The History of High Rise Collapses

Originally posted by snapperski

Originally posted by technical difficulties

Originally posted by snapperski
Its the same old names just waiting for a 9/11 thread to start to try and hijack it,and try and belittle the OP...they work as a team,i wonder if it 1 person with many accounts,and use there many accounts to star there own comments.

Varemia/exponent/dereks/thedman/alfie1/weedwacker

This group work as a team,to kill any thread concerning 9/11....they dont seem to comment on any other threads..its like there sitting there waiting for a 9/11 thread to start...then go out of there way to take it off topic,always avoid the questions they cant deny....its getting boreing lads...move on....if you so convince that the government story is true,then why are you here...and so dedicated in trying to kill any 9/11 thread.

Nonsense like this is of the many reasons why Truthers aren't taken seriously.

edit on 26-10-2010 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)

oh ok,and were ment to take you seriously when your only contribution to the thread is that one sentence,and when you been reading these forums as long as i have,you get to notice,these same few,and there shadow accounts,now bring something to the thread,and keep your insults to yourself.

Execpt for the fact that it is nonsense. When you ignore the arguments brought forth by them and make outrageous claims of them avoiding questions, that's nonsense. But I guess i'll list the other reasons why Truthers aren't taken seriously:
1. Accusing the other side of being a government agent (unsurprisingly, with no proof)
2. Accusing the other side of supporting the official story
3. Has no idea what happened that day (i.e. Thinking the Towers Fell At Free Fall Speed or that the towers collapsed into their own footprints)
4. Making idiotic comparisons (i.e. A plane far more smaller than a boeing hitting a building larger than the twin towers [not to mention with a different design] or comparing office fires not caused by planes/debris to 9/11)
5. Coming up with Unrealistic Theories while at the same time opposing the far more reasonable one (i.e. People wiring up occupied buildings with tons of explosives to be hit by plane, that will then collapse onto another building to be demolished)
6. Grasping at straws (i.e. Beleiving that explosions at separate times [even during the collapse], or a few flashes makes it a controlled demolition)
7. Quote Mining (i.e. Silversteins 'Pull It' Quote)

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by snapperski

 

You really shouldnt assume like that. There is no need for your "public international" investigation (which by the way seems to be codespeak for Hang George Bush the way many people use it) There is nothing new to be discovered.


Must comment on those posting about letting the UN handle it.....we are talking about the same UN that put Libya and Iran on its Human Rights Commission??????

if thats the case then how comes the US are on the Human Rights Commission,as america has just as bad human rights record as these other countries,america has public executions,the only differents is america,does under the pre tex of being humane,when infact there is no humane way of public execution.once again dragging this off topic.

Originally posted by technical difficulties

1. Accusing the other side of being a government agent (unsurprisingly, with no proof)
2. Accusing the other side of supporting the official story
3. Has no idea what happened that day (i.e. Thinking the Towers Fell At Free Fall Speed or that the towers collapsed into their own footprints)
4. Making idiotic comparisons (i.e. A plane far more smaller than a boeing hitting a building larger than the twin towers [not to mention with a different design] or comparing office fires not caused by planes/debris to 9/11)
5. Coming up with Unrealistic Theories while at the same time opposing the far more reasonable one (i.e. People wiring up occupied buildings with tons of explosives to be hit by plane, that will then collapse onto another building to be demolished)
6. Grasping at straws (i.e. Beleiving that explosions at separate times [even during the collapse], or a few flashes makes it a controlled demolition)
7. Quote Mining (i.e. Silversteins 'Pull It' Quote)

1. 1. Accusing the other side of being a government agent (unsurprisingly, with no proof)
-Not every truther does this, however you just accused all truthers of doing this, without proof I might add. And if you support the official story, you must have some type of vested interest in it (you served time overseas, can't quite face the truth of it, you don't want to believe your government is that corrupt, you directly work for the government but not necessarily an 'agent' you could work for the department of education and just refuse to believe the government is evil, etc).

2. Accusing the other side of supporting the official story
Okay, so what story are you supporting? The no-plane theory? The Israel theory? the US theory? Or the Loose change theory?

