Until 911 - Fire has never collapsed a skyscraper

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


If you look at the photo of the Oriental hotel in Beijing and then compare it with the fire in WTC 7, neither of which were hit by aircraft.

911research.wtc7.net...

I would suggest if either one were to collapse as a result of fire it would be the Mandarin Oriental and not WTC 7 and even then I do not think it would collapse at free fall of gravity into its own footprint.

Point taken about potential corruption during construction projects, but then that is why owners employ QA/QC teams to oversee the contractors and sub-contractors and try to ensure all work is done according to approved procedures and technical specifications.

PEACE,
RK

reply to post by Rigel Kent


Read the addition I added please *seperate post*. Also, I was talking about Towers one and two. Not building seven. The causal agents are not the same.

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

all i can think is another nail in the coffin when lookin at the way that skyscraper burned

it seems the entire building was up in flames

and that didnt collapse

but you're telling me a fire that a fireman on the scene at the wtc said 2 lines could knock down, caused the building to collapse

and people buy that story?!?!

i really hope someday people are arrested for all of this

and not just the people behind it, but all these people impeding the process of a new investigation

all the people trying to help cover up this story should be punished when it finally all comes out

reply to post by hooper


Please check the link to see at least 5 other skyscraper fires;

911research.wtc7.net...

The official party line is that fire caused catastrophic failure of the steel columns which had already been damaged by the airoplane impacts. I have already explained that design engineers vastly over designed these buildings for strength and to withstand such impacts. So this "damage" should not even be part of the equation.

Also WTC was not hit by any aircraft but still collapsed due to fire. How do you explain this when you compare it against the absolute Inferno that was the Beijing Mandarin Oriental?

All skyscrapers are reinforced with steel columns either intenally, externally or composite. so I think I can draw comparisons.

PEACE,
RK

reply to post by Rigel Kent


Actually WTC 7 had debris fall on it from WTC 1's collapse. There is documented proof of that.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


What's your game? I am curious as to where you are coming from..

WTC did not go down the way it did, either from fire or debris impacted from WTC1.

What I find disturbing here is that you have researched this.. and you seem a fairly rational, scientifically minded and observant person.

Therefore, what's going on with you?

its also absolutely shocking everyone forgets the empire state building incident

thats probably never been covered in the news when speaking of 911

Originally posted by wisdomnotemotion
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.

They did not collapse as perfect pancakes. There are numerous pics on the web that show this. A PLANE hit the Pentagon. A PLANE crashed in Pennsylvania. You cannot just state it happened on one way when there are non government sposored groups and individuals who have proved this.

Afghanistan was an invasion to control drugs and was on the books and we did stay safe from AQ for 7 years. They hit Europe though. As far as free gas, I am not sure what country you live in but when it was 4 bucks a gallon it had nothing to do with the administration but with futures trading.

As far as no collapse, there has never been a collapse of the size. Also, there was no oversight when this was built and lots of code issues. Pick up a book and read about it. Between he mob, Rockefeller and the unions themselves it is a surprise there was anything left to create a structure.

reply to post by OmegaPoint

When you judge another, you do not define them, you define yourself.
Wayne Dyer

Here is an interesting paper. I doubt it will make any difference though.

Historical Survey of Multi-Story Building Collapses Due to Fire

The Scope of Work consisted of three separate Tasks, one of which was to conduct a survey of historical information on fire occurrences in multi-story buildings, which resulted in full or partial structural collapse. The results of this individual Task are the subject of this paper.

The historical search for catastrophic multi-story fires included incidents dating back to the 1950’s, or earlier, with emphasis on those which occurred in North America. In addition, similar events that occurred throughout the world were also solicited and captured as available.

In summary, a total of 22 cases from 1970-2002 are presented in Table 1, with 15 from the US and two from Canada. The number of fire-induced collapse events can be categorized by building construction material as follows:
• Concrete: 7
• Structural steel: 6
• Brick/masonry: 5
• Unknown: 2
• Wood: 2

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Valhall

 

"A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link."

Unfortunately, we're not referring to a chain.

And there has been absolutely no indication by any of the investigating bodies that shoddy workmanship or materials led to the collapse of the building.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Rigel Kent

 

I remember it being mentioned multiple times. But ah well. Doesn't exactly make it fact to you. And nor should it.

Me too...it was covered several times after 9/11.

reply to post by Valhall


I think the analogy fits. The structure stands or falls based on it's weakest part and if that part is closer to the ground, big problems, particularly when dealing with highrises. But that is my opinion by no means are you supposed to share it. But I think it's altogether possible that part was covered up. Would be compartively easy to do.

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

Originally posted by Dramey
its also absolutely shocking everyone forgets the empire state building incident

thats probably never been covered in the news when speaking of 911

For the third time...yes it was covered several times in the days and months after 9/11.

Originally posted by ChrisF231
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.

If there is a 9/11 conspiracy this is it...

Can you provide a source for this information? feel free to message me.

I don't understand how a 110 story building could be built cheaply.

The wind would probably blow it down. The support? The facade? What was built cheaply? Far as I knew, they were reinforced....

Besides, if anything, the building so called 'structual damage' taken by the planes would've decapitated them at best. I would believe that most of the support columns (the basement? a lava pit) would still be standing.

reply to post by Psycontagious


Not cheaply. Cheaper. Corners can be cut without a building blowing over in the wind.

Originally posted by Dramey
its also absolutely shocking everyone forgets the empire state building incident

thats probably never been covered in the news when speaking of 911

There is zero comparison to the two impacts. The B-25 was a tiny aircraft compared to the 737(?) that hit the towers. It was an accident at a slow speed not a deliberate act at full speed loaded with fuel.

The construction of the two buildings is also too different to draw any comparisons.

Originally posted by drock905

Originally posted by ChrisF231
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.

If there is a 9/11 conspiracy this is it...

Can you provide a source for this information? feel free to message me.

The NIST report states the material reports reviewed on the buildings showed they were built to code.

reply to post by Valhall


And that cannot be lies?