Massive Fire Skyscraper Dubai

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: hellobruce

He can't because the NIST report conveniently left WTC7 out of it...

What are you on about? Wherever you agree with it or not is another matter, but NIST released a report just about WTC 7 over 6 years ago.

NIST Final report on the collapse of WTC 7 (PDF)


Links to relevant publications, comments, etc at bottom of this page

a reply to: Xcathdra

It was a new type of radioactive material that isn't radioactive. It was invented especially for this false flag event orchestrated by the lizard people that live in my vivarium.

originally posted by: AgentSmith
a reply to: TsukiLunar

I can prove that the fire was started using nano-nukes. Anyone that thinks this fire could start by another other way is just a blind sheep. I'm risking my reputation and disappearing to get this vital information out because I don't agree with what's happening and the public have a right to know. I just want to do the right thing.

Please buy my book for details.

Alternatively, please view my YouTube channel and make sure you don't skip through the ads.

Trolling perfection!!!

You sir, are a master!!!

I applaud your skills

originally posted by: AgentSmith
a reply to: Xcathdra

I don't need any readings to prove it, it's obvious. If you don't believe me you're clearly just a shill. I can't speak to you any more.

P.S. Please buy my book

Lol, plz continue...

originally posted by: AgentSmith
a reply to: Xcathdra

It was a new type of radioactive material that isn't radioactive. It was invented especially for this false flag event orchestrated by the lizard people that live in my vivarium.

Please start a trollers club, I so want in.

The best part is they keep replying....ahahaha.

This crap is golden, you sir are a master of the craft.

I myself indulge in trollery on a pretty regular basis, it is great for the soul, and gets the point across most handily when facts and logic fail to work.

Just effing beautiful!!!!

a reply to: infinityorder

Hehe ;-)

a reply to: FlyingFox

Take a full beer can in the face at 500mph and let us know how that works out for you.

nice point, though would you collapse into your own foot print at near free fall speed or follow the path of least resistance also would the person standing next to you collapse into their own foot prints at near free fall speed due to the debris of your exploding head hmmm.....

originally posted by: PLAYERONE01
collapse into your own foot print

Why do truthers keep posting that obvious false claim? None of the buildings at the WTC collapsed into their own footprint, a simple check would see all the other buildings damaged/destroyed by the collapsing buildings on 9/11.

a reply to: hellobruce

They went straight down all the way which is the only way gravity will allow it to go that is what is meant by falling into its own footprint ,but of course their is the curious element of debris being ejected at massive force outwards towards other buildings,their shouldn't have even been enough energy for the top half to pulverise the larger undamaged lower half yet their was such an excess of energy that thick steel beams were being ejected outwards like rubber bands into other buildings.

originally posted by: amurphy245
debris being ejected at massive force outwards towards other buildings,their shouldn't have even been enough energy for the top half to pulverise the larger undamaged lower

Why not? Remember, it was only falling on one floor at a time, or do you somehow think that a floor was strong enough to stop thousands of tonnes of building falling?

The debris was falling, not ejected with a massive force and when a 400+ metre building falls of course debris will fall a fair way from the collapse.

such an excess of energy that thick steel beams were being ejected outwards like rubber bands into other buildings.

Care to show us these "rubber bands" of thick steel?

originally posted by: AreUKiddingMe
a reply to: Rocker2013

Well if this skyscraper was constructed in 2011, how in the HELL does a fire spread rapidly 15 FLOORS? Even the old apartment bldg I live in has SPRINKLERS.

The fire started in the middle of the tower, rapidly spreading across some 15 floors, according to photos and videos from the scene. video

What does any of that have to do with the post I made?

Are you arguing that the building was not constructed and opened in 2011? Because I can assure you that was exactly when it did open, this is not some kind of mythological building that's always been there with no date of completion.

It does have sprinklers, but you seem to be ignoring the actual facts of this case for some reason. What we have seen so far (and this only happened hours ago) is that this affected predominantly the outer apartments, and the corners of the building. When looking at this building in daylight, you can clearly see that the corners have balconies.

It's most plausible that this started on a balcony, and then spread to other balconies on those corners. The material on those balconies and high winds then fueled these flames to make them far more impressive looking than they actually were. There is no doubt a lot of damage, but it was nothing even remotely close to a plane loaded with jet fuel smashing into an almost 30 year old building at great speed severing the core structure of that building.

originally posted by: Guenter
A jet is in essence nothing bot an over-sized beer can with wings at a speed of 500mph. No matter what the mass and speed of this thing is, the material the jet is built of is less dense than the material the WTC was built of.

Nice ignoring of momentum and mass there.
This is not a water balloon hitting a brick wall, this is a mass of metal being propelled with great force at high speed into a solid object.
If you want to get all scientific, you need to consider all scientific realities and not cherry pick the reality to suit your narrative.

