Until 911 - Fire has never collapsed a skyscraper

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.

Please scroll down the page and have a look at the photo of the Beijing Mandarin Oriental hotel inferno.

911research.wtc7.net...

For any members who think that fire weakened the steel columns & trusses of the WTC buildings sufficiently enough to cause collapse, I would be interested to hear your thoughts as to why the Mandarin did not collapse at free fall of gravity speed into its own footprint?

PEACE,
RK

reply to post by Rigel Kent


You forgot the structural damage part. WTC 1&2 had that in droves.

reply to post by Rigel Kent



I concur.
On July 28 1945, B-25 Bomber hit Empire State building. Some parts of plane passed thru through it so great was the impact.

July 28 1945 - A US Army B-25 bomber crashes into the Empire State Building between the 78th and 79th floors. An engine plunges down an elevator shaft, sparking a fire in the basement. Eleven people in the building are killed, in addition to the three man bomber crew. Elevator operator Betty Lou Oliver survived a plunge of 75 stories inside an elevator, which still stands as the Guinness World Record for the longest survived elevator fall recorded.

[edit on 9 20 2009 by wisdomnotemotion]

reply to post by wisdomnotemotion


Different structural designs. Different velocities. Heck, even different heights.

And it didnt on 9/11 either.

reply to post by wisdomnotemotion


Nevermind!

(Snip snippity snip!)

Sorry to be a pedant..

[edit on 20/9/2009 by purehughness]

reply to post by purehughness



Sorry it was typo. Edited. Thanks.

One of the things that is not widely known is that the company that built the WTC Twin Towers used cheaper materials and otherwise cut corners in the construction of the upper levels of both towers. This is turn ment they were structurally weaker then was claimed and contributed to the collapse on 9/11/2001.

reply to post by wisdomnotemotion


Hehe no worries...

The number of times I've heard people adamantly insist that it was a Stratofortress... Man you wouldn't believe..

reply to post by ChrisF231


Which is depressingly common when you get down to it. Greed being what it is.

reply to post by ChrisF231


So why aren't these people in jail for aiding in the murder of thousands of people that day? Surely the people responsible for the supposed structural weakness which apparently caused the towers to fall should be held responsible and be punished! Why is this not happening, or hasn't happened??

Because it didn't happen the way they say it did.

reply to post by Kryties


Or perhaps that is part of where the conspiracy lies? Notice I said just part. That certain powerful individuals do not wish it to be known that they ok'd shoddy workmanship?
Just something to chew on.

This is great! 1 said "No skyscraper ever fell due to fire." The retort to that was- "Well no building ever had that kind of structural damage before." Then someone brings up the fact that the Empire State building was hit by a plane. And the retort???? Uh....er.....well....you see....they were built differently......yeah that's it.....Give me a break....point, counter point. The debunkers will say anything when backed into a corner. It is really amusing to see. Anyway, I had never heard that the Empire State building was struck by a plane before. That is pretty amazing. I wonder why they never brought that up in the MSM? hmmmmmmm.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


So it's possible that there are shady people hiding things out there, but not possible that the whole thing is a cover-up?

You cannot allow for one possibility without allowing for the other.

reply to post by guardstarr


Ah, so there cannot be a counter-counterpoint? And I didn't umm errr hmmm ummm. But, whatever, go ahead and reinforce your beliefs however you wish. Not that you need my go ahead.

But I do love the immediate grasping for ad hom in the face of disagreement. Telling that.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows



3 incidents sow the thread of 911:

1. WTC towers: BOTH went down in perfect pancake effect and pulverized.
2. Phantom plane hit pentagon, key structures standing. No real aeroplane wreckage.
3. Another down at Pennsylvania. Again, no real aeroplane wreckage.

After 911, Bush started his war games:
1. Invaded Afganistan. Crippled BS Taliban & Al-Qaeda. Osama oh mama.
2. Accused Saddam Hussein of still possessing nuclear weapon. Invaded Iraq, shoot-all-you-want playground, free oil for USA.

We're not fools. Now we know history books contain lies.

reply to post by Kryties


Actually the facts as I see them discount CD, simple as that. But just because I believe conspiracy is possible does not mean I have to believe all conspiracy theories are.

Originally posted by guardstarr
This is great! 1 said "No skyscraper ever fell due to fire." The retort to that was- "Well no building ever had that kind of structural damage before." Then someone brings up the fact that the Empire State building was hit by a plane. And the retort???? Uh....er.....well....you see....they were built differently......yeah that's it.....Give me a break....point, counter point. The debunkers will say anything when backed into a corner. It is really amusing to see. Anyway, I had never heard that the Empire State building was struck by a plane before. That is pretty amazing. I wonder why they never brought that up in the MSM? hmmmmmmm.

They did...you just missed it. And as pointed out before, while it can be brought in as a comparative point, it

1. wasn't on fire
2. was a masonry facade building thereby diminishing the damage to the actual steel structure
3. hit by a plane going much slower

So...stop casting negative comments at people who are just trying to point out - you can't point at the incident with the Empire state building and say - see! that one got damaged and it didn't fall!

But you know what's funny?

I figured, if they collapsed because they had structural and fire damage, they'd crumble like a cookie.... maybe with a bit still standing where there was the least damage. Not pulverize and shatter. Especially at that speed.

Just using logic.

[edit on 9/20/2009 by Psycontagious]

reply to post by wisdomnotemotion


Never claimed you were a fool and nor will I. Mislead, perhaps *read the thread in my signature if you want to understand why I say that*. And neither was all the material that made up the WTC Twin Towers were pulverized during the collapse.