due to fire in the entire history of mankind, then in one day 3 seperate buildings do? The odds of that are astronomical. And if you say that 'yeah, but the planes hit with such force, or such and such gallons of fuel", well, let me remind you that in 1945 The Empire State Building was hit by a B-25 bomber. Examples:

In May 1988 a fire at the Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles destroyed four floors and damaged a fifth floor of the modern 62-story building. The fire burned for four hours. The building did not collapse. See www.iklimnet.com...

In February 1991 a fire gutted eight floors of the 38-story One Meridian Plaza building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The fire burned for 18 hours. The building did not collapse. See www.sgh.com...

In October 2004 in Caracas, Venezuela, a fire in a 56-story office tower burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors. Two floors collapsed, but the underlying floors did not, and the building remained standing. See www.cbsnews.com...

In February 2005 there was another "towering inferno" in Taiwan. The fire burned for about an hour and a half, but the building never came close to collapsing. See www.itv.com...

Also in February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing. See news.bbc.co.uk...

It is not well-known that WTC1 itself survived a serious fire in 1975. It started on the 11th floor and spread to six other floors, burning for three hours. For more details see The World Trade Center Fires (Not So Hot eh?). How come WTC1 survived a 3-hour fire in 1975 but completely collapsed as the (alleged) result of a fire lasting less than two hours on 9/11?

My entire premise can be summed up at this link:
www.serendipity.li...

Why all the sudden 3 in one day? If this isnt proof of something fishy going on here, then I guess my nose just doesn't work anymore.




posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   
As stated whenever this comes up, and it comes up often if you use the search feature...you can't compare apples to oranges, and you can't compare the wtc collapse to any other building fire, airplane crash, etc, etc. There are 1000's of factors as to why one building might colapse as opposed to another, and trying to compare 2 different incidents is an effore in futility.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 11:11 PM
link   
I dont care how much damage was done by both the aircraft and the fire, there's no way to explain global failure. And don't even get me started on WTC 7. There was certainly not enough damage to cause Seven to collapse.

Everyone always point to the fact that a corner of seven was damaged. Even if that had cause a collapse, the collapse would have looked more like this...



Then there is the fact that there were building much closer to the Twin Towers that suffered greater damage, and still did not collapse, especially right into a nice neat pile like Seven did.

Here is the Marriot Hotel aka WTC 3...



And here's another building some people tried really hard to knock down...






posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by sensfan
 


you didnt really check out the links did you? just an automatic response every time you hear that phrase I suppose? Thats too bad



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Excellent point with great pics... look how damaged those buildings are, and even they did not collapse.

And just in case people miss it in the OP - like the first responder - (i admit i possibly put too many links in there) heres the main link to what Im saying here...

www.serendipity.li...

Please look at that before responding, Id be highly interested in your opinions after looking at that.

[edit on 13-4-2008 by Grock]



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 11:29 PM
link   
there is a little mall by me that burnt up. it had steal beams on walls and ceiling.
the walls stayed straight but all the roof and ceiling beams are bent "extremely warped". if it had too many stories it would have collapsed. i doubt it got as hot as a cement steal building that was hit by a speeding plane filled with its burning fuel. there other unusual events of that day that dont add up but i dont think the power of steal is all powerful considering the hight and power of the impacts.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Even if a bunch of floors did finally give-way, there is still no way that the collapse would have been vertical all three times. The slightest abberation would have shifted the load one direction or another. Objects in motion have a tendency to stay in motion.

Not to mention, that I still don't really accept that the lower levels could not support the upper floors crashing down on them.

But even if you choose to accept that, you still can't account for the fact that the lower floors offered no resistance whatsoever and the buildings collapsed at a velocity one might expect in a near vaccuum environment.




posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Grock
 



Please look at that before responding, Id be highly interested in your opinions after looking at that.


I think the Madrid fire really tells it all. After two days the steel was weak enough to start folding up, but even then the entire building still didn't collapse.



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   
I could not have put it better myself. Thats exactly what Im saying. Even if the floors did give way (I bet they did in some way - like the rivits would have failed here and there - I mean, a plane DID just slam into the building) but that does not explain how ALL THREE buildings would react in the SAME EXACT way.