3. Has no idea what happened that day (i.e. Thinking the Towers Fell At Free Fall Speed or that the towers collapsed into their own footprints)

It's funny how often I hear this as if truthers are such liars for suggesting they fell at free fall speed. I've yet to see any proof they hadn't fallen at free fall speed, but even if it wasn't 9.8 m/s2 (which is not exactly this number everywhere on the earth since the sea level can affect this), even if it wasn't free fall speed, it is so close to free fall speed that the constant attack of this notion is silly as anyone with eyes can see it came down relative to the speed of gravity, to imply that saying the buildings collapsed at free fall speed is a lie is itself a lie because by all calculations the towers fell at or near free fall.

4. Making idiotic comparisons (i.e. A plane far more smaller than a boeing hitting a building larger than the twin towers [not to mention with a different design] or comparing office fires not caused by planes/debris to 9/11)

This is just the loose change/9/11 mysteries theory, those videos are like five years old, and yet they are still influencing people, why is that? Must be because everyone is so idiotic (sarcasm)

5. Coming up with Unrealistic Theories while at the same time opposing the far more reasonable one (i.e. People wiring up occupied buildings with tons of explosives to be hit by plane, that will then collapse onto another building to be demolished)

I'm not even sure what you are implying here, do you think the buildings were rigged?

6. Grasping at straws (i.e. Beleiving that explosions at separate times [even during the collapse], or a few flashes makes it a controlled demolition)

shakes head

7. Quote Mining (i.e. Silversteins 'Pull It' Quote)

Silverstein: We had such a loss of life...etc, etc, we decided to pull it
Silverstein on Silverstein: what I meant was pull the fire fighters.

Right, when was the last time you referred to fire fighters as "it"

Seems like you are the one mining for some type of explanation.

reply to post by technical difficulties


I do belive Lord Jules said everything that needed to be said to you,and still you bring nothing to the thread,apart from frivolous accusations,pre made judgements upon people's views,i refuse to debate this futher with you "technical difficulties"as clearly your are not here to debate the subject on the table.

I don't think the US has public executions.

Just FYI.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade


I don't think the US has public executions.

Just FYI.

so saddam hussain was not a public execution,and you saying the US don't film the proceeding to a execution,to be shown on the news,and also after the execution,that still counts as public.

and when you have public shootouts in the states you tell me you dont have it all over the news live as someone is shoot and killed by the police..i could go on,but it's taking this off topic.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by loveguy

 

Apparent you know Nothing about water is delivered.....

Sprinklers and standpipes which pipe water up in a building depend on pipes called risers

Look in stairwell of high raise building - will see these pipes

Water is supplied from public water mains, occasionally from roof top tanks

Fire pumps in mechanical rooms are switched on during emergency help move the water up the system

Aircraft impact cut the risers supplying water to floors above the impact area - cutting off the sprinklers

When the towers collapsed severed the underground water mains which cut off water to WTC 7 behind
WTC towers

Without water there can be no effective fire fighting operations - that is why WTC 7 was abandoned

No water. Fire chiefs made decision to abandon WTC 7 because of this

Nice try.
If they're (risers) in the stair-well (reinforced steel concrete column), are you saying the stairwell got breached in both buildings? I'd like to see what leads you to that conclusion. I'm not discussing WTC7 until after this query is addressed. Now then, the tanks on the roof; Molten metal for two weeks? Those water tanks that came down with the buildings wouldn't cool the molten metal? Or is discussing molten metal at this point going to go unaddressed?
You've been in this forum way too long to not acknowledge molten metal. Photos and videos have been provided generously throughout this forum (911 threads), it's up to you if you will/or have reviewed them.
One more point please; Those tanks on the roof still supply water to the sprinklers until they are empty? How big are these tanks? 12,500 gallons or larger? How many gallons per minute flow out of them to feed the sprinklers? Doesn't it sound stupid if those tanks are empty preceding an emergency?
Or you are so set in your position concerning this forum, you won't have any problem providing this evidence, or you wish to remain IMO; a kool-aid connoisseur? I apologize...

