26-strory bldg engulfed in flames - no collapse

The photo of this is amazing. This fire dwarfs the piddling little fires we saw in the three WTC skyscrapers that suddenly collapsed at free-fall speed on 911.

www.latimes.com...

reply to post by Make Speed Limit 45

---

Okay...
Not all buildings are created equal.
How well was it fire-proofed?
Insulation?
What was burning inside?
Where was the pressure most relevant?
Many poorly equipped steel buildings have collapsed due to fire.

forthardknox.com...

You forgot to ask if it was hit with a 777.

Those weren't collapses. Based on the pics, the buildings were destroyed but they didn't collapse into a neat pile like happened three times on 911.

reply to post by Make Speed Limit 45

---

Come on now. I am pretty sure that a 757 didnt crash into that building at 500+ mph. This is probably one of the worst examples of have seen yet on this site that tries to prove that the towers were demoed.

reply to post by jd140

---

It wasn't a 777 it was Plainly hollow grams and UFO's get the facts right./ satire I am sick and tired of people saying "oh wow look at this building it was on fire for *insert hours days years here* and it didn't collapse. While all of this is true it doesn't prove didly.

Did the building in question get hit with a Boeing 747/777 WHAT? it DIDN'T??
and does it have the same building structure of the twin towers again , a shocking conclusion....NO IT DIDN'T and did it have fireproof foam blown away like sand from the force of the plane that hit it (sarcasm) again a mind boggler if you don't have the facts NO IT DIDN'T the fire proof foam/wtf ever they have as protection was still there.

and did the heat exceed temperatures in the twin towers that had accelerant( jet fuel) on them? sriously thats the only question i have now 9/11 conspiritors can go and *insert insult here* themselves

well no, neither did wtc7!

once, big maybe

twice, much more than coincidence..

but three times???? common!!!

The source you a referring to is pitiful! It has two examples:

Example 1:
"a major part of the 5th to 8th floors had collapsed"

Example 2:
"This 6-story building was built of reinforced concrete"

Thanks for pointing out example 1 though because it adds to the fact about what actually happens in non-intentional fires:
Only the top few floor will collapse while the rest of the building remains stable. Your example just mounts on evidence that WTC1 & WTC2 were controlled demolitions.

No disrespect intended to the OP, but this by far is one of the weakest un-scientific claims I have ever read. I'm looking at this from a neutral point-of-view, OP, as I have seen a lot of great research on both sides and am always open to new information.

An apple is not an orange no matter how much anyone says it is.

You may be interested in some of the information and pictures contained in this thread - No Steel Structured Building has ever collapsed due to fire - www.abovetopsecret.com...

Such as:
www.serendipity.li...

Notice the crzy pictured of massive buildings on fire - and YES some of those were hit by airplanes.

You may be interested in the above info, you may not. Eather way, i hope its informative and enlightening

Cheers

You can't have it both ways. They didn't say that the building collapsed from the impacts, they said it was from the HEAT OF THE FIRE WEAKENING THE STEEL.

reply to post by corvin77

---

No, WTC 7 had WTC1 carve a chunk out of it.

Between columns.

BTW, NIST says fire. Are you refuting them?

reply to post by Grock

---

I always get a kick out of reading Serendipity. The complete lack of common sense and the moronic statements are always good for a laugh.

[edit on 21-1-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

reply to post by Griff

---

No, I am saying that damage PLUS fire caused the collapse of three buildings that day.

Did you actually read the article i posted or just the name of the link? Lack of common sense and moronic statements? I would like proof of this before you try and make me look ignorant, you can do so by actually clicking on the link provided...

Can you quantify just exactly how this happened?

On a side note: Why haven't we figured it out yet? Seriously. How much would a building 20 stories high be? 5 million? Didn't we spend more on Mr. Clinton's BJ?

And yes, I'm talking about recreating the scene. It's the only way to put it to rest. Why are we scared to do it?

I'd gladly give up my tax dollars for a year to help build the thing. Hell, they'd only need about 2 million more. I joke.

reply to post by Grock

---

Completely fails to mention that the construction of the ESB is entirely different than the Towers...in some respects, the ESB is a much sturdier building.




I guess it the iceberg had nothing to do with sinking the Titanic, since it remained afloat for a couple hours.




Leaving just the plastics, carpets, wallboards, floor tiles, cleaning chemicals etc to burn.




It took over seven and a half months to get all the physical evidence removed from the site...and taken to the landfills where it was gone over by a bunch of people looking for evidence, personal effects, human remains etc.....

NOT to mention quite a bit of the steel stayed right here in the USA for use in quite a few things one of which was part of the keel of the USS New York.




So much for a fire not being able to cause a collapse.......





So back to the original statements....Serendipity is good for a laugh...nothing more.

reply to post by Griff

---

Can I quantify.....see, this is where there is a dramatic disconnect. You believe that somehow you will be able to accurately recreate exactly what happened from the impact to the collapse. I know that there is absolutely no way to make that happen.

I'm sorry, but, not really. WTC 7 was the first to go. As shown in many pictures.

I have also shown where your own employer admits to botching the investigation in the first couple months.

www.abovetopsecret.com...