Entire Building on Fire Does Not Collapse-Beijing

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

Fleece,
What things sounded like to people in a panic and what they actually were are two different things. This is heresay and not evidence of anything.

Evidence of demolition would be explosive residue, expended caps, timers, blasting machines, etc.

Hell, I'd even settle for sequential explosions as in the video I posted a few pages back but that's not the case. Just random, untimed explosions.

Originally posted by adam_zapple
There isn't a single quote on that page from any firefighter who believes that any of those 3 buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.

You're a professional liar:

Paul, along with many other firemen, is very upset about the obvious cover-up and he is on a crusade for answers and justice. He was stationed at Engine 10, across the street from the World Trade Center in 1998 and 99; Engine 10 was entirely wiped out in the destruction of the towers. He explained to me that, "many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they're afraid for their jobs to admit it because the 'higher-ups' forbid discussion of this fact." Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire Department's Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag order down the ranks. "There were definitely bombs in those buildings," he told me.

Just after the disaster, Firefighter Louie Cacchioli said, "We think there were bombs set in the building."

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Hundreds of firefighters were killed that day, and you think that other firefighters are knowingly participating in the cover-up of the murder of their brothers & friends because they're afraid to lose their jobs?

Damned straight -- firefighters are afraid of losing their jobs. Fortunately, like their counterparts of professional pilots, physicists, architects and engineers, more and more firefighters are speaking out:

As professional firefighters, we have seen many things from fire, accident and crime scenes that don’t “make sense”. What we are suggesting is that there is more than sufficient evidence to doubt the “official” government story. There was no reason to destroy the very steel from all three towers that would have aided in the investigation. There is no reason to withold vast amounts of evidence that would very clearly support or disprove their version (ie: hard evidence proving the make/model/specific registration numbers from the aircraft, or the complete collection of the Pentagon vidoes, specifically any images of a commercial jet flying into the Pentagon).

There is a large body of physical, photographic, audio, witness testimony and video evidence that directly contradicts the “official” story. We challenge you to really look at what the goverment has presented versus what many independent researchers have produced.

[edit on 11-2-2009 by GoldenFleece]

Originally posted by pteridine
Different structure, Griff. I thought that you were some sort of structural engineer and would understand the difference.

Can you point out what is so different between the two composite decks that would cause one to thermally expand and fail at the supports while the other can thermally expand and sag yet pull the columns inward at the supports?

Thanks.

Hmm after reviewing videos and pictures of this fire, there were some pretty big explosions in it! And large amounts of "molten stuff" dripping down from the windows as well! Wow! Explosions and molten stuff dripping from a huge fire! So, were there also little bombs inside this building too and thermite? After all, there were reports of explosions too! and you can see some of the big ones in pictures and videos too!
Watch this video! you can see some suspicious things going on.



So was that thermite I saw burning in the one window and dripping molten stuff out of it? Sure looked like it right? Right?

reply to post by Griff


If you are talking about the WTC1+2 design, the floor trusses were connected to the exterior spandrels with two 5/8" bolts which sat in a seat connecting the end of the truss to the exterior columns. The report on the structural connections of the WTC Towers does a good job of showing this. I am sure you have looked through it.
www.911investigations.net...

It is not like the floors were supported by large structural I-beams welded together like in the more conventional designs of high rises.

reply to post by GenRadek


All i can hear are the illegal fireworks (rather large ones at that) that set off the building fire in the first place

And as for the appearence of moleten metal in the Beijing video it looks more like burning ash from perhaps saftey netting around the building? The molten metal in the WTC videos actually does look like molten metal.

Then again it could just be my monitor...

[edit on 11/2/2009 by phushion]

reply to post by GenRadek


That's funny that when they pan down the street behind them, you can see fireworks going off.

I'd imagine there would be explosions heard that night from fireworks.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Hmm after reviewing videos and pictures of this fire, there were some pretty big explosions in it!

LOL -- when the camera pans at 1:30, there are fireworks in the sky -- exactly what it sounds like!

Here's what a REAL explosion sounds like:

reply to post by GenRadek

Actually you might be right!The pyrotechnics which is reported to have ignited this fire might have contained both powdered aluminum and sulfur,which is thermate.Now lets see if there are molten pools in the foundation weeks later,like at the WTC.

reply to post by GenRadek


I am talking about a composite deck vs. a composite deck. In a composite deck, the steel members (whether they are trusses or beams) act with the concrete compositely (together). They expand thermally together (yes, concrete and steel have nearly the same thermal expansion) and the concrete would also hinder the trusses from bowing. Unless somehow the shear studs are broken. But, then how did the studs break from thermal expansion when steel and concrete expand together?

