China's Tallest Building Catches Fire, Does Not Collapse

Well hey.. nobody a brain surgeon anymore..

You know.. kerosene, fire, heavy object..

The new era of Controlled Demolitions.

Good thing for 9/11 to show these idiots who thought placing well placed charges in places was taking them down nice and neat..

Hell screw that.. all we need is fire and gas.. then u get a nice Demo in about 8 hrs or something.

[edit on 8/18/2007 by ThichHeaded]

Even so, the exterior columns on the east side were substantially damaged at the lower floors by the collapse of WTC 7.

Quote from FEMA report on WTC site damage

Verizon Building

Even so, the exterior columns on the east side were substantially damaged at the lower floors by the collapse of WTC 7.

30 Broadway (also know as Fiterman Hall) North of WTC7 across Barclay
St

The southern half of the west facade and most of the south facade were severely damaged or destroyed. The south face of the building suffered structural damage in the exterior bay from impact by large debris from WTC 7


The building was impacted by debris from the collapse of WTC 7. Although structural damage from debris impact was contained to the exterior bays on the south side of the building and between roof setback levels, it was more extensive than that observed on the east side of the Verizon building.

Man that is some footprint - being able to smash 30 West Broadway and
Verizon building without leaving the boundaries.

^You're wasting your time quoting FEMA, or NIST, at us when it's those very reports that are in question.

There is plenty of photographic and video evidence to put those works of fiction in serious doubt. Learn to do your own research and trust your own intellect, blindly believing the lies of authority is getting us nowhere.

I promis that if I ever go into politics, I will reveal everything. It will be very fun doing that. But you'll have to wait another decade or do.

I don't understand why popeple keep bringing this up...

THE WORLD TRADE CENTRE was in FACT due to the plains and the fire...
SIMPLE.

there is VIDEO of this on the net for everyone to see....there is even
one video showing the CORNER of the building "buckling" and is never
brought up in these topics............hmmmmm.....wonder why eh!.

So unless you got REAL proof then y'r just blowing hot air....and repeating yourself over and over and please note there is a thread on this web site that COVERS all these topics.

anyway you can't compare another building fire to this cause' planes did NOT crash into them.........and not to mention the Decades of time between the WTC and the China's tallest Building...BUILDING CODES CHANGE and IMPROVE.

Your Canadian friend,
Sven

You people are such lemmings. How about learning the SCIENCE behind these things? The WTC's came down because of STRUCTURAL degradation from the crash which took out many supports. This along with the 200,000 lbs of fuel which burned at 2000 degrees for over an hour WEAKENED the steel. The fire generated from a regular fire would never reach 2000 degrees. It needed an accelerant.

Instead of trying to find a conspiracy in EVERYTHING, how about concentrating where there is evidence?

Do you not realize that EVERY advanced physics and science college in the WORLD has looked at these facts and came to the same conclusion? Do you realize the kind of conspiracy that would have to be taking place? It would dwarf the the UFO conspiracy.

The buildings came down because Bin-Laden, emboldened by our refusal to retaliate for the '93 bombing, the USS Cole, and the barracks attack in Saudi decided to up the ante. The more we talk about these so-called conspiracies, the more we divide ourselves and make ourselves less able to respond to the next attack collectively as a country.

There will be another attack, and not because of Bush's policies and not because they are not taking care of business. It'll be because they only have to succeed once where we have to succeed every time, and because they are driven by an religious doctrine of a return to 7th century Islam.

BTW people, a fire does not need to MELT steel. It only needs to weaken it from 100% strength. If it is weakened to 50% strength, that means it can only hold 50% of the load. Since construction is typically constructed to handle approximately 70-80% of the expected load, it just started the clock.

Those old arguments always come up. I have yet to see the video of bukiling, although I would like to.

So hey Nunny, who is paying you again? Do you get paid by the hr or post??

You have proof of things you state??

I have more to add but cant think..

I want proof of your statements.. I want to see these tests that were done and supposedly worked.. From what I understand is NIST tried to recreate 9/11 also and couldn't not do it unless they put some extreme conditions in it for the building to fall the way it did..

Bsbray can give more on this..

I would also like to point out that many people who are coming forward such as Fire, Police, and so on also Engineers that state that this could not have happened..

The biggest thing in life is to think for yourself, why don't you dry it..

For Griff, this took me all of a minute to find using Google.

From (Answers.com)

Fire Load

Amount of combustible matter present that can act as a fuel to feed a Hostile Fire.

A hostile fire is defined as one that is burning in a place it was not intended to burn.

You can find a paper delivered to the 2001 Interflam Conference discussing fire load, delivered by Richard W. Bukowski (Building and Fire Research Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology) at the following link

Fire as a Building Load

there are way to many inconsistencies and just plain out utter b.s. lies to not reopen an investigation into what happened that day. And dubya has all the power in the world to do so. yet he decides to do nothing. tell me why that is?

Here you go Gorman91. This Google video shows the columns being pulled in before for the building starts to fall.

Originally posted by erwalker
For Griff, this took me all of a minute to find using Google.

From (Answers.com)

Fire Load

Amount of combustible matter present that can act as a fuel to feed a Hostile Fire.

A hostile fire is defined as one that is burning in a place it was not intended to burn.

You can find a paper delivered to the 2001 Interflam Conference discussing fire load, delivered by Richard W. Bukowski (Building and Fire Research Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology) at the following link

Fire as a Building Load

Thanks for that. I skimmed it but still didn't see where fire adds to load (a force). I'll keep reading though.

