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.

 

Building Collapses from Fire in Elizabeth NJ

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
One of the major tenents of " 911 truthism" is that buildings can not collapse from fire alone.

Yet a fire in a building being used as a storage facility caused the structure to collapse


After more than a day of burning, interior sections of a massive Elizabeth warehouse have begun to collapse under the heat of an eight-alarm fire that continues to blaze.


What is this ridiculous CRAP?

That building was a warehouse. How many warehouses are more than 10 stories tall? How thick did any steel have to be to hold it up.

But it still burned for more than a day. WTC 1 and 2 came down after less than two hours. And then collapsed in 25 seconds. Did that entire building come down in that little time? It burned for more than 12 times as long as the WTC. That fact tends to indicate the WTC towers should not have come down so soon.

This comparison is ridiculous. This just further shows the absurdity of this ten year debate. Some people want to believe the impossible and will accept any flimsy excuse.

psik
edit on 28-12-2011 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by QueSeraSera
Does anybody know if these burning skyscrapers in VietNam collapsed into their own footprint? This fire was "news" for less than one day, and there don't seem to be any articles about it after 12/16/11.


As I asked before, can anyone find reports that these burning towers have collapsed into their own footprints? I have been unsucessful in seeing any MSM coverage since 12/16.

www.cnn.com... +rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29
edit on 28-12-2011 by QueSeraSera because: Sorry for that commercial! Grrrr!



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Did Minoru Yamasaki build it? Turns out he has an interesting track record.


Minoru Yamasaki will forever be remembered alongside America’s most profound architectural disaster. Whatever he was before 2001—which was dead, maligned, and mainly sliding away into obscurity—he is forever after the designer of the most ambitious modern structure ever to end up as a gaping hole. The World Trade Center, at this point, has been sufficiently eulogized, and the rebuilding process has brought a healthy dose of controversy to a city that seemed on pause while the wreckage was being cleared. But before closing the book on Yamasaki and his work, one last review of his career bestows upon him another spurious honor: possibly the most disastrous (and short-lived) legacy of 20th century American architecture. Yamasaki’s tale is a true American success story that not only ended in an immense tragedy, but was punctuated by numerous other disasters throughout his career. His buildings might be uninteresting, but his spectacular failures bring out the uncanny coalescence between Yamasaki’s work and the major controversies and programs of the last half-century.



n Yamasaki’s 1979 autobiography, A Life in Architecture, he admits more than anyone would care to know about his private life, but makes a glaring omission in his inventory of major projects: it was as if Pruitt-Igoe had never happened. Not a peep about it, aside from an allusion to some buildings that were “just plain bad,” but in the end acted as “forceful reminders that we must do more carefully thought-out work in succeeding commissions.” Lest we come to suspect that Yamasaki is whitewashing his career, he admits to other early failures. A building commissioned in 1951 by the Department of Defense was built without a sprinkler system, and then burned in a spectacular fire. That building, the U.S. Military Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri, housed 38 million individual service records and 4,000 employees. When it was completed in 1956, the six-story concrete and aluminum behemoth was one of the twenty largest buildings in the world.

Less than twenty years later, in July 1973, a fire tore through the building, burning out of control for more than two days. It was the weekend of the official end of the draft, and the news was all bombs and impeachment. Over the previous two years, the Records Center had reported a dozen small fires, all started intentionally. This one, set shortly after midnight on July 12, appeared to be another case of arson. No one died in the blaze, set when only 50 employees were on duty, but sixteen to eighteen million military personnel files, many of them irreplaceable, were lost. Today, the Personnel Records Center informs those seeking information that, as a result of the fire, it cannot provide access to 80 percent of army files on personnel discharged between 1912 and 1960, as well as 75 percent of air force personnel discharged between 1947 and 1964. Information about hundreds of thousands of veterans vanished from the face of the earth. The building survived.


americancity.org...



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   
I've never been one to get in to a debate about what happened on 9/11 but reading this thread to day has opened up a whole new can of worms and leaves me and I'm guessing others with more questions than answers. There have been various famous incidents of skyscrapers catching fire and burning for hours even days and yet they didn't collapse or sustain serious structural damage however, two skyscrapers made from steel just collapse in little over an hour? I'm not doubting for one second there was a terrorist attack but surely there must have been underground devices and extremely powerful ones at that. I guess we will never know.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorT
 



I've never been one to get in to a debate about what happened on 9/11....

Well then this is like being seen coming out of a brothel and saying, "well I've never been one to frequent prostitutes..."

but reading this thread to day has opened up a whole new can of worms and leaves me and I'm guessing others with more questions than answers.

Why?

There have been various famous incidents of skyscrapers catching fire and burning for hours even days and yet they didn't collapse or sustain serious structural damage however, two skyscrapers made from steel just collapse in little over an hour?

Yes, that's because your decision to label them all as "skyscrapers" does not obligate the actual structures to then act the same. Your shortcut is not their reality.

I'm not doubting for one second there was a terrorist attack....

That's good.

....but surely there must have been underground devices and extremely powerful ones at that. I guess we will never know.

Actually we do know. Its like saying, "well there were no cameras in the cockpits but I think pink unicorns were actually flying the planes - I guess we'll never know".



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by questforevidence
Well, you know, except for this:

911research.wtc7.net...