Also, if this is the case, why isn't one of NIST's recommendations to either limit the length of span or to prohibit shear connections when there is a long span?

At any rate, IMO, the composite deck of WTC 7 should have acted like the composite decks of WTC 1 & 2.

Although I will agree that since I haven't seen the structural documentation of either building, I could be incorrect.

But, I'm getting way off topic from the building fire in Bejing.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


When it comes to that video you posted, it doesnt really matter about the planes or the fires, just listen to the reporters last statement regarding WTC1/2, its just pure comedy for a better word that anyone can think these events were carried out by a couple of dozen arabs on a suicide mission.

reply to post by phushion

Some VERY talented Arabs, who were not only building demolition experts and who went from being unable to control a Cessna 172 to ace fighter pilot.

These Arabs are so clever that seven "hijackers" survived their suicide mission!

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Originally posted by talisman
let us do away with demolition crews, they would not be needed, all we have to do is bang a building at random than start some fires and leave it. Than we can watch the building collapapse into its own footprint.

What's your definition of "footprint"?

CDs are more precise so as to not severely damage buildings across the street (as wtc7 did).

This actually proves the point, in that some Controlled Demo's have gone wrong and damaged other buildings. But the general direction of straight down suffices for footprint.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Hmm after reviewing videos and pictures of this fire, there were some pretty big explosions in it! And large amounts of "molten stuff" dripping down from the windows as well! Wow! Explosions and molten stuff dripping from a huge fire! So, were there also little bombs inside this building too and thermite? After all, there were reports of explosions too! and you can see some of the big ones in pictures and videos too!
Watch this video! you can see some suspicious things going on.

So was that thermite I saw burning in the one window and dripping molten stuff out of it? Sure looked like it right? Right?

Actaully those were explosions caused from different fireworks. So what caused the explosions in Building 7 if there were NO FIREWORKS?>?

Originally posted by Ahabstar
Or we could point out the fact that it was 34 stories tall and was not complete. Or that it wasn't built the same way. Or a whole bunch of other details when the only real similarity is that it was a building on fire.

Unless we rebuild WTC 7 and then light a garbage can on fire to simulate the same effect -- well, in this world, you will never get some model that can satisfy your requirement.

It was taller, it was shorter. It was done, it had more paneling or less. Every dang building is different in the world.

The real issue is that the ONLY steel frame buildings to EVER collapse from fire were all at WTC and the investigation was secretive and impaired.

I'm sure that lots of us Truther's are going to annoy everyone with these inconvenient details until the truth comes out. My scenario hasn't changed much in 7 years, but the coincidence theories that try to convince everyone it was not a demolition certainly do.

What about the NIST admitting they lied, and that WTC 7 also came down at free-fall speed?

One corner of the building that we know of was on fire, yet the whole thing collapses in its own footprint. And then everyone gets on here and looks at a building where you can barely see the supports between the flames -- totally engulfed in fire until it burns itself out. And it doesn't fall -- and look, there are no conspiracy theories because it is exactly what we would expect to happen.


Perhaps ATS needs a "building still standing after fire" conspiracy page -- we need to discover what strange metallurgical properties allow steel to still support structures while still very hot.

reply to post by talisman


LOL.

Yes, fireworks are explosions and make popping sounds. Unless there was a fireworks store in WTC 7 and that NY trains firemen who don't have experience with fires -- I'm gonna go with the possibility that charges were set.

The thermate charges, however, would not have a big boom -- it would be like a firecracker, because you are basically starting a very intense, very hot fire that burns through an engine block in seconds. The main supports are cut near the base in North and South tower, and maybe a smallish explosion to "shift the frame" because otherwise you have two cut pieces of steel that might just lower the building a few inches but not collapse it.

Then you have shaped charges at all the main curtain wall connectors and the connectors to the core, that go off in sequence from top to bottom at a rate that would follow a falling object -- you would pre-cut or put more thermate charges on large supports throughout the building. But the core slumps first, so that there is weight pulling things down -- you don't want floors slamming into floors.

So, really, there wouldn't be very powerful explosions -- just ones to set off intense heat or cut a piece of steel at a precise time. The only BOOM you would get would be near the lower core.

At least that's my guess based upon reading and running the model in my head.

There isn't a normal way I can explain all the pyroclastic powder that everyone saw at the base of the towers before they came down. I don't know how you get flames shooting down 80 stories or explosions at the basement. You'd have to be dropping some gas canister down the elevator shaft.

