Delft University School of Architecture collapse from fire

Originally posted by scraze
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.

[edit on 19-6-2010 by scraze]

What caused this explosion?

Because if burning buildings sometimes emit loud bangs then the aural evidence of "explosions" at the WTC as evidence of bombs might have to be rethought...

"What caused this explosion?"

What exactly does the explosion in this building have to do with 9/11?

Isn't it funny that debunkers quickly discredit the Empire State Building being hit by a plane incident as an adequate analogy to the Towers on 9/11, but on the other hand, submit this building fire as an adequate analogy? Seems as if desperation breeds some serious delusion.

reply to post by jprophet420


Find better videos or do better research.

One little snippet from NIST about WTC 7

"The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors."

"if fire or DAMAGE from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 were not factors"

Throughout the report its mentioned that damage from WTC 1's collapse was a factor. Just as it states that absent the damage, the unchecked fires would have killed the building.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
What caused this explosion?

Because if burning buildings sometimes emit loud bangs then the aural evidence of "explosions" at the WTC as evidence of bombs might have to be rethought...

Freely translated from the paragraph "Explosie" in the second link in my post (added in an edit), www.nu.nl...:

Explosion

Eyewitnesses are reporting an explosion took place around 13.30 at the left side of the building, destroying several windows. The firefighters quickly receded from the part of the building that had been reasonably intact up to that point.

According to the reports, operations halted on the crane to fight the fire from as well.

In spite of a few google searches, I wasn't able to find more information about the explosion itself - specifically the cause of it. However, the explosion knocked out some windows, so I'd say it qualifies as an explosion in the sense of a sufficiently significant sudden expansion of substance. Whether such an expansion could be a product of particular forms of convection in buildings like this, I dare not say..

Originally posted by jprophet420

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.

Exaclty,The gash was exterior damage and in no way damaged the integrity of the building itself but still WTC7 collapsed in onitself just like the 2 steel skyscrapers ,all on the same day and it was a first in history if only just one of these buildings collapsed in on it self that day let alone 3.

Also a first , a entire boeing vanished into the ground in shanksvile and another disintegrated into the pentagon for wich years later video footage was released wich showed no boeing but did manage to show a impact.And 4 Hijacks where sucsesfull all in sync with each other by muslims they have been keeping tabs on using box cutters.

It all sounds so believable (if one is gullible)

Originally posted by vipertech0596
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.

If you want to make it so flippin' black and white, that makes the building you posted in the OP an invalid comparison as well, because neither did it! And it didn't experience a global collapse either!

If you want to get real about it, the FEMA report shows you that only 11% and 13% of the columns on those floors were severed, in a skyscraper that is structurally redundant.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by scraze
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.

[edit on 19-6-2010 by scraze]

What caused this explosion?

Because if burning buildings sometimes emit loud bangs then the aural evidence of "explosions" at the WTC as evidence of bombs might have to be rethought...

Does that mean you also accept the possibility that the numerous explosions occurring underground all the way up through various floors of the buildings could have been caused by explosives or bombs as well?

It would be pretty hypocritical for you to expect me to think all those explosions were caused by (whatever mechanism -- like you said, you don't even know what it was!) -- yet you don't seem willing to entertain the other side of the coin at all. Do you notice that?

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"What caused this explosion?"

What exactly does the explosion in this building have to do with 9/11?

Isn't it funny that debunkers quickly discredit the Empire State Building being hit by a plane incident as an adequate analogy to the Towers on 9/11, but on the other hand, submit this building fire as an adequate analogy? Seems as if desperation breeds some serious delusion.

So I take it you can't answer?

It's not an analogy by the way - it's a comparison. And this is a perfectly valid comparison because it's a building that's on fire, and reports of "explosions" were made. The comparison with the ESB is flawed because the plane size and speed were different.

But forget the WTC for a second, don't even bother comparing it. Care to try to explain where the explosion came from? No need to even mention the WTC or 9/11...

reply to post by AquariusDescending


What do you mean? I haven't said what I think the explosions were caused by. I'm asking what caused this one.

Care to make a suggestion?

Furthermore there is no evidence of "numerous" explosions at the WTC. Unless your definition of "numerous" is synonymous with "a few".

[edit on 21-6-2010 by TrickoftheShade]

Originally posted by AquariusDescending

Originally posted by vipertech0596


If you want to make it so flippin' black and white, that makes the building you posted in the OP an invalid comparison as well, because neither did it! And it didn't experience a global collapse either!

If you want to get real about it, the FEMA report shows you that only 11% and 13% of the columns on those floors were severed, in a skyscraper that is structurally redundant.

First off, I am not the OP. Second, I believe his point was that, yes, fire CAN cause a steel framed building to partially or completely collapse.