Ever see those students firing a ping pong ball through a bat to make a perfectly round hole? You might want to reconsider your knowledge of physics in relation to speed, mass and impact.

originally posted by: Guenter
And none of the jets hit the towers right dead center bulls eye! So it is again an irregular damage which then would result in an irregular collapse.

You do not know what the outcome would be. And, in fact, the collapses were not directly even and downward. Again, you're attempting to cherry pick what actually happened when the whole world watching it saw the tilt and collapse. This clearly indicates that one side was weakened more so than the other, and this is where the collapse began.

originally posted by: Guenter
And after all the WTC were designed for the very fact that aircraft could impact! After all the Empire State got hit in 45 or 46 with a B-25 bomber! Buildings collapse due to fire and impact damage but they ONLY collapse in their own footprints if "helped" with a bit of a controlled demolition.

First, the WTC was designed 30 YEARS BEFORE it was hit by TWO MODERN DAY PASSENGER JETS.
Second, a B-25 Bomber is NOTHING LIKE a passenger jet, if you need this pointing out to you then I don't know what to say.
Third, the Empire State building was constructed in an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT WAY to the WTC. This is like comparing a spoon to a coffee mug and asking why a spoon doesn't break when you drop it.
Fourth, the WTC did not "collapse into its own footprint" as people like to claim in an effort to make it sound like a controlled demolition. The damage area was considerable, taking out several other buildings. We can clearly see from all the video footage from the day that these buildings did not collapse "just like" a controlled demolition.

originally posted by: Guenter
Jet fuel burns in "open air" at just a bit over 1,000C which is not enough to "melt" steel. So even with the jets ramming it they should have collapsed irregular or partially.

Again, you selectively ignore the structure and design of the building. We all know that the building was constructed in a way so that each section of floor was attached to the outer walls, giving it the structural integrity of a tube, with an inner concrete core. The only thing needed to bring down those buildings was for the core to be partially damaged and the outer connectors unable to maintain the weight of the floor when damaged. Both of these things were damaged, and the weight of the floors crashing down then weakened the next floor which was also then unable to maintain that weight without the structure above. This created a pancake effect, and this is why you have the impression you have.

The science is sound, no matter how much you want to ignore it.

originally posted by: Guenter
That is what i am saying. Not more and not less. You do not get an almost free-fall in it's own foot print collapse just because of a plane hit. So no matter what you throw at any building it will NOT collapse free-fall into its own footprint.

It didn't fall into its own footprint.
But even if it did (almost did, at a stretch, if you really desperately want to believe that in comparison to a building toppling over) it is still backed up by science and physics. It was not freefall either, so stop claiming this when you know it's been debunked.

The collapse started at or above the point of impact, because the inner core was weakened and the tabs holding in the floors to the outer walls were destroyed. One floor collapses, the additional weight on the next along with the damage too causes that to collapse. The next floor then has double the weight, the next double again... each floor was designed to carry the weight of that floor and the occupants on it, it was not designed to carry the weight of ten or twenty floors above!

This is the simple fact that most people ignore. It's really quite simple when you see how this happened.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: amurphy245
debris being ejected at massive force outwards towards other buildings,their shouldn't have even been enough energy for the top half to pulverise the larger undamaged lower

Why not? Remember, it was only falling on one floor at a time, or do you somehow think that a floor was strong enough to stop thousands of tonnes of building falling?

The debris was falling, not ejected with a massive force and when a 400+ metre building falls of course debris will fall a fair way from the collapse.

such an excess of energy that thick steel beams were being ejected outwards like rubber bands into other buildings.

Care to show us these "rubber bands" of thick steel?

The top half should have met resistance from the lower half and both sections would have cancelled each other out until their is nothing left of the top half and all its kinetic energy is exhausted,what actually happened is the equivalent of a car crashing head on into an 18 wheeler and completely destroying the truck.

So no 1 floor wouldn't have stopped it,it would have lost a few floors before the top half turned to dust because it wouldn't have the energy to destroy the larger undamaged section of the building its impossible in my eyes,and the pancake theory is bunk because their wasn't a pancake of floors sitting at the bottom,and that doesn't explain how the core columns came down at the same time.

There is a picture somewhere of a hotel nearby with a beam wedged into it,and videos exist of the beams flying outwards,not digging them up you should already know what im talking about.

originally posted by: amurphy245
a reply to: hellobruce

They went straight down all the way which is the only way gravity will allow it to go that is what is meant by falling into its own footprint ,but of course their is the curious element of debris being ejected at massive force outwards towards other buildings,their shouldn't have even been enough energy for the top half to pulverise the larger undamaged lower half yet their was such an excess of energy that thick steel beams were being ejected outwards like rubber bands into other buildings.

You're ignoring the weight, and the constant increase of that weight upon floors that were not designed to take that weight.

This seems to be the main problem with those unable to understand the cause of the collapse.

