Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by okbmd
post links that are comparable as regards the 'no other high-rise has collapsed due to fires' claims that have become second-nature to you ?
Not a claim. For one, you should do some actual research and look into fire-induced collapses of steel-structured high-rises. Which you'll find none.
But publications like Fire Engineering keep track of things like that:
Fire Engineering, 10/02/2002
No major high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire.
I like how that quote is a little out of context and shows how very little thought is used behind using it as an arguement agianst the WTC's
For one thing, how many highrises were hit by a commercial airliner at 400+mph? Oh, woops! They only mention a B-25 hit on the ESB, at low speed.
Different story. Oh another story about another smaller aircraft hitting another building. Gee small aircraft. Not large aircraft.
Major highrises, hmmm like Sears Tower, John Hancock, Aon Building, Chrysler Building, etc etc etc. Now refreash my memoery, how many of these had a
large aircraft the size of a 767 impact them at 400+ mph, had multiple fires across multiple floors, AND had NO firefighting efforts with water at all
to douse the flames?? Give up? None! But yes they are correct none of THESE types of buildings collapsed from fire alone, however, other steel
structures HAVE collapsed before, including the Madrid's Windsor Tower. Where did its steel go during the fire? What remained?
Fire Engineering also published an article earlier in 2002 that stated:
Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers
is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full
And how right they were.
Ahh wow, and you know, you really did a good job of taking that whole part out of context. Lets see the whole thing eh? I'll be sure to add in some
more informative sections of that article here as well, which will show a much different light.
However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged:
The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory
has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the
collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored
The frequency of published and unpublished reports raising questions about the steel fireproofing and other fire protection elements in the buildings,
as well as their design and construction, is on the rise. The builders and owners of the World Trade Center property, the Port Authority of New
York-New Jersey, a governmental agency that operates in an accountability vacuum beyond the reach of local fire and building codes, has denied charges
that the buildings' fire protection or construction components were substandard but has refused to cooperate with requests for documentation
supporting its contentions.
Ahhhh Ok, NOW we see what he is writing about. He is lamenting how the debris is being cleared out before someone can properly investigate the
fireproofing, since questions about the fireproofing methods, fire protection elemtents, and design construction compnents began to arise, admist
fears of substandard work. Oh! Well, huh, nothing about bombs, thermites, missiles, nukes, ninja-demo teams, space death rays.
Now before I go and start to laugh at this feeble attempt to cast more suspicions and "evidence" of coverups of siad above items by using a more
professional firefighting magazine's article, let me ask you a few questions:
1) Were you aware of the author's actual intentions behind writing this article, ie demanding that they properly investigate allegations of shoddy
fireproofing, shoddy construction and design of fire protection elements, and how firecodes may have been violated in the WTC's design and
2) Do you agree with the author that there may have been some serious firecode violations, substandard fireproofing, substandard fireprotection
components already a part of the WTCs prior to 9/11/01?
3) Do you disagree with the main theme or were not aware of the article's theme, and merrily just used that one particular paragraph to have a sort
of "validation" of your claims/accusations of possible inside job conspiracy that includes bombs, thermites, death rays, etc, and by using a
respectable firefighting publication to further those allegations by you were hoping to have more ammunition that is desperatly needed for the TM's
laughable and unsubstantiated claims? After all, why else would you use this particular paragraph, if not for the slam against the "offical story"
But you see, its not about a "new investigation" about investigating thermite, bombs, death rays, pixy dust, etc, that may have brought down the
WTCs. But its a call for a new investigation into the possible SUBSTANDARD fire proofing, firecodes, fireprotection systems and components. Much much
more different than what the TM is calling and hoping for: full disclosure of an "inside job".
Heh, you know you almost had me there with that. But you know, I'm glad you brought that article up. I too want to make sure that our firecodes are
up to standard and public safety is number one on the minds of our elected and appointed officials. I also agree that firesafety is no small issue and
that care must be taken in designing new large steel highrises, and to make sure that the buildings and people are properly protect in case of large
fires. And after seeing how possibly the firecodes may have been sub-par in the WTC, I would like to see more in terms of safety precautions in new
buildings and older ones as well.
Nice try! Better luck next time!
[edit on 5/7/2010 by GenRadek]