The History of High Rise Collapses

reply to post by dubiousone


Scattered fires?

WTC 7 had fires on 13 floors - think that qualifies as more than scattered

After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts. Fires burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building. During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30. In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon. At approximately 2:00 p.m., firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse. During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building. Around 3:30 pm FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel. At 5:20:33 p.m. EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center started to collapse, with the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse, while at 5:21:10 p.m. EDT the entire building collapsed completely. There were no casualties associated with the collapse.

Fires burned unfought for hours - enough to buckle and warp the steel supports

Firegighters caould hear the building creaking - indications was becoming unstable and watched as bulge
formed in SW corner where the fires were nmost intense

It was this that prompted FDNY chief to order collapse zone set up around WTC 7

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by dubiousone

 

Scattered fires?

WTC 7 had fires on 13 floors - think that qualifies as more than scattered

OK. I will rephrase my question:

Doesn’t it seem odd to you that the floors above remain intact until they reach the ground or the accumulation of debris below? How is such a sequential collapse at the bottom explained by fires on 13 floors and asymmetrical damage?

Answer that, if you can.

Originally posted by dubiousone

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by dubiousone

 

Scattered fires?

WTC 7 had fires on 13 floors - think that qualifies as more than scattered

OK. I will rephrase my question:

Doesn’t it seem odd to you that the floors above remain intact until they reach the ground or the accumulation of debris below? How is such a sequential collapse at the bottom explained by fires on 13 floors and asymmetrical damage?

Answer that, if you can.

It actually makes some sense if you think about the testimony. It was reported that when the penthouse started coming down when the initial failure occurred, that the building appeared to fluctuate down on one side (the floors crashing down). Then they hit the bottom and completely blew it out (like an explosion, but with debris). After that, both the inside of the building and outside started to crumple and fall down. I've seen in the videos that the inside of the building began to fall before the outside did, just by a tiny fraction of a second.

Halfway through Building 7's 6.5-second plunge, streamers suggestive of demolition charges emerged from the facade.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a4a02993f6e7.jpg[/atsimg]

The team that investigated the collapse were kept away from the crime scene of WT7. By the time they published their inconclusive report in May, 2002, the evidence had been destroyed,leaveing all further investigations hampered.


now take a look at this steel superstructure,very similar in design to WT7,The Interstate Bank Building fire in 1988 consumed several floors but did not damage the steel ???? and the fire in this building is clearly worse then WT7.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/50b5db943b45.jpg[/atsimg]

In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel-framed buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900 C (1,500-1,700 F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600 C (1,100 F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments).

Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer, an associate professor in the Fire Protection Engineering Department at the University of Maryland, was quoted in the New York Times as saying: I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling. 2

Bill Manning, editor of the 125-year-old Fire Engineering Magazine, wrote in an article condemning the operation: Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the happy land social club fire? ... That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center. The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately. 1

reply to post by snapperski


Of course, which is why the damage to the building becomes a seriously strong factor. Naturally, buildings are able to withstand fire, but with structural damage, it is not near as likely.

and here you will see why we need a full international public inquiry into 9/11....as you will see the team charged with the investigation,was not allowed to do there job...quoted from the new york region newspaper in December 25, 2001

Officials in the mayor's office declined to reply to written and oral requests for comment over a three- day period about who decided to recycle the steel and the concern that the decision might be handicapping the investigation. "The city considered it reasonable to have recovered structural steel recycled," said Matthew G. Monahan, a spokesman for the city's Department of Design and Construction, which is in charge of debris removal at the site. "Hindsight is always 20-20, but this was a calamity like no other," said Mr. Monahan, who was designated by the mayor's office to respond to questions about the investigation. "And I'm not trying to backpedal from the decision." Interviews with a handful of members of the team, which includes some of the nation's most respected engineers, also uncovered complaints that they had at various times been shackled with bureaucratic restrictions that prevented them from interviewing witnesses, examining the disaster site and requesting crucial information like recorded distress calls to the police and fire departments. The investigation, organized immediately after Sept. 11 by the American Society of Civil Engineers, the field's leading professional organization, has been financed and administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. A mismatch between the federal agency and senior engineers accustomed to bypassing protocol in favor of quick answers has been identified as a clear point of friction. "This is almost the dream team of engineers in the country working on this, and our hands are tied," said one team member who asked not to be identified. Members have been threatened with dismissal for speaking to the press. "FEMA is controlling everything," the team member said. "It sounds funny, but just give us the money and let us do it, and get the politics out of it."