Every building that has ever been destroyed by anything other than 'man controlled' has reacted completely different from each other and some of them have been EXTREMELY massive in size and scale and yes airplanes HAVE slammed into buildings before, and yes buildings HAVE been bombed with extremely high powered explosives. Each one reacted in a completely unique manner compared to the others. Why all the sudden three react in exactly the same manner? All three had unique characteristics that make them seperate entities - each from each other - yet its all the same?

That says 'human fingerprint' to me, and no i dont mean the humans piloting the planes.

Also, The Madrid fire highlights to me one of the most critical points given with this premise. That fire burned for TWO DAYS. Compare that to the 56 minutes for the south tower. A difference of roughly 47 hours (or fourty seven times as long).

The South Tower of the World Trade Center tilts to the southeast and then collapses. It was hit by Flight 175 at 9:03 a.m., 56 minutes earlier
www.cooperativeresearch.org...

Fifty-six minutes...

I think Jack's Illustrations and points hit the nail on the head.

And whatever happened to the section that was in such an obvious tilt to the southeast? Why did an object in motion not continue in motion when the building below it could not be the outside force necessary to completely destroy it?

[edit on 14-4-2008 by Grock]

[edit on 14-4-2008 by Grock]



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   
i look at WTC-2 & WTC-2 as errors in design...

The inner core is akin to a persons spinal cord
And the outer structure is akin to a persons skin


the error is that there was inadequate muscles, bones, tendons to fill out the structure,


a filling out that integrates all parts of the structure like we find in 'regular' buildings with a steel frame=skeleton..
The historical building design does not suffer universal collapse because the structure supports any suddenly weak area...
normal historical designs with a frame=skeleton produce a factor of 'cohesion' which tends to make the building survivable

WTC 1 & 2 were candelevered accidents waiting to happen
WTC 7 was hastily demolished for many layers of reasons,
one of which was to protect the rules/regulation/integrity of the
building permit-inspection-engineering-insurance paradigm




100's of millions of words by 10's of thousands of authors,
i think my less than 100 words wraps it up pretty well.



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   
People who believe the official story still cannot understand that structural damage is structrual damage if its cauased by a plane or fire.

Lots of steel buidligns have had worse fires and worse structural damge then any of the WTC buildings and did not collapse.



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 



Have to agree.

It seems that it is actually quite difficult to get a building to collapse.

Here's a demolition gone wrong:





If we are to believe that fire and damage caused all 3 buildings to come down like they did, then why do demolition companies take weeks of preparation and hundreds of pounds of explosive to do the same thing?

Why not go around busting up a few corners and walls, then start some fuel fires and stand back?


I have always had a problem with collapse theories based on damage from the plane, ever since I found out that the plane weighed less than 100 tons, but the buildings weighed FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND tons. That's 5,000 times more massive.

Get bent. No way.

[edit on 14-4-2008 by ianr5741]



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Grock
 


good post, stared and flagged. The skeptics will try and argue for the Windsor Building being cement etc.

It is interesting how on the day so many other buildings just refused to globally collapse in the face of such enormous damage.

In fact, building after building after building remained standing. But we are supposed to believe the one that just so happened to have a CIA office in it refused to remain standing!!



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by Grock
 

But we are supposed to believe the one that just so happened to have a CIA office in it refused to remain standing!!



Don't forget that this is also the building where Security & Exchange Commission files on corporate fraud were held, pending lawsuits.

I'd say the guys committing all the huge corporate fraud were covering their tracks by blowing up this building.

Government. Big business. Corporate crooks. Same people.



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   


Each one reacted in a completely unique manner compared to the others. Why all the sudden three react in exactly the same manner? All three had unique characteristics that make them seperate entities - each from each other - yet its all the same?


Reason WTC towers reacted the same is simple - they were built to the
same plans and suffered similar damage, ie large jet aircraft filled with
fuel rammed through the building at 500 mph. Jet fuel ignited massive
fires on multple floors which caused support columns to sag and buckle
precipitating the collapse. Some posters have alluded to Windsor
Building Fire in Madrid - it is apples to oranges comparison. Windsor
did not suffer massive structural damge before fire, also building was
constructed in totally different manner. It had a core of high strenght
concrete up to 16th floor, above that steel was used for structural
support. Steel part of building collapsed, concrete left standing. Which
shows you one thing - concrete fire resistant, steel not. WTC were built
using "light weight" methods - steel truss and engineered steel parts
took place of concrete. Estimated WTC structure weighed in at 37 lbs
per square foot of space, buildings constructed earlier (ie Empire State)
weigh 75 lbs per foot. Also steel work at WTC inadequately protected
from fire - fire proofing appled too thinly and in the impact zone was
blown off exposing steel to fire.