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by loveguy


Yes they were built the same way, fundamentally. Utilities are fed from underground. If the water supply suffers damage, it's because the damage occurs underground. The fires at Empire State Building were fought with water being supplied by underground source.

The fires at WTC were not fought with water from underground source...Because building(s) had collapsed and severed supply? Calibrated detonation to sever water source?

Google dry and wet risers for multi storey buildings

As I have quoted above YOU HAVE NO CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE and it shows!!!

In the Empire State event the plane did not cause as significant damage read here and learn something. Whats also interesting is when YOU read this its shows all the people who claim the jets could not penetrate the walls of the twin towers how wrong they were.

Also this extract shows how people who claim that the Pentagon was not hit by an aircraft because of the hole size are mistaken as well.

From link below.

The Empire State Building crash of 1945 also offers insights into the Pentagon attack on September 11. Both buildings are reinforced masonry structures built using similar methods and materials, although the Pentagon has been considerably upgraded to survive impact damage. One topic often used to promote conspiracy theories is the size of the hole in the exterior wall of the Pentagon created by the Boeing 757 that struck it. The 757 has a wingspan of almost 125 ft (38 m), yet most conspiracy sites suggest the impact hole is only 15 to 65 ft (4.5 to 20 m) wide. The same can be said of the Empire State Building where a plane with a wingspan greater than 67 ft (20.5 m) created a hole no more than 20 ft (6 m) across.

Link to Empire State Building plane crash. Read and learn.

www.aerospaceweb.org...

This is the level of construction being under taken to ensure that buildings will not suffer the same fate as the WTC BUILDINGS!

HAVE A LOOK ON PAGE 2!!!! COMPARE THAT TO WTC CONSTRUCTION!!!!!

www.modernsteel.com...

here is a nice hi res shot

img404.imageshack.us...

Then stop thinking the planes couldn't have caused the collapse!

LOL!!!
Thanks, I needed a good laugh! Since you think I have no construction experience, what type of work have I done since I was eighteen years-old? I'll tell you. I'm was a CONCRETE COWBOY. My expertise lies in setting footings and foundations. I've ran the utilities into my form boards, where I pour the concrete reinforced by the steel I tie inside the form boards. I've built houses from the dirt to the roofing shingles. The only trade I have not worked in as a skilled tradesman is electrical work. I don't need to work on a commercial building to know how to build one. Steel erectors erect the steel, I've done (almost) everything there is left to do. Thanks for assuming you got my number. What else are you wrong about?
Let's see...Empire State building. Not as significant damage as WTCs 1&2? I seriously ask you to evaluate whether or not the stairwell was breached in both buildings 1 & 2.
If the plane that disintegrated/vaporized at the pentagon because the walls were so much more formidable than normal buildings; stairwells are the most formidable walls within these buildings 1 & 2. Don't you think the plane(s) would disintegrate/vaporize upon colliding with stairwell? WTC7? Those stairwells just got too hot and crumbled too huh? Concrete only burns when it is wet and on your skin.


ETA I guess I need to re-learn how to add photos and links here?

Originally posted by Equinox99
This is all going off topic.

When a collapse happens, especially as big as this one, the investigation usually is conducted to determine why this happened. This is studied thoroughly to prevent it from happening again.

In my opinion, this wasn't the case for building 7. WTC1+2 is understandable that a big airplane could have shifted the core of the buildings, but WTC7 had no reason to fall. The debris would have fallen on top of the building or grazed the sides it wouldn't have sustained relevant damages to make it fall. Unless of course the building was faulty to begin with, but the commission would have taken it out on the builders for cutting corners.

So you could defend WTC 1+2 but 7 seems way too fishy to let the investigation pass by. We have a small window of opportunity to investigate what hasn't been destroyed to determine the fault. If this window passes there will never be a way to find out what truly happened to those buildings.

I am not doubting the validity of the OS but I don't think this investigation is 100% accurate either. There may not be a conspiracy it could just be stupidity on behalf of the commission, but stupidity has no place in investigating the murder of 3000 people.

