I'm pretty sure this building is going to collapse - Sharjah Skyscraper!

Thats the problem with discussion on 911 threads. Everyone has the answers regardless and usually it devolves into personal attacks. Used to be civil on here. What, no one is learning anymore? No one makes mistakes without being pounced on? Okay... I'm out.

Originally posted by Ilyich
reply to post by 4hero

 

No it shouldn't have and it didn't. End of story.

Sorry, not sure what this reply relates to?

Originally posted by intrptr
Thats the problem with discussion on 911 threads. Everyone has the answers regardless and usually it devolves into personal attacks. Used to be civil on here. What, no one is learning anymore? No one makes mistakes without being pounced on? Okay... I'm out.

The problem is, this place is riddled with shills, and when people come wading in and are acting in the way the shills generally do, one can initially think someone is a shill when they're not, but after a few posts it's easy to spot who is and who isnt.

Shills are very condecending, they like dispute everything without evidence, and they like to steer topics off course.
Us genuine researchers do get caught up in all the nonsense sometimes, but it's generally best to ignore the shills.

Originally posted by 4hero

Originally posted by Ilyich
reply to post by 4hero

 

No it shouldn't have and it didn't. End of story.

Sorry, not sure what this reply relates to?

Sorry, should have quoted your post. No I don't think the structure should have collapsed due to fire, and it did not. Not WTC the OP.

7 WTC was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building. The building's internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires, and the building collapsed completely at 5:21:10 pm

wtc7


average demolition


if we are led to believe fire caused the collapse of 3 buildings on the same day, then where are the rest of the buildings collapsing when on fire? this one didnt.

Note: Originally posted as Dubai Skyscraper -- changed at OP's request
edit on 30/4/12 by argentus because: changed title

Thank you for doing that, much appreciated.

Originally posted by Ilyich

Originally posted by 4hero

Originally posted by Ilyich
reply to post by 4hero

 

No it shouldn't have and it didn't. End of story.

Sorry, not sure what this reply relates to?

Sorry, should have quoted your post. No I don't think the structure should have collapsed due to fire, and it did not. Not WTC the OP.

Sorry dude, I'm getting mixed up here, there's another poster beginning with 'I' and I got you two muddled up! D'oh!

Exactly, steel structures just do not collapse due to fire. Even the Empire State is still standing after it's plane crash.

reply to post by yourmaker


Also The Marriott Hotel (WTC3) was directly in the firing line being the closest building to the towers, it did not suffer a complete collapse, even after a large amount of debris fell onto it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So we have the Dubai building burning with a fiercer fire, no collapse, Marriott Hotel took a much bigger hit than WTC7, and still had part of it standing.

Also on 9/11 there was a world first of 3 different steel structured buildings collapsing from fire??

The sums just do not add up!?!

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Ilyich

 

Thanks for all the data. I was wondering... did all that mean you think the temps were not high enough for the collapse to initiate? Where it did? If so...

Add the winds aloft rushing in the hole made by the plane and "venturing" thru the floors with fire on them. That is kind of like a blast furnace, no? Raising temps? All the glass was blown out so the resulting "fire storm" unchecked for an hour or more and fed by steady winds aloft. Result: blast furnace inside the buildings. We of course couldn't see that from the ground a quarter mile away.

And whatever spheroids of metal were formed during the fall to the ground... just like raindrops from a cloud. They are round too? Of course the molten drops may have cooled by the time they fell a 1000 feet and landed like little balls of various alloys of metal. No?

Just thought I would bring those two...

Yes, it could be possible that Winds could be a factor to the heat of the flame, and your post alone is going to spark others on this very argument, how ever the damage is mostly on the one side of the building, as well typical draft, or air currents around tall structure flow upwards. In this case, it may in fact have a reverse effect similar to the venturi effect, which the wiki will refer to as a fluid, how ever the very same principles can be applied to gasses. As air rushed along the building past the openings, suction is produced which would effectively pull the air inside the building out, thus starving the fire of oxygen I believe this is a factor in the thick dark smoke seen at the towers on that day. There were openings where oxygen could have come in, but it would be minimal, and increase this effect, as one opening was larger, effectively drawing the flames towards the outside of the building, where an abundant amount of oxygen would be present. As almost every buildings support structures are in the center of the building, I just can not fathom how the support structures could even be sufficiently damaged, to begin a collapse. Not to mention, how do the floors below sustain sufficient damage to collapse under a weight they support? Whether, you want to believe a pancake happened, the floors below supported the same weight, and in every video of the collapse, materials can be seen falling away from the building, although they land relative to the footprint of the building. As well, the floors themselves are between both structures, and the pancake theory would likely result on the floors falling, and the core still standing and exterior falling away like a banana peel. I just can't accept it.

