Towering Inferno in Caracas

This 730 ft office tower in Caracas, Venezuela burned for more than 17 hours. Steel structures. Hmmm.. Wonder why it didn't collapse like the World Trade Center towers? How strange....

Towering Inferno In Caracas

CARACAS, Venezuela, Oct. 18, 2004

(AP) Military helicopters doused one of Venezuela's tallest buildings with water Sunday, bringing under control a blaze many feared might cause the tower to collapse.
www.cbsnews.com...

Please also see the ATSNN article on this event. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Perhaps the reason it did not was that it was not hit by a 500,000 pound plane so did not have the inital structural damage, combined with the tousands of pounds of jet fuel eh?

Yes, when WTC collapsed it had been his with basically a flying fireball which basically melted almost all the metal on impact.

Ive seen a show on the WTC. The engineers that designed the WTC said the interior stability was dependant on the exterior stability. Once the damage was done to the exterior, all the feul was released into the building and began to burn. Temps rose, floor struts weakened and could nolonger hold the damage floors. Due to this and the fact that the exterior stability was compromised, the buildings fell.

So why did WTC 7 come down in the same nice fashion? It was not hit.

The whole thing screams controlled demolition.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
So why did WTC 7 come down in the same nice fashion? It was not hit.

The whole thing screams controlled demolition.

Technically a different discussion there ECK. A valid argument, to be sure, but not exactly relevant to the thread.

The point is, if the mighty trade towers came down, the Caracas tower should have. Excessive heat, burning for 17 hrs? Why didn't its structure melt?

because there were no terrorists to blame!

Perhaps the reason it did not was that it was not hit by a 500,000 pound plane so did not have the inital structural damage, combined with the tousands of pounds of jet fuel eh?

You would think any person of average intelligence could figure this out on their own. It is not rocket science, well actually yes it is but a very simple concept none the less.

Originally posted by sturod84
because there were no terrorists to blame!

Perzakly!

Originally posted by sturod84
because there were no terrorists to blame!

When those guys saying the WTC fell because heat destroyed the building this thread will come quite handy...Guess theyll never resort to say umm the inferno was such that the building colapsed, we will say 2 differences:

NO METAL STRUCTURE HAS FALLEN LIKE THAT BECAUSE OF FIRE and THER EWERE NO TERRORISTS INVOLVED !!!

Remember, though, that all buildings are different. Yes it was made of steel, but beyond that you don�t have any information on the specifics of the building construction. Even something as trivial as the shape of the building floor plan can effect how a building responds to fire. Furthermore, this building was not structurally damaged before the fire as all of the WTC buildings were. So to compare this fire with those buildings is just not realistic.

The Trade Towers were built to withstand airliners slamming into them, though.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
The Trade Towers were built to withstand airliners slamming into them, though.

See Djarum's post here.

It pretty much resonds to your comment.

Again for the record one more time. There was no fireproofing above the 64th floor of either WTC tower. Impact, jet fuel, fire, all fall down........get it?

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
The point is, if the mighty trade towers came down, the Caracas tower should have. Excessive heat, burning for 17 hrs? Why didn't its structure melt?

Probably the only similarity between the Caracas building and the WTC towers was the fact that the all of the buildings incorporated steel in their structure.

The structural design, the methods and materials used to fireproof the design, the floor plan and the gross square footage per floor, the interior build out methods, the core protection, the fire load, the height of the buildings, the activities of the firefighters to fight the blaze all of these things were different. Unless you can catalogue all of these differences and account or adjust for them, it is rather pointless to compare the two.

One of the biggest differences is the size of the floors. The WTC towers had huge, square floor plans. That meant 1) large fire loads due to more office furniture, building materials, paper, etc. and 2) Less ability for the heat to escape from a fire floor.

The Caracas building had a much narrower profile with a smaller square footage per floor and a design that maximized window space, (and corner offices).

Originally posted by chaosrain

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
So why did WTC 7 come down in the same nice fashion? It was not hit.

The whole thing screams controlled demolition.

Technically a different discussion there ECK. A valid argument, to be sure, but not exactly relevant to the thread.

Agreed, however I would like to point out that there is evidence that building 7 did sustain some structural damage from the collapse of the towers. A "kink" or a shift in the outline was noted in the building after the towers collapsed. That is why the NYPD pulled off the building.