Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

I'm pretty sure this building is going to collapse - Sharjah Skyscraper!

page: 4
63
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
My family lives near there...I sure hope they are OK.




posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by DorianSoran
 


It was a quarter stick, my bad.
We have beaten on it for the past 10 years though, thought about junking it but it's too strong to just throw away.

Point was that things like grills and wood stoves are designed to withstand temperatures from consistent heat and direct contact from flames. The steel in the WTC was designed to withstand around 3000F, and those temps didn't touch 3000F "until" the explosives went off, possibly nano thermate.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 



The steel in the WTC was designed to withstand around 3000F....

What do you mean "withstand"?
Are you saying that thermal energy had no effect on the steel of the World Trade Center towers?



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 





Not if you understand the way it was built. WTC was not built in the traditional method. WTC was not rigid enough to topple.


Not rigid enough? It was built with a very rigid internal structure. Are you saying that if it was more rigid it would've toppled, doesn't make sense does it.

And what then, still doesn't explain why the floors below the imapct zone collapsed.
edit on 30-4-2012 by RandomEsotericScreenname because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gumshoe
Interesting. No news outlets are covering this yet. All I could find were articles on past fires from '07 and '11.
You would think the tallest building in the world being on fire would make the news.


The tallest building in the world is Burj Khalifa. The building in the video is NOT Burj Khalifa. I'm not going to post a pic of Burj Khalifa because there are loads of them on the net.

This looks like an apartment block in Sharjah. There are often fires in Sharjah. It just so happens that someone decided to film it and post it on YouTube.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 



Whether the fuel burned gradually at a temperature below the boiling point of jet fuel (360 C), or burned rapidly above the boiling point of jet fuel, in neither case would an office building full of spilled jet fuel sustain a fire at 815 degrees C. page: 911review.com/articles/jm/mslp_1.htm

Eric Hufschmid appealed to people's experience with hydrocarbon-fueled fires, such as wood stoves and gas burners, to highlight the absurdity of the fire-melts-steel claim in the video Painful Deceptions.

The simple facts of temperatures:

1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)

Diffuse flames burn far cooler.
Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet.

The fires in the towers were diffuse -- well below 800ºC.
Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved -- particularly in the South Tower.

911review.com...


FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800º to 1500ºF, not hot enough to melt steel (2750ºF). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks." site: PopularMechanics.com page: 911review.com/pm/markup/index.html


My dad was a firefighter for 30 years. I kind of know a little bit about fires, not an expert though.
Black smoke indicates an oxygen starved fire. It's also very hot regardless, but not hot enough to melt the steel, or to destabilize the 70+ floors below that was designed to hold all that weight plus a lot more.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by natalie8

Originally posted by Gumshoe
Interesting. No news outlets are covering this yet. All I could find were articles on past fires from '07 and '11.
You would think the tallest building in the world being on fire would make the news.


The tallest building in the world is Burj Khalifa. The building in the video is NOT Burj Khalifa. I'm not going to post a pic of Burj Khalifa because there are loads of them on the net.

This looks like an apartment block in Sharjah. There are often fires in Sharjah. It just so happens that someone decided to film it and post it on YouTube.


And there are buildings falling down all over the place or are they all landing in their own footyprints?



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 



My dad was a firefighter for 30 years. I kind of know a little bit about fires, not an expert though.

I don' think the problem here is a lack of knowledge with regard to fire. I think its a lack of knowledge with regard to basic science.

Black smoke indicates an oxygen starved fire.

Take a tire. Set on fire. Black smoke. The color of the smoke is depended on the type of fuel. Period.

It's also very hot regardless, but not hot enough to melt the steel, or to destabilize the 70+ floors below that was designed to hold all that weight plus a lot more.

Nobody is saying the structural steel of the towers melted and thats what caused the buildings to collapse. They also are not saying that the fires "destabilized" the lower floors of the towers.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 





Nobody is saying the structural steel of the towers melted and thats what caused the buildings to collapse. They also are not saying that the fires "destabilized" the lower floors of the towers.



Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the Trade Center's construction manager [sic], speculated that flames fuelled by thousands of litres of aviation fuel melted steel supports. "This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said. "But steel melts, and 90,850 litres of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."

site: sunTimes.co.za page: www.suntimes.co.za/2001/09/12/architect.asp

The WTC construction manager said it, and going over the numbers, he seems to be full of it.

I read somewhere that it would take hours of consist temperatures to melt the steel, it wouldn't occur in a few minutes, which was how long the jet fuel burned for. The rest of the fires were materials in the building burning, but they still claim the jet fuel was hotter than the fires of Hell and "nothing could withstand that fire".



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by tracehd1
 



So....how then did 3 sky scrapers...