As for the evidence of Microscopic beads of metal this requires the molten metal to be dispersed rapidly into the surrounding air in a violent, forceful manner. Like for instance when thermite is ignited, particles of burning material are dispersed into the air rapidly reaching their melting point and cooling rapidly. If a fire had melted the beams it would suggest they would be dispersed upon collapse, in which case droplets could form, but would likely be much larger than the microscopic droplets recovered, as well as evidence of Professional grade thermite. Alluminum and Iron Oxide powder should not be present in an office space. They just shouldn't be there.

Thank you for being polite and I hope I've answered your questions, I can provide back ground data as well as credible sources I'm just trying to be quick with my reply.

Search Venturi, I can't recall the specific name given to the same application for gasses it's the same principle. With the thermite, as it burns hot gasses are expanding rapidly, which expel both molten material, and fuel as it's reacting this results in the droplets.

reply to post by 4hero


S'all good brother, friendly fire happens

reply to post by intrptr


Sorry, I misread. As far as I know, yes both microscopic, rain, marble and baseball sized drops of molten metal were found at ground level. I'm not sure what you are getting at here?

No the tower shouldn't have fell the way it did. Think of felling a tree, if the tower was going to fall, which I don't think it should have at all, it should have fell the direction of it's damage, how ever I do not feel the structure was damaged sufficiently to fall on it's own.

reply to post by Ilyich

Originally posted by Ilyich
Umm, irregardless of this building, concrete crumbles when you heat it.

Sure, If you can get it hot enough.

Originally posted by IlyichThe only time concrete buildings are as resilient as they are is when they are reinforced with steel inside, wait a minute... what's that? Steel inside? Guess what WTC1&2's steel frame had to add fire safety ?

The first sentence of my post notes that the building is of reinforced concrete construction. And no, steel is not used to add fire reistance. It is present to bear tensile stress concrete construction.

Concrete structures often require no additional fireproofing, in contrast to steel, which does require it in most applications. (depending on building type)
link

Originally posted by Ilyich
Jet fuel, it's just not hot enough. Not even hot enough to destroy the concrete.. It would take a much larger spread, and much longer burn time to damage the steel or the concrete.

Mere assertions.

Sorry guys, I have to go the misses is giving me that look. Always irritated when I get into something on the computer... She just can't accept that she has to share. I will come back, if you want me to answer your questions either pm me them or at the very least pm me the page your post is on, I will come back at another time to check up on this.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


Oh god, I just want to smack every one of you. What temperature does jet fuel burn at? I'm not giving it to you this time so you can not read it. What temperature does concrete fail at? and steel? I just said resilient, but it makes the building stronger, but you took your time with the reply... Seriously, jet fuel? It's the entire basis of the 911 argument, as well the sharjah building is still standing, so? No other steel buildings have collapsed due to fire alone, ever.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


As well, the world trade center had concrete on every floor as well as surrounding it's center support structures... So explain how fire beat it? You're arguing how great concrete is as an insulator, and I've provided data regarding jetfuel, as well as an explanation as to why there would be a lack of oxygen. Explain please. If we are going to have an educated argument I'm down, but I'm heated and focused on 911. Sharjah building is standing so I can only assume we are talking about WTC.

Originally posted by Ilyich
reply to post by 4hero

 

S'all good brother, friendly fire happens

Haha, yeah, it does! I'm not wanting to fire at anyone as such, but when the fire is coming in it has to be dealt with!

Originally posted by Ilyich
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

 

As well, the world trade center had concrete on every floor as well as surrounding it's center support structures... So explain how fire beat it?

It did not have concrete surrounding it's center support structures, as far as I know, If you have a link please provide it. In order for concrete to fireproof a steel construction, the concrete must fully surround the steel, forming a protective layer. The concrete in the floors of the WTC was used to form the floor material, not as fire protection.

PS.. that image is not accurate... there were no concrete walls.

Lowest to highest in this order...

Jet fuel 600 degrees F
Steel 2500 F
Concrete several thousand F

Jet fuel cannot be part of the equation, for this reason and I personally think there were no planes anyway.

This is why steel structured, or concrete structured buildings never collapse from fires.

Originally posted by 4hero

This is why steel structured, or concrete structured buildings never collapse from fires.

Then why is it that steel buildings are required to be fireproofed?

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by 4hero

This is why steel structured, or concrete structured buildings never collapse from fires.

Then why is it that steel buildings are required to be fireproofed?

Extra safety, and perhaps for insurance reasons? Regualtions are different for each country, I'm not an expert on fireproofing, and you have asked a valid question that hopefully someone with more knowledge on fireproofing can answer in detail.

The beams would have been sprayed with fireproofing to meet regulations I'd assume, and we all know that regs can be way over the top. Theorectically fireproofing is not needed, but steel can start to weaken at approx half it's melting point, still well above jet fuel though.