As I suspected, they are using the word load but not in the traditional sense. A load is a force. What they mean by fire load is how the fire affects the building.

I apologize thedman for jumping down your throat on that.

reply to post by Black_Fox



What about the overpass that collapsed in California a few months ago? It was steel and concrete. And, the tanker was hauling 87 octane automotive fuel, which burns cooler than high octane jet fuel. Since we are comparing apples and oranges, lets use the overpass, because it has
more in common with the WTC than an unfinished undamaged building.


[edit on 19-8-2007 by PriapismJoe]

Griff

You are correct that fire load is not a "load "in the traditional sense. I took this diffenition from my IFSTA manual:

"The total amount (mass) of fuel in a compartment or specific location multiplied by the heat of combustion of the materials is called the fuel or fire load. The term is used commonaly used to describe the maximum heat that would be released is all of the materials in a area are burned. The concept of fire load is the basis for many of the fire-resistance requirements found in todays building codes. Fire loading is normally expressed in terms of the heat of combustion of wood. Materials with different heats of combustion are converted to be equivalent to wood. The available fuel in a space and the proximity of fuel packages to each other have a significant impact on the growth and development of fires. As the amount of available fuel increases, the potential heat release rate of a fire in a comartment increases. " I hope that helps.

As for you other question.. certainly... Very recently,fire that was very similar to the on in Charlotte NC, with very similar combustibles and fire loads, that buildings roof collapsed after 15 mintues. The steel trusses were heated to the point of failure. The steel I- beams that held up the roof, were bent almost to a 90 degree. Now yes, this fire is now where near what happened in NYC, but its the effect the fire had on the steel members of that building that I had taken note of. I will try to see if any pics of the aftermath are available.

Originally posted by Nunny
BTW people, a fire does not need to MELT steel. It only needs to weaken it from 100% strength. If it is weakened to 50% strength, that means it can only hold 50% of the load. Since construction is typically constructed to handle approximately 70-80% of the expected load, it just started the clock.

Ok using your calculations here...

WTC towers were designed to hold 5x their weight, it's called over engineering for safety reasons.
If the columns lost 50% strength (they couldn't have though, fires weren't hot enough) then the building would still be able to hold 2.5 times it's weight. It would not cause global collapse. You have to understand how metal acts when it gets hot. It expands first, then when it gets bright white hot it will start to melt. Up till that point it can sag, bend etc, it will NOT snap into equal lengths and telescope down on itself.

The central columns was a structure in itself that could stand by itself, it held itself together. So if any columns became weakened then other sections of the structure would take the load. For it to globally fail ALL the steel would have to have fail at the same time. We know this is impossible, that's why we have experts that take days to bring a building down. The fires were not enough to cause global failure, period.

Do you really believe that fires on only say 20 floors (exaggeration), could cause the steel to weaken on the other 90 floors to the point of global collapse? Sry but fire and gravity does not have the energy to do what we saw. Gravity can not cause steel sections weighing in the tons to eject laterally up to 6000 ft. Gravity will not cause concrete, furniture, bodies to be pulverized into a fine dust.

You are the one not understanding the physics and coming to bogus conclusions based on bogus information from bogus government experts...

[edit on 19/8/2007 by ANOK]

Originally posted by PriapismJoe
What about the overpass that collapsed in California a few months ago? It was steel and concrete.

Well I guess you mean the BS about the bridge melting?

The steel didn't melt, only the rubber used in between the sections melted. The steel itself was re-used when they repaired the bridge.

See this is a great example of how people hear something and then come to incorrect conclusions before even checking out the facts...

Originally posted by six
As for you other question.. certainly... Very recently,fire that was very similar to the on in Charlotte NC, with very similar combustibles and fire loads, that buildings roof collapsed after 15 mintues.

That is not a good comparison. For starters the steel used in that roof was no where near the massive size of the WTC steel. The bigger the piece of metal the more heat and more time it would take to cause failure.
That was just a roof with thin metal bracing, not 110 stories of 47 4" thick steel columns.

If you want a closer comparison look at the building in Madrid that burned for 24 hours. But that contradicts your theories so I guess it not a good comparison either...

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by PriapismJoe
What about the overpass that collapsed in California a few months ago? It was steel and concrete.

Well I guess you mean the BS about the bridge melting?

The steel didn't melt, only the rubber used in between the sections melted. The steel itself was re-used when they repaired the bridge.

See this is a great example of how people hear something and then come to incorrect conclusions before even checking out the facts...

Where in the world did you hear that nonsense? It was structural steel wrapped in concrete, there is no way it was usable after the collapse.

Originally posted by PriapismJoe
Where in the world did you hear that nonsense? It was structural steel wrapped in concrete, there is no way it was usable after the collapse.

Dude I live in the Bay Area. The San Francisco Chronicle were the idiots who said the bridge melted in their first sensationalized report. After they were questioned about the 'melting' all references to the word melt were dropped from their reports.

There is an article that I can't find right now where a maintenance supervisor said they were re-using the steel in the repair of the bridge.

Gasoline fires will not melt steel. Especially when wrapped in concrete.

Construction steel begins melting at 1130°C (2066°F), and is completely molten upon reaching 1315°C (2400°F).
Gasolines max burn temperature is 945°C (1500°F).