Madrid Tower fire video compared to WTC 7

Sorry if this has been posted but all i could find was pictures of the Madrid fire.

But the reason I'm posting this is for people that have not seen this footage before,It just seems strange to me that a Skyscraper that burned intensly for over 14 hours did not collapse.While we have building 7 of the WTC that got slightly damaged and had a small fire would collapse like Joe Theisman vs Lawrence Taylor in a matter of hour's and minimal heat.

video.google.com...

[edit on 21-10-2006 by Samblack]

Little metal bars around the outside collapsed.


You will see these little bars of steel compared to the WTC, but not the rest of the building, because of course the rest isn't comparable. Only the little bars are comparable to the massive box columns of the WTC buildings. The size and length of the fire apparently is of no consequence.

I don't understand what you mean by "little bars"?Are you reffering to WTC#7?

No, the Windsor Tower had exterior beams of steel that couldn't have been more than a few inches in diameter that collapsed at some point in that massively long fire.

Those beams, I have seen compared to the WTC skyscrapers by OCT's.

The rest of the event, they refuse to compare.

WTC had a massive hole in the south west corner.

The Windsor tower didn't have two 100 story buildings collapse right next to it.

The Windsor tower fire was faught by firefighters.

Two VERY different situations.

Originally posted by doctorfungi
WTC had a massive hole in the south west corner.

=

The hole in the SW corner of WTC 7 couldnt possibly make the building fall as perfectly as it did.The fire in WTC 7 was also way to small to do any structural damage as you can obviously see in the Madrid video that even an intense fire will not take down a Skyscraper.

[edit on 22-10-2006 by Samblack]

Originally posted by doctorfungi
WTC had a massive hole in the south west corner.

The Windsor tower didn't have two 100 story buildings collapse right next to it.

The Windsor tower fire was faught by firefighters.

Two VERY different situations.

None of the danage from this "gash" has been shown to affect ANY of the critical support columns for the famous "cantaliever Truss System"... as a matter of FACT the "gash" is in the TOTALLY wrong location to have hit the supports the NIST claims were the cause of the collapse... 78.79. and 80 IIRC. someone please correct my numbers if I am wrong.

Im not saying it was a demolition job on WTC7 but just wanted to show that a fire alone usually doesnt take down skyscrapers,is it possible that it could yes but highly unlikely.

But Ive seen the WTC7 videos as many of you have.You can clearly see the lobby on the roof failed.Supposebly there were diesel tank's in the basement of the building that triggered the fire,I know some of you don't think the fire was that intense but ive seen a few picture's that clearly show it was fairly intense and probly weakened the steel core of the structure.

There was also damage from one of the Tower's that damaged the roof and the SE corner.I think all the combination's contributed to the failure of this structure but I do keep an open mind on the whole thing.


Wernt there 2 other building's that Didnt fall but were severly damaged,why didnt they use controlled demo on those buildings?I just find it hard to swallow that some group could get enough people together to set up some sort of explosive's inside of large building's in such a highly populated area.

This would require dozen's of people to pull this off and how could they possibly hide all the work they did?How do you find the people to pull something like this off,do you just ask people in the military that are knowledgable in these fields?What about the people that would of said no-way I would never do that,so basically everyone that was asked just said Yes?