Then I look at all those angled cuts on the steel beams and the fact that the core wasn't just still standing (a pancake collapse would require that the floors break free of the core -- the unheated supports in the building below the fire, still have plenty of strength to hold up the building even if it is crashing down. So the pancake MUST cause the floors to break from the supports -- what we saw makes no sense at all to support this theory.

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Can you name one FDNY firefighter who believes that ANY of the 3 buildings were CD?

Fleece gave you several, and they said there are many others afraid to speak because of the great personal and professional pressure against it.

Signatories to a petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11:

Kevin Shea, FDNY Hazmat Operations (WTC survivor, sustained major injuries which forced retirement)
Joseph W. Montaperto, FDNY (WTC survivor)
Michelle Little, sister of Firefighter David M. Weiss, FDNY, (died in action on 9/11)
Rosaleen Tallon DaRos, sister of Firefighter Sean Patrick Tallon (died in action on 9/11)
Brian Smith, brother of Firefighter Kevin Smith (died in action on 9/11)
Josef Princiotta, cousin of Firefighter Vincent Princiotta, FDNY (died in action on 9/11)
Rosemary Cain, mother of Firefighter George C. Cain, FDNY (died in action on 9/11)
Linda Cammarata, mother of Firefighter Michael Cammarata, FDNY (died in action on 9/11)
Adele Welty mother of Firefighter Timothy Welty, FDNY (died in action on 9/11)

Many individuals who dared to challenge the official 9/11 narrative were already retired when they spoke and many who weren't lost their jobs as a result.

It was 6 years before Firefighter and WTC survivor John Schroeder felt able to speak about it:

I'm here to say my piece. It's been six years. Six years, since holding this back. And you know what; it's time. You know what; let them do whatever they want to do. Go ahead. Somebody should really know what went on that day. We gotta bring this out; tell the world. All these people are in the dark. They gotta really open their eyes here. Their eyes have been shut too long.

There is a Firefighters For 9/11 Truth website.


[edit on 11-2-2009 by EvilAxis]

reply to post by GoldenFleece


They were also clever enough to completely remove themselves from the flight manifests. Everybody listed on those planes is gone, and has family members who miss them -- but none of the "bad guys."

How exactly did they manage that without a second shooter on the grassy knoll?

Fricken' supermen, who pick the perfect day to launch the attack because Cheney has everyone doing drills. They also pick a day when all the cameras on the roofs decided to stop working -- doesn't that suggest people on the ground with access to the building at LEAST? That there should have been an investigation of security inside the building before it came down.

How about names and tracking the bank accounts of security guards/survivors -- I mean, basic police work?

Why did the BushCo stop the FBI from following the financial transactions of the alleged hijacker credit cards that were recovered? The rest of the evidence, was quickly found within a day, and in a convenient briefcase. Then we get the airplane manuals in arabic -- wow, maybe a T-Shirt that says; "look at me, I did this!"

The only evidence of anyone taking credit, was a film that ended up being totally debunked as a fake by everyone credible including people in the CIA.

>> There are conspiracy theories because there are so many plot holes in this thing and it stinks, done by people who we now know were criminals. And don't forget that now our banks are collapsing -- another situation where we must discuss if it was accidental or someone did it on purpose.

Look, I don't think people like Greenspan and Paulson make hundreds of millions of dollars being naive. I don't think that Negroponte, using provisions in homeland security to let 5 firms, comprised of Bear Sterns and Goldman Sacs to bypass SEC rules and increase their leverage from 10x to 40x is ANYTHING that people would do who wanted to not force a collapse.

The whole thing is about getting rid of the middle class. Even the bogus war in Iraq -- spend money in a pointless war, divert funds to friends, and use the "war time powers" and emergency, to pass all the laws you need.

Without 9/11, they wouldn't have gotten the Patriot Act and the internals spying. Without the internal spying, and things like the Watergate hooker scandal, they wouldn't have the dirt on members of the media and congress, to get them to go along with Bush in lock step. Without the billions in tax breaks to the wealthy, the super cheap credit from Greenspan, the two wars, the outsourcing, and a million other wounds by a thousand cuts -- they couldn't have collapsed our economy. It took a lot of hard and dedicated work -- and it took an unregulated Derivatives market to pump up a Quadrillion dollar ponzi scheme, to knock out the banks.

The smart money moved offshore, while the nuevo-rich who don't know how this Depression game works, got caught in the free-fall collapse -- you THINK that the worst has paste us, but the revelation that productivity around the world has been cut 25% and the BANKS are bankrupt has not come to our awareness yet. Poor Obama is doing his best to put a finger in the dyke -- but we cannot borrow enough, nor get enough support from crooked and comprimised politicians.