source

Deputy Fire Chief Nick Visconti describes resistance to the evacuation by firefighters who wanted to fight the fires in Building 7:

Now, World Trade Center 7 was burning and I was thinking to myself, how come they're not trying to put this fire out? ... At some point, Frank Fellini said, now we've got hundreds of guys out there, hundreds and hundreds, and that's on the West Street side alone. He said to me, Nick, you've got to get those people out of there. I thought to myself, out of where? Frank, what do you want, Chief? He answered, 7 World Trade Center, imminent collapse, we've got to get those people out of there. ... There were a couple of chiefs out there who I knew and I called them individually. I said to them, listen, start backing those people out, we need them back up to the command post. While this was going on, I saw individual company officers. I was whistling, Captain, bring your guys this way. I was getting some resistance. The common thing was, hey, we've still got people here, we don't want to leave. I explained to them that we were worried about 7, that it was going to come down and we didn't want to get anybody trapped in the collapse. One comment was, oh, that building is never coming down, that didn't get hit by a plane, why isn't somebody in there putting the fire out? A lot of comments, a bit of resistance, understandable resistance. 11

reply to post by snapperski

now take a look at this steel superstructure,very similar in design to WT7,The Interstate Bank Building fire in 1988 consumed several floors but did not damage the steel ???? and the fire in this building is clearly worse then WT7.

Thats because the fire at First Interstate was SUCESSFULLY FOUGHT !

WTC 7 was not - the building was abandoned early in the day when realized there was no water to fight the fires

Sprinklers were also knocked out of commision by the collapse of the towers which cut the water mains

AT First Interstate had intact building, no structural damage and more important all the facilities needed to fight
the fires were available and operable.

The elevatora at First Interstate were intact allowing FF to reach the fire floors, WTC 7 the elevators had been
damaged by impact of WTC 1. Stairways were also damaged, Without functioning elevator system no way
to reach the fire floors

At First Interstate took almost 400 men several hours to supress the fire

During the late evening of May 4, 1988, and the early morning of May 5, 1988, members of the Los Angeles City Fire Department successfully battled what has proven to be the worst, most devastating high-rise fire in the history of Los Angeles. Extinguishing this blaze at the 62-story First Interstate Bank Building, 707 West Wilshire Boulevard, required the combined efforts of 64 fire companies, 10 City rescue ambulances, 17 private ambulances, 4 helicopters, 53 Command Officers and support personnel, a complement of 383 Firefighters and Paramedics, and considerable assistance from other City departments.

WTC 7 - chiefs realized would be losing situation without water to try and fight the fires. All you do is get your
men injured or killed

So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too.

Fire on several floors, debris falling off building, no water pressure

Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

Standpipes shot - aka no water on upper floors, no hydrant pressure

Originally posted by prepared4truth

Originally posted by superluminal11
You could not bring down the WTC towers even with conventional demolition methods...

Keyword is CONVENTIONAL. I'm pretty sure there is no fear in using unconventional methods concerning an event this important to a planned war. Especially since military tech is at least 25 years ahead of ours... just think of what some secret projects within the government are capable of! (Not saying that's how it happened, but you get the point.

)

Precisely...I'm glad you caught that. Many still think it was done conventionally as you saw with WTC 7. Oh yeah most definitely with the 25 years + what they publicize technology wise. Could even be much more.

reply to post by Varemia


That explains nothing at all. It provides no insight into how WTC7 collapsed in the manner shown in the many videos showing each floor giving way as the floor reached bottom.

