China skycraper on fire right now!!!! Still Standing?

reply to post by Cassius666

The burning building clearly collapsed due to fire.
What? You cant see it? That makes you clearly crazy and a child molester.

Burning Gas, paper and plastic according to a debunker

Da planes ! da planes !

reply to post by MrWendal

Do you have a source to back up your claim of "a host of other incidents where steel structures collapsed from fire alone?" Can you show me even 3 cases aside from anything at the WTC complex on 9-11 that supports your claim? Just 3 cases out of "a host" should be pretty easy.

They can't even come up with 1 case.

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

The building did not collapse its damaged after having been ablaze in fire. If the steele core would be down it would not be still standing now would it, with the steele core being what holds the building up. Did it come down in the fashion of a controlled demolition? No it did not. WTC 7 was not damaged by fire it collapsed, not partially totally.

Like I said your idea of a collapsed building is apparently different than that of the rest of the world.

But it does not matter what you say, experts cant explain the collapse of wtc 7 any other way than controlled demolition.

First can you explain what you mean in the underlind GIBBERISH ABOVE ????

Did WTC7 have fires ?



Looks like it's on FIRE THEN

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
reply to pwww.abovetopsecret.com... quote=9965069ost by MrWendal

 

Do you have a source to back up your claim of "a host of other incidents where steel structures collapsed from fire alone?" Can you show me even 3 cases aside from anything at the WTC complex on 9-11 that supports your claim? Just 3 cases out of "a host" should be pretty easy.

hey can't even come up with 1 case.

HERE you go 3 REPEAT 3 four storey high blocks on one site ALL destroyed by FIRE alone, all steel framed.

sites.google.com...:structur alsteelquick HIT link if page fails to load.

NOW you show me a MULTI STOREY STEEL FRAMED BUILDING FIRE that

1) was a tube in tube constuction like the TWIN TOWERS
2) The fire was started by the impact of an aircraft and the building DID NOT COLLAPSE.

BET YOU can't even come up with 1 case

Okay its on fire, did it get hit by a plane though?

Originally posted by Cassius666

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Cassius666

 

LOOK at the picture CONCRETE CORE look at the collapsed steelwork around it

Actually A FEW steelframed buildings have collapsed over the years not as high as wtc1 and wtc2 but steelframed.

None were hit by planes? You are making it out as if it would be tough for a building to resist a plane impact. A building the size of WTC 1 and 2 suffers more stress from moderate winds than from a plane impact.

Wind loads are SPREAD over the ELVEVATION THEY HIT, then the load is carried through the structure.

The planes took out columns and caused structural damage then fires, DOES wind do that ? you guys make me laugh when you try to talk about subjects you know sweet FA about.

Originally posted by Plan2exist18
Okay its on fire, did it get hit by a plane though?

If your talking about WTC7 no plane hit it ,BUT part of a LARGE COLLAPSING BUILDING DID.





Damage and fires

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Plan2exist18
Okay its on fire, did it get hit by a plane though?

If your talking about WTC7 no plane hit it ,BUT part of a LARGE COLLAPSING BUILDING DID.





Damage and fires

Should have fallen toward the damage if anything!

No other modern skyscrapers have fallen for any reason so far. Instead building 7 fell at almost free fall speed straight through the strongest structure of the building.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
reply to pwww.abovetopsecret.com... quote=9965069ost by MrWendal

 

Do you have a source to back up your claim of "a host of other incidents where steel structures collapsed from fire alone?" Can you show me even 3 cases aside from anything at the WTC complex on 9-11 that supports your claim? Just 3 cases out of "a host" should be pretty easy.

hey can't even come up with 1 case.

HERE you go 3 REPEAT 3 four storey high blocks on one site ALL destroyed by FIRE alone, all steel framed.

sites.google.com...:structur alsteelquick HIT link if page fails to load.

NOW you show me a MULTI STOREY STEEL FRAMED BUILDING FIRE that

1) was a tube in tube constuction like the TWIN TOWERS
2) The fire was started by the impact of an aircraft and the building DID NOT COLLAPSE.

BET YOU can't even come up with 1 case

edit on 21-11-2010 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-11-2010 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

So sorry. The KADER 4 story toy factory disaster in Thailand doesn't qualify as a modern steel frame skyscraper. No need to go into the details of the building codes and structure. Been posted many times.

1) was a tube in tube constuction like the TWIN TOWERS

It is a myth that the Twin Towers were weak because of the type of construction used. This is the method almost all modern skyscrapers use. They had "BOTH" A STEEL CORE "PLUS" an outer perimeter construction to protect against high winds. They were way overbuilt if anything and must have shredded those planes.

if anything the buildings would break at the impact area and fall over from that point. Not fall through themselves at almost free fall speed.

2) The fire was started by the impact of an aircraft and the building DID NOT COLLAPSE.

About the only comparable impact by a plane was the Empire State building which withstood the impact and did not collapse. The bomber plane was smaller but that really isn't a fair question.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Plan2exist18
Okay its on fire, did it get hit by a plane though?

If your talking about WTC7 no plane hit it ,BUT part of a LARGE COLLAPSING BUILDING DID.





Damage and fires

Ok, now put your thinking cap on.

Looking at the damage to the corner of the building, if that were to cause it to collapse would it fall straight down or into the path of least resistance? By least resistance I am saying, if that damage caused the collapse the building would have toppled over into that damage. Not straight down onto itself. Sorry, but you will have to do much much better than this to explain WTC 7 falling at free fall acceleration into its own footprint.

reply to post by Doctor Smith


You guys CLAIM NO STEEL FRAMED BUILDINGS have collapsed due to fire THEY have,KADER BUILDINGS were more than one storey and collapsed, we also have records of partial collapse where concrete etc has remained in place but structural steel has collapsed due to fire.

NO other office building fire YOU CLAIM was in a building built like the twin towers provide link to one ,consrtuction must be the same.

1) tube in tube
2) open plan floors
3) open truss floor support.
4) OF COURSE STRUCTURAL DAMGE BEFORE FIRE.

Provide link to construction pictures & documentation I wont hold my breath.
I WILL even let you off with number 4 and you still wont find one

reply to post by MrWendal


I never said that was the cause of the collapse the building had fires for 6 hours, the steel was designed to have an open plan foyer that was to prove a problem and the picture did not show the only damage to the building.

BACK to you.

reply to post by Doctor Smith


Oh but it did fall towards the direction of damage! Its only been mentioned a few hundred million times here on ATS. But I guess you must of "missed" it all.