Say you have 100 floors, and each floor weighs 100 tons.
Each floor is designed to hold itself up, plus another 10 tons.
Something happens to the 70th floor, like an impact from a jet plane, and weakens that floor and the connectors holding it in place.
That floor, PLUS ALL THE WEIGHT OF THE FLOORS ABOVE then crash down onto the next floor.
The floor they crash down onto, the 69th floor, is only designed to support 110 tons, just like all the other floors, but now it has more than 3,000 TONS of wight to support.

Obviously, a child can understand that a floor designed to hold 110 tons will NOT hold over 3,000 tons!
That floor collapses almost instantly, the next has even more weight to support and collapses instantly.
The next has even more weight... you can see how this goes, right?

Really people, what part of this are you not getting?

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: amurphy245
a reply to: hellobruce

They went straight down all the way which is the only way gravity will allow it to go that is what is meant by falling into its own footprint ,but of course their is the curious element of debris being ejected at massive force outwards towards other buildings,their shouldn't have even been enough energy for the top half to pulverise the larger undamaged lower half yet their was such an excess of energy that thick steel beams were being ejected outwards like rubber bands into other buildings.

You're ignoring the weight, and the constant increase of that weight upon floors that were not designed to take that weight.

This seems to be the main problem with those unable to understand the cause of the collapse.

Say you have 100 floors, and each floor weighs 100 tons.
Each floor is designed to hold itself up, plus another 10 tons.
Something happens to the 70th floor, like an impact from a jet plane, and weakens that floor and the connectors holding it in place.
That floor, PLUS ALL THE WEIGHT OF THE FLOORS ABOVE then crash down onto the next floor.
The floor they crash down onto, the 69th floor, is only designed to support 110 tons, just like all the other floors, but now it has more than 3,000 TONS of wight to support.

Obviously, a child can understand that a floor designed to hold 110 tons will NOT hold over 3,000 tons!
That floor collapses almost instantly, the next has even more weight to support and collapses instantly.
The next has even more weight... you can see how this goes, right?

Really people, what part of this are you not getting?

I understand exactly what you are saying but you are ignoring newtons law of motion that states "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." when the top section comes down it meets resistance and the force of the impact is reflected back up to the top section so whilst the bottom section is being destroyed the top section is also getting destroyed until there is nothing left of the top section,what you are saying is that an object can hit another object without absorbing the energy of the impact or losing any momentum,to be fair though that is exactly what appeared to have happened,the laws of physics were temporarily suspended.

Please excuse this horrible mspaint hack job but if we double the size of the WTC and drop this section,would it still plow through the building and reach the bottom? could it go on forever if the building was tall enough?

i59.tinypic.com...

originally posted by: AgentSmith

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: hellobruce

He can't because the NIST report conveniently left WTC7 out of it...

What are you on about? Wherever you agree with it or not is another matter, but NIST released a report just about WTC 7 over 6 years ago.

NIST Final report on the collapse of WTC 7 (PDF)


Links to relevant publications, comments, etc at bottom of this page

Sorry, please pardon my ignorance

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: amurphy245
a reply to: hellobruce

They went straight down all the way which is the only way gravity will allow it to go that is what is meant by falling into its own footprint ,but of course their is the curious element of debris being ejected at massive force outwards towards other buildings,their shouldn't have even been enough energy for the top half to pulverise the larger undamaged lower half yet their was such an excess of energy that thick steel beams were being ejected outwards like rubber bands into other buildings.

You're ignoring the weight, and the constant increase of that weight upon floors that were not designed to take that weight.

This seems to be the main problem with those unable to understand the cause of the collapse.

Say you have 100 floors, and each floor weighs 100 tons.
Each floor is designed to hold itself up, plus another 10 tons.
Something happens to the 70th floor, like an impact from a jet plane, and weakens that floor and the connectors holding it in place.
That floor, PLUS ALL THE WEIGHT OF THE FLOORS ABOVE then crash down onto the next floor.
The floor they crash down onto, the 69th floor, is only designed to support 110 tons, just like all the other floors, but now it has more than 3,000 TONS of wight to support.

Obviously, a child can understand that a floor designed to hold 110 tons will NOT hold over 3,000 tons!
That floor collapses almost instantly, the next has even more weight to support and collapses instantly.
The next has even more weight... you can see how this goes, right?

Really people, what part of this are you not getting?

Rocker, please advise as i have clearly missed something regarding steel, concrete and aluminium :-

First Impact - How did the Boeing slot into the building like a letterbox, leaving no aluminium debris falling ..... literally the whole plane "went in"

Second Impact - How did the Boeing's RH Wing slice through the steel structure of the tower without breaking the wing? how did the Boeing "Nose Out" in the same shape as it "Went In"?

Just asking coz i'm not educated

a reply to: corblimeyguvnor

If you would clear up what exactly you mean and what exactly were trying to imply about the planes crashing into the building it would really help things along . Thank you.