Yep, that covers it - all buildings that you declare "skyscrapers" are hence all designed and constructed in the same exact manner and in the same way.

built to w/stand 747's running in to it....fall?

Now you're just making crap up.

W/in seconds on itself....perfectly straight line, due to kerosene? Well....how what and wth?

None of the buildings was designed to withstand the impact of 757 at almost full throttle - and don't forget - both the towers did "survive". 1000's made it out alive.


You should probably check your source... All buildings are designed to withstand aircraft impacts... The WTC was built to handle multiple impacts. Your just spouting out crap from the official report. Since your so clever and were stupid please explain how WTC #7 fell from a fire and no impact or visible damage to the structure? In your "world" the building the OP showed us should be falling right about..... NOW.... Hmm.

I would offer you links to all this info but you will either blow it off as being BS or your just afraid to accept the fact you probably don't know or truely understand what happned that day. I'm not saying I do but atleast i'm willing to research, rather than calling people for what they believe. "Deny Ignorance" is the saying around here perhaps you should give it a try.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 



My dad was a firefighter for 30 years. I kind of know a little bit about fires, not an expert though.

I don' think the problem here is a lack of knowledge with regard to fire. I think its a lack of knowledge with regard to basic science.

Black smoke indicates an oxygen starved fire.

Take a tire. Set on fire. Black smoke. The color of the smoke is depended on the type of fuel. Period.

It's also very hot regardless, but not hot enough to melt the steel, or to destabilize the 70+ floors below that was designed to hold all that weight plus a lot more.

Nobody is saying the structural steel of the towers melted and thats what caused the buildings to collapse. They also are not saying that the fires "destabilized" the lower floors of the towers.


On the contrary, there is much evidence of molten metal before the collapse and after, something a NIST spokeman, denied.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 

There's also this:
phys.org...


The official report blames the collapse on the over-heating and failure of the structural steel beams at the core of the buildings, an explanation Simensen rejects.

Given the quantities of the molten metal involved, the blasts would have been powerful enough to blow out an entire section of each building, he said.

This, in turn, would lead to the top section of each tower to fall down on the sections below.

The sheer weight of the top floors would be enough to crush the lower part of the building like a house of card, he said.

The aluminium-water scenario would also account for explosions from within the buildings just prior to their collapse that have fuelled conspiracy theories suggesting that the structures had been booby-trapped.

Simensen presented his theory at an international materials technology conference in San Diego, California, and has detailed his calculations in an article published in the trade journal Aluminium International Today.

And this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Go to that thread and read what Francis Brannigan has to say. I think it's important.

Then go here:
www.fireengineering.com...


Just as surely as monied interests do not want questionable high-rise construction and fire protection practices exposed, the fire service does not want to engage the issue on the front end. In effect, the American fire service has treated this issue the way it has treated fire prevention for 200 years-as an inconvenience, as something a few of us are forced to do when we're not doing the fun, dangerous stuff.

Why, I must ask, was Glenn Corbett standing virtually alone at those congressional hearings? Why, when he rose to address our legislators, did he not feel the power of the fire service behind him?

Are we in a state of denial that something as terrible as what happened on 9-11 could happen again? If we believe that, why would we be scrambling to improve our response to terrorism capabilities?

The fire service mentality is all back end, all big red trucks. It's a mentality that makes another devastatingly large-loss incident not difficult to imagine.

We like to celebrate fire service leadership we see as "progressive." Progressive? What Sally and Glenn did, that's progressive. Fighting the fight to improve the built environment that takes firefighters from their families-that's progressive.

You can study Frank Brannigan from now 'til the cows come home, and you won't make the buildings you work in any safer.

Why hide from the truth? The American fire service loves fires. American firefighters will die in buildings built for profit. And the bagpipes will continue to sound across America for brothers and sisters whose lives were cut short.

The fire service fighting its cause on the front end of the fire equation? Now that really would be changing the world.

There's a conspiracy, but it's not what you think it's. There was no inside job. However, some people and organizations did not perform their duties to the standards we all expect of them. They're silent and others are helping to cover for them. It's about money and pride.