The events you cite (scattered fire on 13 floors and damage on one side of the building) do not explain the manner in which the building collapsed. If that was what caused the collapse it would have been asymmetrical. It does not explain how every massive vertical steel structural support collapsed upon itself simultaneously and in sync with every other such support in the building.

reply to post by snapperski


Answer this was the Interstate Bank built in the exact same way as the twin towers?

Its like others who compare the plane crashing into the Empire State Building its not the same construction and wasn't the same size of plane travelling at the same speed.

If you are going to compare fires etc in other buildings there is no POINT unless all variables are the same and what I mean by that is

1) IS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING THE SAME.
2) HOW THE FIRE WAS CAUSED.

For the benefit of those with no construction experience on this thread (most of you it seems) just because two buildings are steel framed doesn't mean the construction is indentical.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by snapperski

 

Answer this was the Interstate Bank built in the exact same way as the twin towers?

Its like others who compare the plane crashing into the Empire State Building its not the same construction and wasn't the same size of plane travelling at the same speed.

If you are going to compare fires etc in other buildings there is no POINT unless all variables are the same and what I mean by that is

1) IS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING THE SAME.
2) HOW THE FIRE WAS CAUSED.

For the benefit of those with no construction experience on this thread (most of you it seems) just because two buildings are steel framed doesn't mean the construction is indentical.

If you have the construction experience then please, by all means enlighten us as to what the shear strengh and tensile strength of steal is? Then after your done with that can you tell us the melting point of the steel columns of the buildings? And how steel conducts heat thoughout its mass, and not in one particular point? Again. If the steel was "melting" from the fires of the engine fuel plus secondary sources of combustion (paper, wood, etc) Then due to the wind velocity + surface area of the towers + "melted" steel =....the top would TIP OVER. It would not fall into itself. The top would tip over leaving the majority of the building roughly intact. Towers that are that tall are the equivelant of a huge sail, thats why they are built to bend and twist in the wind. Hence, it would tip over. Not turn to dust after it starts to tip and then fall into itself. If the fires HAD got hot enough to weaken the core columns it would still tip over.

BTW Construction Experience is not Equivelant to Engineering Expertise.(Not saying i am an engineer by any means, but it seems that is what you are trying to put yourself out there as. Engineers do the Design and the Construction guys do the work. Unless you would like to clarify which one you are?)

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by v3_exceed
reply to post by itbenickp

 

This is very good accurate and pertinent information. Of course you are going to be bashed by THE SAME guys that bash any claim countering the OS in every other thread (no kidding exactly the same guys). They will attack you personally, ignore facts and pretty much derail the thread. But I concur that NO steel core cement buildings in history ever collapsed expressly due to fire.

Originally posted by v3_exceed

"Actually, it's the same guys usually because only these same guys seem to see the details you guys are missing."

I've noticed the same thing with this usual group of characters...One thing I've also noticed is that none of them offer any links to corroborate what they are claiming, and when they do, they link to organizations affiliated with NIST and the like. The very organizations causing the questions being left unanswered.

There are three main character-types of people; (shortened for band-width)
1-Teacher's pet=people who give their lunch money to the bully. Want to be liberated.
2-Bully=those who think they are better than everyone else/more deserving. Want to oppress people.
3-Liberators=those who fight when the teachers pet cowers/having an equality mind-set. Truth seekers.

Back to the topic...
If another steel structure collapses- and that's a big IF- I can see the headlines right now. "High-rise in China Collapses." Within the first few sentences, "Said to have been built with materials recycled from WTC, faulty composite." Then before the article is complete we'll read; "Members of Al-Qaeda linked."

Same story, new chapter.

Someone mentioned lots of jet fuel? But no signs of burning items at pentagon?
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by itbenickp
If you have the construction experience then please, by all means enlighten us as to what the shear strengh and tensile strength of steal is? Then after your done with that can you tell us the melting point of the steel columns of the buildings? And how steel conducts heat thoughout its mass, and not in one particular point?