911research.wtc7.net...



Id still want to know how they managed to light up the Bejing hotel like an effin blowtorch. What did they use for paint? Kerosin?



posted on Apr, 19 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: GenRadek


So if fires cannot cause steel structures to fail, what happened to the floors inside WTC5? www.wpi.edu...


I know this is old but I have been looking for documents and you led me to one. It's curious this document you cite as evidence for something clearly says it is a hypothesis and uses the word "theory". The table of contents is filled with the word "estimation". This is the exact same as the reports from buildings 1, 2, and 7. I like your question though. What happened to the floors in building 5? Yes. And building 6, and the marriott hotel, etc. these buildings were all left standing and not all the floors collapsed even though they were exposed to more documented fire and heavier damage from debris of the collapses of 1 and 2. There is no comparison. All this proves is that the official body that investigated the collapses has yet again stated they have a hypothesis.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: questforevidence
Well, you know, except for this:

911research.wtc7.net...


911research.wtc7.net...



How many if thoses buildings are steel only ie no reinforced concrete and how many where damaged by aircraft before the fires ?



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   
The aircraft damage had little to no bearing on the collapse itself as indicated in the precious FEMA reports. It also says that damage to WT7 had no significance in the onset of collapse there either. A plane flying into the biilsong is neither here nor tbere. All it did was start the fire. Compare the reaction of similar buildings to the fires alone, not to the cause of the fires. a reply to: wmd_2008



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 01:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBolt
The aircraft damage had little to no bearing on the collapse itself as indicated in the precious FEMA reports. It also says that damage to WT7 had no significance in the onset of collapse there either. A plane flying into the biilsong is neither here nor tbere. All it did was start the fire. Compare the reaction of similar buildings to the fires alone, not to the cause of the fires. a reply to: wmd_2008



I suggest YOU check the construction of those buildings first !!!!!!!

Here to save YOU some time for example.

The Windsor Tower


Construction Type: Reinforced concrete core with waffle slabs supported by internal RC columns and steel beams, with perimeter steel columns which were unprotected above the 17th Floor level at the time of the fire.


Nothing like the Twin Towers or Building 7 the problem is YOU GUYS think a building is a building is a building , they can be constructed in different ways with DIFFERENT materials check the rest and report back



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Nothing like the Twin Towers or Building 7 the problem is YOU GUYS think a building is a building is a building , they can be constructed in different ways with DIFFERENT materials check the rest and report back



You know what? You're right. I was misleading in my statement. The argument should me made about whether these buildings are constructed in a similar enough fashion to be comparable. My point is that that should be the ONLY argument made. I know very little about the Windsor tower construction details and that should be noted. However What "you guys" always bring up as one argument about other skyscraper fires is that none of them were ever hit by a plane so by definition ZERO other fire in history can be used as a benchmark. That's an easy and unscientific out for most lazy researchers and debunkers but the planes don't account for how the entire structure crumbled under the floors they impacted so it's really irrelevant to the argument. I think you and I discussed at length once before if I'm not mistaken about the WTC when we compared the fire on the lower floors of one of the WTC towers in 1975 to the 9/11 fires and you are often quick with a source link so to be clear to everyone I would never do you the injustice of lumping you in under the title of lazy researcher.



a reply to: wmd_2008



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Independent samples taken from the dust at the World Trade Center site on 9/11, by the RJ Lee Group, and USGS, (amongst other organizations) all found thermitic activity in every sample, in the form of iron/metallic micro-spherical particles, and un-reacted thermitic material. (7:30, and 7:53 in the video)

Case closed.




posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: nOraKat




Case closed.

So you believe a video produced by someone who's sole income comes from the perpetuation of the conspiracy?
And yet the thermite debate was put to sleep with a scientific examination years ago.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBolt

Read the reports on ALL those fires STEEL failed on them all JUST due to fire although they had NO structral damage due to aircraft impacts. Also a few had the fires fought and the only thing stopping collspse was CONCRETE.


You have to compare like with like.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 02:27 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent

Where do you guys come from?

I believe in USGS, RJ Lee and these other groups who ran the tests.

I believe in these particular Chemical Engineers, Architects and other scientists who have taken the time out to give their testimonies in this documentary. They are many. I highly doubt all of these people are colluding to make a buck. Your statement is retarded.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: nOraKat
a reply to: samkent

Where do you guys come from?

I believe in USGS, RJ Lee and these other groups who ran the tests.

I believe in these particular Chemical Engineers, Architects and other scientists who have taken the time out to give their testimonies in this documentary. They are many. I highly doubt all of these people are colluding to make a buck. Your statement is retarded.



MANY
a friction of a percent of the structural engineers based in the USA never mind the world.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Not one WTC building burned for 1 day.

This building is not even a steel highrise building and it collapsed in certain parts. I am also quite sure that it did not do so at freefall,Physics and all.. So not much of a parallel there to begin with.


edit on 14-6-2015 by everyone because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: TheBolt

Read the reports on ALL those fires STEEL failed on them all JUST due to fire although they had NO structral damage due to aircraft impacts. Also a few had the fires fought and the only thing stopping collspse was CONCRETE.


You have to compare like with like.


The buildings on 9/11 and their collapse was caused by fire not impact, Your OS says so.
Next to that, building 7.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join