Corners were cut. Mistakes were buried. Now everybody is blissfully at ease.
edit on 30-4-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Just have to post this because I do not for the life of me understand how people can think 9/11 was this HUGE conspiracy involving thousands and thousands of people..but it would be impossible to fake a Hawaiian BC



Other sites go further, suggesting “pull it” isn’t commonly used slang for demolition at all. And Reijden, despite believing it’s most likely that WTC7 was demolished by explosives, doesn’t accept that Silverstein’s quote is in itself evidence of that. He reports: I mailed Jowenko BV and asked if 'pull' was an industry term for 'demolish'. They said it wasn't. Implosionworld said the same thing. I run into the same problem when looking into different dictionaries. There is always a distinction made between 'pull down', 'pull away' and 'pull back'. And I have not been able to find one person on the internet who uses this word as a substitute for 'demolish'. So I think it's safe to assume that Larry needs to clarify what he meant, but unfortunately he refuses to do that. web.archive.org...://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/911_my_own_review.htm#222 Those sceptical of the “pull=demolish” idea suggest that “pull it” could mean “pull a firefighting operation”, instead. And even sites collecting examples to show that it is a demolition term (see thewebfairy.com... for instance), offer some support for this idea. Note how that page also contains the following quotes referring to the firefighters (our emphasis on the words in bold): ...they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too... Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out? Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. And we have other issues with the “demolition” interpretation of Silverstein’s remarks. Problem #1, Larry Silverstein is not a demolition contractor, neither was the fire department chief, so why should we assume they’d be using slang demolition terms? Problem #2, Silverstein says "they made that decision to pull", for instance -- the Fire Department. If "pull" means "demolish", then he's saying the Fire Department may not have decided to bring the building down if they couldn't contain the fire, but because it was beyond them, they decided to blow it up. Does this make sense? Not in the slightest.


www.911myths.com...


When a fire fighter says pull they mean get out of the way, quit nothing we can do, let it burn out...yadda yadda.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Amazing how this can withstand heat and the others impractically fall on themselves within minutes. Hmm and it's still standing? And that was how long ago? Anyone see anything wrong with this picture?

Sure you know what my reference is towards.
edit on 30-4-2012 by Manhater because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 


You don't need it to melt...just soften enough that it cannot support the weight of what is above.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 


Like I said, no one is contending that the towers collapsed because the structural steel melted. For the record, I was refering to the NIST, not just anyone on the internet.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by JAY1980
 



You should probably check your source... All buildings are designed to withstand aircraft impacts...

No they are not. Some buildings depending on their proximity to an airport or airfield may have some design systems consider a plane impact. But to say all buildings are designed to withstand aircraft impacts? Nonsense.

The WTC was built to handle multiple impacts.

First, no it wasn't. Second, it did withstand one major impact. 1,000's survived because the buildings stood as long as they did.

Your just spouting out crap from the official report.

Sorry, next time I'll just make crap up - like all buildings are designed to withstand plane impacts.

Since your so clever and were stupid please explain how WTC #7 fell from a fire and no impact or visible damage to the structure?

Try the NIST, they spent a lot of time and money with a lot of knowledgeable folks answering just that question.

In your "world" the building the OP showed us should be falling right about..... NOW.... Hmm.

No, like I said - in my world different buildings will act differently in different situations. In your world you write fictious rules with regard to behavior and then cry "ah-hah"! when your rules fail.

I would offer you links to all this info but you will either blow it off as being BS or your just afraid to accept the fact you probably don't know or truely understand what happned that day.

Probably. But if you have something conflicting from, say, the ASCE I would be glad to look at it. If you are talking about landscape architects and computer programming engineers for truth - forget about it.

I'm not saying I do but atleast i'm willing to research, rather than calling people for what they believe.

You're not doing "research" - you're looking at conspiracy websites.

"Deny Ignorance" is the saying around here perhaps you should give it a try.

Its all I do.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by JAY1980
 





All buildings are designed to withstand aircraft impacts... The WTC was built to handle multiple impacts.

Building are NOT designed to withstand aircraft impacts. Show us your source.

Nowhere was WTC claimed to be able to withstand multiple impacts. NOWHERE



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 





or to destabilize the 70+ floors below that was designed to hold all that weight plus a lot more.

No they weren't.
The floors below used the same trusses as the top floor.
If the weight on floor 100 exceeded the capacity of the trusses they would fail and the combined weight would fall to the 99th floor. The 99th would then fail. And so on.
edit on 30-4-2012 by samkent because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by JAY1980
 





All buildings are designed to withstand aircraft impacts... The WTC was built to handle multiple impacts.

Building are NOT designed to withstand aircraft impacts. Show us your source.

Nowhere was WTC claimed to be able to withstand multiple impacts. NOWHERE


Skyscrapers must be designed to withstand the wind. Adn the wind can blow for hours. A plane impact is over in seconds and the oscillation stops within minutes. The WTC towers withstood 100 mph winds on 6 occasions according to one source I encountered. They were designed to sway 3 feet at the top in a 150 mph wind.

The south tower deflected FIFTEEN INCHES when the plane impacted. The difference between plane and wind is concentration of force. That is why structural damage occurred. But discussing that damage without talking about the distributions of steel and concrete makes no sense. The mass distribution and stiffness affect the deflection.

These vague discussions without data are just bullsh#.

psik






top topics



 
63
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join