Ok, this whole post was extremely confounded. First, you ask for all these very specific and variable aspects.

Again. If the steel was "melting" from the fires of the engine fuel plus secondary sources of combustion (paper, wood, etc) Then due to the wind velocity + surface area of the towers + "melted" steel =....the top would TIP OVER.

Then, you make the common false truther claim that the steel melted from the engine fuel fires with the office fires. If you want I can point out that the "official story" NIST released actually did say that the steel wasn't hot enough to melt.

It would not fall into itself. The top would tip over leaving the majority of the building roughly intact. Towers that are that tall are the equivelant of a huge sail, thats why they are built to bend and twist in the wind. Hence, it would tip over. Not turn to dust after it starts to tip and then fall into itself. If the fires HAD got hot enough to weaken the core columns it would still tip over.

How could you be so skeptical of how the towers fell and be so brazen about another method that has never happened to a steel structure like the towers? They are not solid blocks that can just break away from each-other. One could theorize that when the tower began to fail, there was enough of the core still attached that it essentially ripped through the building on the south tower as it "peeled" away. That also just happens to explain the portion of core still standing after the collapse.

And yes, I'm talking about the leftover core that many truthers claim "vaporized," though if you would just inspect it a little closer, you would see that it does in fact fall straight down as the bottom appears to crumple (joints bending in on each other).

Originally posted by loveguy Someone mentioned lots of jet fuel? But no signs of burning items at pentagon?

Someone forgot that the pentagon is on ground level and was probably extinguished immediately by firemen with hoses that still worked (unlike the situation after the collapse of the first tower, I might add).

Then, with the video, it has been stated fairly repetitively that the plane came in at an angle. Just so you know, that means "not level." And even if it didn't, the pentagon is made of much stronger material than the trade centers. The fact that there was so little damage caused to it was an indicator (at least to me) that the terrorists didn't think everything through to the dot, and that they probably got really lucky in New York, or there was some help from someone, though I've yet to find confirmation of that.

reply to post by Varemia


varemia,please tell me,if you never knew anything about the pentegon on 9/11 and i showed you this pic,what you say a large commercial airliner has just hit this building,also that suv,seems to be in great condition considering that,according to official report everything was vapourised.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/688aad812f70.jpg[/atsimg]
as far as i'm concerned,the pentegon was a last minute overkill by someone that was thinking it would be a good idea to lose the team investigating the massive fraud and all paper work concerning the missing $2.3 trillion of tax payers money.
the pentegon is a bigger white elephant then WT7.

Rumsfeld Buries Admission of Missing 2+ Trillion Dollars in 9/10/01 Press Conference On September 10, 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference to disclose that over $2,000,000,000,000 in Pentagon funds could not be accounted for. Rumsfeld stated: "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions." According to a report by the Inspector General, the Pentagon cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends. 1 2

source

well 9/11 pretty much solved mr rumsfeld problem don't you think..plus those investigating the files that day were killed..so it pretty much closed the case..mr rumsfeld no longer had to explain what happen to the missing trillions...worked out great dont ya think...and take into account,that the money was your money,that you work hard for..so please carry on defending the man that took your money..

plus i also find this very intresting..

The Comptroller of the Pentagon at the time of the attack was Dov Zakheim, who was appointed in May of 2001. Before becoming the Pentagon's money-manager, he was an executive at System Planning Corporation, a defense contractor specializing in electronic warfare technologies including remote-controlled aircraft systems. 3

source

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by snapperski

 

That picture is of North face of WTC 7 - side opposite the damage

Truthers often use this to lie

Look at these shots

www.911myths.com...


You lose again.....