Except that there is no other collapse of this magnitude, that I am aware of. It wasn't investigated because they new that buildings don't just crumble without using demolition practices; EXPLOSIVE CHARGES. "People are stupid and trusting us as their governing body, they'll believe anything we tell them." The core columns don't just buckle because of a fire; let alone an airplane that disintegrates on contact (Pentagon). WTC7 housed gov. agencies. You think they built it to house something like Joe the plumber's office? Why didn't the IRS building hit by what's his bucket not collapse? It burned pretty hot there too didn't it? Oh yeah, their water supply wasn't shut-off, my bad.

Originally posted by loveguy

LOL!!!
Thanks, I needed a good laugh! Since you think I have no construction experience, what type of work have I done since I was eighteen years-old? I'll tell you. I'm was a CONCRETE COWBOY. My expertise lies in setting footings and foundations. I've ran the utilities into my form boards, where I pour the concrete reinforced by the steel I tie inside the form boards. I've built houses from the dirt to the roofing shingles. The only trade I have not worked in as a skilled tradesman is electrical work. I don't need to work on a commercial building to know how to build one. Steel erectors erect the steel, I've done (almost) everything there is left to do. Thanks for assuming you got my number. What else are you wrong about?
Let's see...Empire State building. Not as significant damage as WTCs 1&2? I seriously ask you to evaluate whether or not the stairwell was breached in both buildings 1 & 2.
If the plane that disintegrated/vaporized at the pentagon because the walls were so much more formidable than normal buildings; stairwells are the most formidable walls within these buildings 1 & 2. Don't you think the plane(s) would disintegrate/vaporize upon colliding with stairwell? WTC7? Those stairwells just got too hot and crumbled too huh? Concrete only burns when it is wet and on your skin.


ETA I guess I need to re-learn how to add photos and links here?

edit on (10/27/1010 by loveguy because: Try to fix links/photos

OK maybe it should be TECHNICAL/STRUCTURAL experience in your case, still not enough mate SORRY from leaving school at 16, 30+ years now in construction, worked for a STRUCTURAL STEELWORK company in the Drawing/Design office civil engineering at college then for a concrete reinforcement company in the PRODUCTION/SALES office.
NOW TEST ON SITE for a living(10+ YEARS) mainly structural fixings and advise engineers and architects on a daily basis on requirements for structural fixings BY PROVING they work.
A TECHNICAL role as you can see I pick it people like you fit it ,well after I show them the correct method !!!

Important parts underlined most important in bold!

Yes concrete wont burn but its crap at taking tensile loading thats why you put in reinforcement!
We cant see the damage done thats correct but we can make a good guess at the structural problems caused by the impact, watch the collapse videos South Tower FELL FIRST although it was hit second!

It was hit lower down so LOAD of floors above impact point (were the damage was done) was far greater THATS why it collapsed first. LOOK at collapse videos with close ups for the first few seconds the upper part of the building fell as one look at the image below.

www.ihc-bwn.net...

So if you want we can talk about Ultimate loads,wind loads,shear loads, tensile loads,shock loads, dynamic loads,safe working loads, concrete cone failure, fixing pryout failure,fixings steel failure,factored loads on fixings,unfactored loads on fixings etc etc.

Back to you

He did a good job (Empire State Worker)

Originally posted by wmd_2008

He did a good job (Empire State Worker)

edit on 27-10-2010 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

Erm....Are you saying this guy is working on the empire state building? Thats kind of odd since the empire state building is already complete in the background and it appears this fella is working on the WTC

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by loveguy

LOL!!!
Thanks, I needed a good laugh! Since you think I have no construction experience, what type of work have I done since I was eighteen years-old? I'll tell you. I'm was a CONCRETE COWBOY. My expertise lies in setting footings and foundations. I've ran the utilities into my form boards, where I pour the concrete reinforced by the steel I tie inside the form boards. I've built houses from the dirt to the roofing shingles. The only trade I have not worked in as a skilled tradesman is electrical work. I don't need to work on a commercial building to know how to build one. Steel erectors erect the steel, I've done (almost) everything there is left to do. Thanks for assuming you got my number. What else are you wrong about?
Let's see...Empire State building. Not as significant damage as WTCs 1&2? I seriously ask you to evaluate whether or not the stairwell was breached in both buildings 1 & 2.
If the plane that disintegrated/vaporized at the pentagon because the walls were so much more formidable than normal buildings; stairwells are the most formidable walls within these buildings 1 & 2. Don't you think the plane(s) would disintegrate/vaporize upon colliding with stairwell? WTC7? Those stairwells just got too hot and crumbled too huh? Concrete only burns when it is wet and on your skin.


