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.

 

13 story building collapses after fire in Delft, Holland

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   
This happened today after a fire broke out in Delft Technical University. It partially collapsed after some hours of burning. I immediately had to think about the famous line "before 911, a building never collapsed due to a fire"

Here's the footage:

www.dumpert.nl...

What does this tell about the thermite/explosive theory on 911?

Cheers.




posted on May, 13 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   
I have been looking for a reason to back off of my beliefs that 911 was a dirty job... I thought you might help me but it really didn't. Due to the fact that this video to me looks exactly like what I would have EXPECTED the twin towers to do. Maybe fall off to one side, partial collapse at the most devastated area with the unaffected area still intact... Cool video anyway, that building looked gutted. Do you know how long it burned?



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by errorist
I immediately had to think about the famous line "before 911, a building never collapsed due to a fire"


Your user name befits you
! Of course buildings have collapsed because of fire before!

What was actually claimed was, I paraphrase here, "no steel cored building has ever collapsed due to fire".

Obviously other buildings have collapsed because of fire before, the point is that the WTC was built in such a way as to be resistant to fire and aircraft collisions.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 12:57 PM
link   
That in no way resembles how the world trade centers collapsed. The towers collapsed into their own footprint. Like other people that is what I expected to happen to the twin towers. I did not expect them to collapse into their own footprint.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   
It's too bad we couldn't see what was left after the smoke cleared. How much was left standing...was the steel still standing, etc...??

Regarding the trade towers...technically the steel core frame should have still been standing as the floors collapsed down around it, but it wasn't...it was already chopped into managable pieces, ready to be loaded onto trucks and shipped off, away from prying eyes.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Your user name befits you
! Of course buildings have collapsed because of fire before!


Yeah, just not steel-framed skyscrapers/high-rises. Which, this may technically be a steel high-rise, depending on what it's made out of (looks like very thin steel, but not positive), and whether 13 floors would be considered a "high rise" (why not? semantics, while the size and relative strength of the building is clear in photos).

If anything to me, though, this is just interesting. A partial collapse is a much more likely scenario, especially for such a smaller building, anyway.


Not sure how long the fire burned, but it had apparently already gutted the building and they didn't really try to fight it:


A “catastrophic” fire has caused serious damage to the architecture faculty at Delft University in the Netherlands, endangering collections by Rem Koolhaas, MVRDV and Gerrit Rietveld.

[...]

“The faculty building caught alight, then spread to the library and the historic chair collection - which includes Rietveld's Red and Blue chair,” Fretton said. “The fire brigade couldn't get close to it and decided to stand back and let the fire burn itself out. The whole building is gutted. The effect will be enormous - there are 3,000 students. It's a complete calamity.”


www.bdonline.co.uk...


Trying to find pictures of what actually collapsed, but I've only found these so far:






I'm sure more will come out as to what exactly failed.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by errorist
I immediately had to think about the famous line "before 911, a building never collapsed due to a fire"


The famous line is “No steel-structure building has ever collapsed due to fire”
And it was just a small part of the building that collapsed so far and that part had not a steel-framed – structure as the WTC buildings had.
And there is after the collapse clearly visible a lot of normal but burned debris, and not just fine dust.
So you can’t compare this in any way with the collapsed WTC buildings.
Here you can see the part that collapsed.

www.rtl.nl...

Click on, Deel gebouw TU Delft ingestort
And then on, Vleugel gebouw TU Delft ingestort



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 04:51 AM
link   
The building didn't collapse; a part toppled away, no pancaking. On TV I saw a video from the other side. Exactly the expected behavior, there is nothing strange about this. Some debunkers must be really desperate to use this to confirm their belief.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 05:34 AM
link   
Looks like a lot of fire damage, shouldn't it have symmetrically collapsed into it's own footprint? What the heck is this fire causing partial collapse crap, shouldn't the top floors start turning to dust and fling steel into nearby buildings while becoming just a pile of rubble?
Physics must have taken a day off in Holland, surely a global collapse was inevitable.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
Physics must have taken a day off in Holland, surely a global collapse was inevitable.


I am sorry to say, but the only time Physics must clearly have taken a day off was on 911 in America.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
The conspiracy theories that are being hurled around regarding the 9/11 WTC collapse are the product of tiny minds. My government couldn’t even manage to cover up the total fabrication of WMD evidence used as a justification to invade Iraq, and as a result one of the biggest criminal sons-of-bitches that ever held sway in DC, Uncle Donny Rumsfeld got himself dismissed because of it. You give these pinheads too much credit if you buy into this nonsense.

The ability to see the forest through the trees, come on people, can you really be that delusional?



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Second post to this thread pretty much stated what i wanted to say so it recieved a star from me but i will add that i did find it a very interesting video, it left me wondering if that was just a legit fire failure or something more. Especially in light of some of the things i have heard recently, like the Charlie Rose interview of Larry Silverstein where Larry quite confidently states that before 9/11 he was able to claim insurance on 4 buildings in LA that all 'collapsed due to fire'. Sounds a bit suspicious to me, been trying to find some info on that but unsuccessful atm.

Also I would like to add that here in the UK just recently i heard (on the news) about some 'security company' that were accused of arson, trying to burn buildings down with incendiaries in an attempt to claim on the insurance. Seems like its all the rage.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 03:54 AM
link   
Let me tell you this now - that building in Holland did NOT collapse in any way. There's clearly something else going on.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 07:41 AM
link   
So OP did the building collapse(title) or did it partially collapse(rest of bs)?How i love those sneaky mindgames



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 07:48 AM
link   
According to some source the building started to burn at around 9.30 am and collapsed at 4.30 pm. Therefore it burned for almost 7 hours.



And as you can see the whole structure was COMPLETELY covered in flames over half of it's floors.

These pictures where taken after the fire:







Also, 56 other pictures can be found here (just click on "fotoserie"): Link



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by C4Truth
So OP did the building collapse(title) or did it partially collapse(rest of bs)?How i love those sneaky mindgames


It only collapsed partially, had a much weaker structure than the wtc, was completely in flames over half of it's floors, and burned several ours longer.

[edit on 15-5-2008 by hackbart]



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by hackbart
It only collapsed partially, had a much weaker structure than the wtc, was completely in flames over half of it's floors, and burned several ours longer.



Sounds like every other case history of a steel high-rise on fire (besides the towers).

Actually, that's a lot worse than what happened to most of them, because the bigger ones don't collapse at all (One Meridian Plaza, Caracas Tower, First Interstate Bank).

[edit on 15-5-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
The famous line is “No steel-structure building has ever collapsed due to fire”


Actually the famous line is “No steel-structure building has ever globally collapsed due to fire”...Big difference.

As for 7 you could add no steel building has ever globally collapsed into its own footprint from fire, even non-steel ones.

This building obviously didn't globally collapse and it burned for 7 hours.
It did exactly what we would expect, whereas the 3 buildings on 911 didn't.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
This building obviously didn't globally collapse and it burned for 7 hours.
It did exactly what we would expect, whereas the 3 buildings on 911 didn't.


Nothing on 911 happened what you normally should expect.




top topics



 
0

log in

join