Meh. IN a few months, I'll be trying to calm people down -- not convincing them that BushCo allowed or made this happen.

>> The 9/11 incident was a lot less people than we let get killed each year on the War on Drugs. It is NOT the most damaging incident -- it's just important that people realize that these massive manipulations do happen, on purpose, and that these are not accidents.

More of you will believe this by the summer, because you will be out of work and wondering why the invisible hand of the free market didn't save you because you did everything just the way the American Dream told you to.

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by GenRadek

 

I am talking about a composite deck vs. a composite deck. In a composite deck, the steel members (whether they are trusses or beams) act with the concrete compositely (together). They expand thermally together (yes, concrete and steel have nearly the same thermal expansion) and the concrete would also hinder the trusses from bowing. Unless somehow the shear studs are broken. But, then how did the studs break from thermal expansion when steel and concrete expand together?

Also, if this is the case, why isn't one of NIST's recommendations to either limit the length of span or to prohibit shear connections when there is a long span?

At any rate, IMO, the composite deck of WTC 7 should have acted like the composite decks of WTC 1 & 2.

Although I will agree that since I haven't seen the structural documentation of either building, I could be incorrect.

But, I'm getting way off topic from the building fire in Bejing.

Look, it's even more simple than that. Look at some video of the fire coming out of WTC North Tower. Some lady is looking out of the hole on the floor above. The windows near the outer wall that don't have flame and smoke pouring out or were shattered by the initial impact are NOT MELTING. If there was enough heat to destroy the connections --- all that stuff would be melting and no lady could be looking out the hole.

The floors were built with flexible supports like a bridge. The whole building can do a LOT of twisting and turning -- they moved away from the archaic rigid designs and the WTC was DESIGNED to withstand impacts from 707s. I mean, I've pointed to the engineers who designed this with this in mind numerous times.

A plane crash doesn't have a lot of damage to strong support structures. The engines are the only really hard parts on the plane. The fire might be hot -- but jet fuel is kerosene -- it has neither enough temperature, with PURE OXYGEN, nor enough heat (its a matter of time, and how massive a fire is, because steel transmits the heat load), to weaken a steel structure. Three planes are not hot enough.

Someone already used a LOT of explosive material to bring down the WTC in the 90's -- and it didn't work. That was FAR MORE powerful than the blast from the 757.

It's just dumb. And this fire in China should dang well prove to MOST people, that the normal things that burn in offices don't have enough heat to collapse the structure. Sure -- this building is ruined, but it didn't collapse. And the idea that it being unfinished would give it "more cooling" -- wow. It gives it more oxygen to burn. Look at this fire -- not a lot of smoke. Less smoke means; better and more complete burning. The WTC had black smoke -- which means a lot of material that was not getting burnt because it WASN'T HOT ENOUGH.

And then there is that bright yellow molten steel we saw on video -- there is absolutely nothing in a normal building and plane that can do that to steel. The temperature of metals by color is a well known subject in Physics, and the can all agree how hot that molten steel was that we saw at the WTC. That alone, tells me someone used something a lot hotter than Kerosene and that someone rigged the building before-hand. I don't need a lot of conspiracy theories or to know ANYTHING but what my own eyes show me. Molten steel means there was a conspiracy -- period.

You will see NO molten steel at this building that caught fire in China -- there is another prediction.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Griff

 

If you are talking about the WTC1+2 design, the floor trusses were connected to the exterior spandrels with two 5/8" bolts which sat in a seat connecting the end of the truss to the exterior columns. The report on the structural connections of the WTC Towers does a good job of showing this. I am sure you have looked through it.
www.911investigations.net...

It is not like the floors were supported by large structural I-beams welded together like in the more conventional designs of high rises.

Right -- I've pointed out that the floors are suspended. There still were i-beams between the floors, however, to add strength -- but the bridge design allowed for a more open floor plan, more flexibility, and a stronger core to support it.

Those bolts, as you point out --are the weak point. OK, fine. So tell me, how was the CORE brought down, by the collapsing floors, if they are smacking into each other and breaking the bolts? If the bolts break off -- then the floors don't pull down the core and it is left standing. If the core is magically pulled down after holding up the whole building for years (and nothing below is damaged by the planes), then of course, you don't have weakened bolts in the first place -- meaning, your structural theory of collapse fails.

The CORE could only have fallen, if it was cut from below before the towers started to collapse, and at the same time, charges were timed to break up each floor as the building fell on itself (without resistance to slow it down).

>> Again, the core was NOT still standing, ergo, the bolts did not break free from the floors. You can't have both things happen at the same time.