ETA I guess I need to re-learn how to add photos and links here?

edit on (10/27/1010 by loveguy because: Try to fix links/photos

OK maybe it should be TECHNICAL/STRUCTURAL experience in your case, still not enough mate SORRY from leaving school at 16, 30+ years now in construction, worked for a STRUCTURAL STEELWORK company in the Drawing/Design office civil engineering at college then for a concrete reinforcement company in the PRODUCTION/SALES office.
NOW TEST ON SITE for a living(10+ YEARS) mainly structural fixings and advise engineers and architects on a daily basis on requirements for structural fixings BY PROVING they work.
A TECHNICAL role as you can see I pick it people like you fit it ,well after I show them the correct method !!!

Important parts underlined most important in bold!

Yes concrete wont burn but its crap at taking tensile loading thats why you put in reinforcement!
We cant see the damage done thats correct but we can make a good guess at the structural problems caused by the impact, watch the collapse videos South Tower FELL FIRST although it was hit second!

It was hit lower down so LOAD of floors above impact point (were the damage was done) was far greater THATS why it collapsed first. LOOK at collapse videos with close ups for the first few seconds the upper part of the building fell as one look at the image below.

www.ihc-bwn.net...

So if you want we can talk about Ultimate loads,wind loads,shear loads, tensile loads,shock loads, dynamic loads,safe working loads, concrete cone failure, fixing pryout failure,fixings steel failure,factored loads on fixings,unfactored loads on fixings etc etc.

Back to you

He did a good job (Empire State Worker)

edit on 27-10-2010 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

So, you learned all that in school? Giving all the formulas for all those different tolerances makes one think that there isn't anything shy of an act of G_d that will bring those structures down? Yet with all those equations taken into account, the buildings crumble. And it was no where near an act of G_d that brought those towers down. Despite those who think of themselves as our G_d.

And people still believe the fairy-tale.

The problem is that when people refer to the buildings falling into their 'own foot-print', I assume they must be referring to how the buildings fell in a downward motion without having the structure tilt or lean significantly in its fall.
The WTC7 fall was not clean either, but from what I can gather the implosion method is quite risky and used minimally as it isn't always perfect...
WTC7 did fall in a manner that it seems many people (including demolition experts) would immediately conclude to be a controlled demolition.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

I have yet to see another example of a steel framed building whose entire integral structure has been compromised due to fire. Typically what one would expect with a building fire is for the least fire-resistant segments of the building to burn up leaving behind the steel-frame in view, as just about every other account of a steel-framed building fire has been documented.
WTC 7 appears to be a unique case because all the load bearing supports would have had to fail at nearly the exact time for the building to collapse in the manner in which it did. In other words the fire would be required to be equally distributed throughout the entire floor of the building, with the same degree of heat. How could metal possibly fail in such a symmetrical fashion?

Can someone else bring up any account of a steel-framed building falling from a fire as concluded by NIST?

Here is a link (from the NIST website) describing the awarded contracts to NIST: wtc.nist.gov...

Publications:

wtc.nist.gov...

I'm no demolition expert, so it would be nice to have other demolition contractors look at all footage involving WTC7 for their own analysis, as it seems that NIST did not do any significant first hand surveying of the WTC7 area. I have gone through plenty of federal contracting and solicitation processes, so I actually did enjoy reading through the solicitations and statement of work that was published on their site (thankfully they didn't keep out of the public eye). The statement of work however, kinda makes me scratch my head...cuz it seems to undermine the process of what I imagine would be required in a thorough investigation.