Then, you get your agencies confused, which points towards a conclusion that you have not actually read the report. Why do I say this? You, like many other truthers, parrot 'FEMA', when it was NIST that did the report.

And in the report, it clearly states that, absent the damage from WTC 1, WTC 7 would still have collapsed, purely from the unchecked fires.



[edit on 21-6-2010 by vipertech0596]

reply to post by Rafe_


Looks like someone gets all "information" solely from conspiracy websites?

Exaclty,The gash was exterior damage and in no way damaged the integrity of the building itself but still WTC7 collapsed in onitself...

??

"exterior damage only" has been shown, many, many times, to be a lie...something conspracy sites do in great abundance:

reply to post by thedman


another out-of-context, twist-the-facts guru to add to the ignore list....

Originally posted by ATH911

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?

Nope. Not even close. We can't even compare then unless we hit that school with a 110-150 ton 500 mile per hour airplane.

Originally posted by AquariusDescending



The First Interstate Bank fire is a much better comparison.

It's WAY better comparison then the op. But you can't compare a building that was hit with a 110-150 ton airplane AND set on fire to a building that was set on fire.

A building is hit by an airplane, then set on fire, then collapses.

It's my job to find out exactly why the building collapsed to make changes in how we construct buildings to prevent this from ever happening again.

STEP ONE:

Find out how much damage was done to the building by the airplane.


Yet so many people just skip this step and it should be the FIRST ONE! They decide the buildings collapsed because of explosives, or micronukes, or thermite, or nano-thermite, or energy breams without even ATTEMPTING to find out how much damage was done to the buildings from the airplane impacts.

Still no offers on what that explosion was caused by?

Anyone?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Still no offers on what that explosion was caused by?

Anyone?

It was caused by demolition explosives that caused the collapse of that part of the building.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"What caused this explosion?"

What exactly does the explosion in this building have to do with 9/11?

Isn't it funny that debunkers quickly discredit the Empire State Building being hit by a plane incident as an adequate analogy to the Towers on 9/11, but on the other hand, submit this building fire as an adequate analogy? Seems as if desperation breeds some serious delusion.

Neither are adequate. Comparing something small and slow to something big and fast in terms of damage it can cause is like comparing BB's and bulletts.

Comparing the collapse of a building that was not not hit by an airplane to the collapse of a building that was hit by an airplane are not accurate. We don't have anything close to compare it to because no airplane impact has happened on that scale before.

I don't understand why, people who believe the WTC towers were demolished, who also have a lot of money (like john travolta or rosie odonnol) can't just recreate a scale version of the top 50 floors of the WTC towers and then smash a 767 into it and see if it collapses. Why have we not mythbusted this already? I know if I won 110 million dollars in the lottery that would be the FIRST thing I would do! Finally present some good evidence to support a theory.

Some people have turned the phrase "No steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire" (most likely a true statment) into "No steel framed building has ever collapsed from fire" (as best as my research has shown is an outright LIE).

Both phrases ignore the amount of damage that was caused to the towers by the airplane impacts. (something I've noticed a LOT of people flat out ignore)

[edit on 21-6-2010 by iamcpc]

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Still no offers on what that explosion was caused by?

Anyone?

It is unlikely that attempts have been made to identify the source of the explosion. Still, as you can read in my reply to your first post on this page, the explosion was substantial enough to knock out windows. Whatever the cause, it would seem to be at least equivalent to the force of a grenade - that's a layman's guess though!

This just proves the OSers do not know the difference between a partial collapse of localized areas, and a complete symmetrical global collapse of a buildings main core weight bearing structure through the path of most resistance.

Edmans post is just an example of a localized collapse of non-weight bearing facade, which is a perfectly exceptable event and does not contradict known physics.

Edman has just basically proved he has no idea what is involved in a buildings collapse. I'm starting to think Edman is Joey because they both seem to have the same fundamental misunderstanding of building design, and why physics will not allow a complete symmetrical global failure from fire.

The OSers also fail to understand that the planes impact had nothing to do with the eventual collapse. The plane did not damage anything bellow where it impacted so how did the plane cause all that undamaged steel to simply collapse through the path of most resistance with no slowing of the collapse wave from resistance of undamaged structure?

Even IF (huge IF) the planes severed any core weight bearing columns it would not be the cause of a complete global symmetrical collapse, as the plane could not remove the resistance of the 80+ undamaged floors, and neither could carbon fires in an hour.

reply to post by scraze


Thanks, I wasn't ignoring your post. But it did just confirm what I thought - that nobody knows what caused this explosion.

Once again it strikes me that this has a bearing on the "explosions" at the WTC which, as has been pointed out here, was a much more cataclysmic situation. If a small building that didn't even fully fall down is emitting explosions, then why are the supposed sounds at the WTC suspicious?

It's noticeable that nobody wants to touch this with a barge pole.