Delft University School of Architecture collapse from fire

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Hey truthers - try to explain this !

In May 2008 fire broke out in University of Delft (Netherlands) sxchool of Architecture building. It started on the 6th floor and spread despite efforts by
firefighters.




In the morning of May 13, 2008 a fire started in the main building of the Faculty of Architecture. The fire soon engulfed several floors of the southern wing of the building. As fire fighters struggled to control the blaze, the fire spread throughout the building which had been evacuated when the first fire alarm went off. The damage to the building proved to be extensive. Parts of the northern wing had collapsed and it was feared that the rest of the building would follow. However, the library, considered to be one of the finest in Europe and containing several thousands of books, was undamaged. This collection also included rare maps and cartography dating to the 17th Century. Delft University employed specialists to remove the books and materials due to the structural instability of the building, and as of July 4, it has been confirmed that these books and maps have been safely removed and show no signs of damage. This is believed to be due to the fact that the fire spread upwards from the 6th Floor, whereas the library was located on the ground floor. Firefighters were also able to save the historic models and furniture, including chairs by Gerrit Rietveld and Le Corbusier. The Architecture building has been completely demolished. The former main building of the TU Delft is now used to house the faculty. It is believed the fire was started by a ruptured water pipe which short circuited a coffee machine on the 6th floor of the building.


Several hours later the North Wing collapsed - thats right it collapsed bcause of fire ! A modern steel frame building collapsed during a fire. Just like WTC 1 or WTC 2 or WTC 7...

Video of building on fire and collapse

www.liveleak.com...

No jet aircraft hitting building. No 110 story building falling on it. No secret Ninja
bombers rigging building to explode...

Just an ordinary office fire. Unlike WTC this fire was actively fought yet building still collapsed



+8 more 
posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Several hours later the North Wing collapsed - thats right it collapsed bcause of fire ! A modern steel frame building collapsed during a fire. Just like WTC 1 or WTC 2 or WTC 7...

Just like the WTC's huh?



Really? Seriously?



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


No chance Mossad planted thermite then ?



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
lmao

I can't believe the OP compared this
incident to 9/11 to make his point.

You really need to do your homework
hahahaha



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
only a little of the building came down



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


A picture says a thousand words.

How long before the "well it didn't just get hit with a 100 some ton plane carrying a lot of fuel!"



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Did you eve read the article? If you did than you will realize that the whole building didn't fall apart. The fire spread and some part fell.

At the same time, we don't know what kind of materials are used to build these buildings. From my understanding, these buildings are pretty old.

The WTC couldn't have burned to the ground because it was built with flame retarded material ie. asbestos.

Could it have pancaked perfectly?

Anything is possible. From my perspective, it would have met some resistance on the way down to eventually topple on it's side.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
In the OP you said the building collapsed from fire, but in your article it says the building had to be demolished after the fire. Good to see we still have the same caliber of brilliant minds here defending the official story. The failures were nothing alike.

The picture speaks for itself, as others have said. To look at the damage done to that building and stretch it into a justification of what happened to the Twin Towers and WTC7 is almost as pathetic as people denying the fact that WTC7 fell straight down into its own footprint, another issue that is cleared up with a moment's glance at photos and videos.



How long before the "well it didn't just get hit with a 100 some ton plane carrying a lot of fuel!"


I don't know, but if that's the excuse for the vast differences in these two cases, the OP shouldn't have even made this thread in the first place. A total failure.



The First Interstate Bank fire is a much better comparison.








But can anyone guess why the "debunkers" are allergic to this comparison, even though the structures are much more similar (notice the core structure and exterior columns), the fire lasted 3 hrs 40 min, four floors gutted and four more partially destroyed by fire?


(Because it didn't collapse. So it's automatically "apples and oranges."
)



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
The TU Delft building reportedly started burning around 9.30 in the morning. Around 13.30 an explosion was reported - it still took to 16.30 for only part of the building to collapse.
[ sources: www.soggen.nl..., www.nu.nl... and nos.nl... ]

As we expect from a steel frame building, the core is still intact.