On a final note, I realize that there will always be those who want the OS to be the holy and infallible truth, but I just came around this year to the truth movement, perhaps there is hope for some. Sure it took me about 8 years to come around and stop blaming our intelligence agencies for incompetence and negligence for the 9/11 event, because that's exactly what they would prefer. Just a glance into Operation Northwoods can be quite compelling as to what sectors of our government and intelligence agencies are capable of.

Originally posted by itbenickp

Originally posted by wmd_2008

He did a good job (Empire State Worker)

edit on 27-10-2010 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

Erm....Are you saying this guy is working on the empire state building? Thats kind of odd since the empire state building is already complete in the background and it appears this fella is working on the WTC

Even looking at the photograph tells you its not a recent picture( look how he is dressed) its the CHRYSLER BUILDING in the background I am from the UK and even I recognise that!

reply to post by loveguy


Not formulas types of loading, so a typical reply when you know your out of your depth blame god (he doesn't deserve capitals he is a figment of the imagination)

No comment on the collapse picture says a lot

reply to post by laiguana


It had a bad design of the layout of the steelwork to keep the entrance foyer as open as possible also it had structural damage it wasn't just a fire!

Have a look at the pictures here. HAS some nice shots of the damage dont agree with what a says re demolition.

www.facebook.com...

Not just fire then!!!

reply to post by vipertech0596

Then you should have no problems posting a link to those pictures. Because in 9 years I have yet to see any close up pictures of the damage suffered by WTC 7 at the point where the trusses are over the ConEd station.

Eh? I said that the damage WTC7 sustained didn't penetrate the core, providing the image released by NIST - the one that people say contradicts the Zafar photo is genuine. Still, even if the damage did penetrate the core (which it didn't), it still doesn't explain freefall.

Pieces of that building were collapsing/falling off most of the afternoon.

'Large' is a very big word in this context. May I enquire as to where you are getting this information from? I take it you yourself didn't witness this and instead are relying on anecdotes? But even if your statement is generally true - it still doesn't explain freefall, does it? Nope.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by itbenickp

Originally posted by wmd_2008

He did a good job (Empire State Worker)

edit on 27-10-2010 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

Erm....Are you saying this guy is working on the empire state building? Thats kind of odd since the empire state building is already complete in the background and it appears this fella is working on the WTC

Even looking at the photograph tells you its not a recent picture( look how he is dressed) its the CHRYSLER BUILDING in the background I am from the UK and even I recognise that!

edit on 27-10-2010 by wmd_2008 because: spelling

I didnt say it was a recent picture...... BUT you are right. Not the Empire State Building.

However

Pieces of that building were collapsing/falling off most of the afternoon

I too would like to know what pieces were falling off of it all day? Or do you mean the minimal debris from 1&2 that was on it? Do you have footage or photo of said pieces?

And why would Larry Siverstein say "it" if he was talking about "them"?
Also makes you wonder what offices were in that building.......but i think we have already covered that.
Its astounding what kind of coincidences happened that day. Who would benefit, before during and after? Theres still alot of loose ends you need to tie up in your official story sir.

So if we are to believe the truthers concerning WTC7

After losing their friends and co workers, the NYC fire fighters had the fortitude to lye to us about the extent of the fire in WTC7?

And

The CD experts used fire proof explosives and det cord.

And

The CD experts knew the corner of the building would collapse so didn’t place explosives there or any place that would have fire.

Originally posted by snapperski

so saddam hussain was not a public execution,and you saying the US don't film the proceeding to a execution,to be shown on the news,and also after the execution,that still counts as public.

and when you have public shootouts in the states you tell me you dont have it all over the news live as someone is shoot and killed by the police..i could go on,but it's taking this off topic.

edit on 26-10-2010 by snapperski because: (no reason given)

Saddam was not executed by or in the US.

I don't know what the "proceeding" to an execution is. And executions are not televised in America.

A death in a "shootout" is not an execution, even if done by police.

Your'e correct that this is OT, but if you are mistaken it's not a disservice, I think, to put you right.