LMFAO....are you some sort of joker....you always make your self out to be a fool,honestly man....for everyone else here,www.911myths.com is a government run and backed website...this is your only source for infomation...lol..you always use this government site for your infomation,do your own research man,and we might consider taking you seriously....and it very childish,to post in caps all the time comments like WRONG AGAIN,or you lose...stop being childish,were trying to debate the facts...its not a bitching contest..

Originally posted by Varemia


[Quote]Ok, this whole post was extremely confounded. First, you ask for all these very specific and variable aspects

Dont feel bad, alot of people get confused when spewing out the O.S, im sure disinfo gets like that

Then, you make the common false truther claim that the steel melted from the engine fuel fires with the office fires. If you want I can point out that the "official story" NIST released actually did say that the steel wasn't hot enough to melt.

Rivers of molten steel that Fire Fighters seen underneath the towers for weeks afterwards? And if you believe the OS why put it in quotations? You realize that is a sign of sarcasm and disdane dont you?

One could theorize that when the tower began to fail, there was enough of the core still attached that it essentially ripped through the building on the south tower as it "peeled" away. That also just happens to explain the portion of core still standing after the collapse.

Please dont start theorizing varemia, we dont want you thinking outside of your Official Story Box. The universe might just implode, then we would have to pick a part a whole new official story

Originally posted by itbenickp
Rivers of molten steel that Fire Fighters seen underneath the towers for weeks afterwards? And if you believe the OS why put it in quotations? You realize that is a sign of sarcasm and disdane dont you?

I put it in quotations because it's what I'm guessing you guys are always referring to when you say official story. As for the "rivers of molten steel:" Those were generated weeks after the fact. It's well known that ground zero was a serious hot spot. Give those enough time (especially considering that they didn't try to extinguish it immediately, attempting to save people's lives trapped under the rubble) and it's like having your own personal underground furnace. Regardless, it is still disputed about whether or not the "rivers" of molten metal were really steel. Plenty of other metals at hot enough temperatures look just like molten steel.

Please dont start theorizing varemia, we dont want you thinking outside of your Official Story Box. The universe might just implode, then we would have to pick a part a whole new official story

edit on 25-10-2010 by itbenickp because: (no reason given)

Don't put me in a box, bucko. I like to think, and I'm not some stupid OS believer, as truthers like to rhetorically say in order to get people to stop listening to arguments. I look at the evidence that is available and come to a conclusion based on those evidences. "It looks kind of vaguely similar" is not a good enough argument for me to follow a lot of the ideas of the truth movement. Especially when I independently came to a conclusion on what happened in building 7, for example, and then weeks later found out that the NIST had concluded the same thing, but with models showing exactly how it happened. I've seen truthers even denying that the tower collapsed the way it really did (something obvious if paying attention to the videos).

I'd think that truthers would be arguing that a well placed charge on the one beam in WTC 7 would make it fail and cause the whole building to "implode" while appearing to still be a collapse due to structural damage and fire, but instead I see arguments trying to downplay the damage and fires. I mean, are you conspiracy theorists here or crazy ignorant deniers of what's right in front of you?

Back On Topic:
Here is why I think these buildings cannot be used to say that what happened on 9/11 was impossible:

These are videos of demolition top-down collapses:



These prove that a building CAN have enough energy to progressively destroy itself after failing. Yet, truthers dismiss them on the exact grounds that the buildings were not the same design as the towers. If anything, these videos prove that it could be particularly easy to destroy the towers by placing charges on just one floor. The only counter-argument is that the towers began to fall from where the damage and fires were, but at least it opens up a reasonably understandable truther argument.

I mean, relying on the idea of "secret" technologies and magic (nano) thermite shouldn't be needed when you have proof that there is an easier way that is a lot easier to mask.

reply to post by snapperski


Video was taken by Steve Spak - well known New York Fire photograher.

Here is some more pictures of WTC 6 and 7 on fire

www.youtube.com...

Noctice you did not respond to what I posted

Just made the usual idiotic truther remarks that it must be planted.....

So explain the heavy smoke pouring out of multiple floors on the South face of WTC 7

The heavy fires breaking out on North side