[edit on 19-6-2010 by scraze]



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
I have seen the black smoke personally.

There was even some speculation they were researching the collapse of the twin towers there. They were on to something.

Unfortunately all the universities architectural models did not survive.

Edit:
I saw the smoke in a traffic jam I was in. I had to make place for 3 high speed black cars with tainted windows. At the time I thought they were following another car but I don't remember any car that was supposed to be followed ???

I swear I am telling the truth.

[edit on 6/19/2010 by Sinter Klaas]



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Equinox99
 





The WTC couldn't have burned to the ground because it was built with flame retarded material ie. asbestos.



BZZZZT wrong answer. ONE tower had asbestos fireproofing used up to the 30s, from that point to the 110 floor a different material was used, one that became much more brittle with age. That non-asbestos fireproofing failed miserably on 9/11.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by AquariusDescending
 





But can anyone guess why the "debunkers" are allergic to this comparison, even though the structures are much more similar (notice the core structure and exterior columns), the fire lasted 3 hrs 40 min, four floors gutted and four more partially destroyed by fire?


Im not allergic to it at all. The building in your example did not have an airliner slam into it, nor did it lose the pressure in its firemains. In other words, its not really a valid comparision.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Wow, I just looked at that image and the building looks like it is still standing to me.

Another attempt of the debunkers to rationalize anything to prove their agenda.



Nice attempt but not cigar as usual.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by AquariusDescending
 


I'm sorry , I couldn't tell where the airplane impacted the bank building at 500 mph .

Do you mind pointing that out for us ?



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by AquariusDescending
 


Well most truthers whine "No steel frame building ever collapsed from fire...."

Here the north section of the building collapsed, from fire alone....

Yes the First Interstate Bank (1988) survived as did Meridan Plaza (1990)
in Philadelphia

Reason First Interstate survived was (1) 400 LA Firefighters actively
fighting the fires (2) Fireproofing on steel work prevented structural
collapse

Meridan Plaza fire was finally extinguished by sprinkler system on 30th floor after consuming some 6 floors. Building was so badly damaged had to be demolished



It was also shown that if fire protection to structural members is adequately designed and applied with quality control, fire damage to fire exposed members will be minimised and structural collapse can be prevented.


Comparison can be made with WTC 7 which burned for similar lenght of
time before structural collapse. Even then major differences - WTC 7
had no water for sprinkler systems to halt spread of fire, WTC 7 was also
47 stories vs 9 for Delft University. WTC 7 was of unusual construction
with long span cantilever truss and transfer beams for structural loads
Add in fact that much of south face was slashed open by debris from WTC 1.


Of course in case of WTC 1 & 2 buildings were struck by 150 ton aircraft at 500 mph - something truthers seem to forget.....



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by AquariusDescending
 


I'm sorry , I couldn't tell where the airplane impacted the bank building at 500 mph .

Do you mind pointing that out for us ?


Yeah, I was lookin for the same spot on building 7. Me and my boys at NIST couldn't find it either.

Bet them damned truthers stole it.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 02:27 AM
link   
Epic fail, thedman.

What an epic fail to try and compare apples to oranges.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   
I hate that word "Truther" im just an Honest man thats all, they way the word Truther is spat out like its some kind of smell telly's me more about those who attack People looking for the Truth than anything else, the Goverments around the World must Love yea! not something to be proud of imo!



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Nope, you probably cant find where an airliner slammed into WTC 7, but we can point you to the damage caused when WTC 1 slashed open WTC7.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Nope, you probably cant find where an airliner slammed into WTC 7, but we can point you to the damage caused when WTC 1 slashed open WTC7.


I know, but NIST said that had no bearing on the collapse of building 7 as it caused no structural damage. If it had caused structural damage it would have effected the vector of the collapse. As we know from the videos the direction of the collapse was 90 degrees relative to the horizon. Had the building received structural damage to one side but not the other three, the collapse would have been somewhere between 89 and 0 degrees.





top topics
 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join