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 09:39 PM
link   
I think if the Windsor building had something similar to the CIA in it then you might see it collapse


Truthfully, seeing all the buildings like bldg 6 and a few others sustain so much damage and fire and remain standing speaks volumes. I also think the way Building 7 fell also speaks volumes.



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 10:20 PM
link   
true the twin towers where twins built and fell the same and were almost hit the same way. the fire burned and weekend the sructure and they collapsed "from the top down" not like your examples of the demolitions gone wrong from the bottom up. YOU SEE EXPLOSIONS ON LOWER FLOORS PRIOR TO THE COLLAPSE BECAUSE OF THE HOLLOW ELEVATOR SHAFTS. i hate hearing about detonating bombs in those buildings when the exploding windows are on the same floors as the end of an elevator shaft. its like a blow dart you blow down and the force of all that heavy weight blows out GLASS and not the frames like explosives would. its momentum... straight down... started up there and followed threw... thank god.
those falling towers were like two earth quakes hitting the city and with debris almost as powerful as missiles hitting lower buildings. YEAH I THINK THE INTEGRITY OF A BUILDING IS SHOT.
ok but you can always postulate that they knew it was coming i'll give you that. But try to prove it and convict with that accusation. Sure many of them might have benefited from it but you know what they right and make the rules and the loop holes in the insurance world and we do nothing to stop them. MAYBE>> just maybe they knew and used it for there benefit of insurance and fraud hiding or excuse to go to war. No one stood in thier way to launch the shock and awe blitz. ALL YOU ARE DOING IS POINTING FINGERS AND CRYING FOUL. many of these politicians and/ or cabinet members have very evil pasts in conducting horrible things for a buck in companies they have a hand in but we either voted or turned a blind eye on them. Seek the history of who you entrust to lead you and your country. find out who your enemy is. BEFORE you go to war. And see what the real motive is for attacking a country and what and who will benefit instead of finding out by watching the documentary of the year and b!tching about how horrible you've been violated. Get involved in your local government and don't let big buissness and the big money sway you. fight the good fight and stay on track and if in all different areas work as one you then can see to it that things happen in the best intressed of this great country. Whats done is done unfortunatly but we are moving forward wheather you like it or not. Keep your eyes on Now and aware of where we are headed because i guarantee you THEY ARE and if you don't do something NOW in the now YOU"LL be condemned in the future.



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 10:28 PM
link   
i just re- read my little rant and to clear up any anger.... THE THANK GOD part of the towers falling down straight was just that they came down clean and not sideways. that would have killed many more im afraid and if they were gonna come down that would be the best way unfortunatly. so THANK GOD THEY DIDN"T TIP OVER.
dont think for a minute i was glad to see them fall. im an emotionally quiet guy and i think the last day i cried was that day.



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Howdy Jackinthebox, I am not familiar with the Madrid fire, did a plane crash into that building as well? Don't you think that the force of impact of the plane coupled with intense wind force and gravity could have made a the WTC buildings collapse?



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Stumpy1
 



Howdy Jackinthebox, I am not familiar with the Madrid fire, did a plane crash into that building as well?


No, but it doesn't matter. If the impact caused the collapse, the buildings would have collapsed on impact. The fire didn't just decide to melt away the last single remaining support structure in the entire building. There isn't one single key point in any building to cause a global collapse. That's why in CD they have to blow key points in floors from top to bottom.



Don't you think that the force of impact of the plane coupled with intense wind force and gravity could have made a the WTC buildings collapse?


At free-fall in a vaccum velocity? No.

EDIT to add:

And let's put it this way. Even if you completely severed the entire top portion of the tower in a massive explosion, and it set right down onto the remaining stump, I still don't think we would have seen a perfectly vertical collapse. I think we would have seen the top topple over into the streets and buldings below, leaving a burning stump crumpled but still standing at least for a time.





[edit on 4/15/0808 by jackinthebox]




top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join