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

reply to post by AntiNWO


There's gotta be a Russian or chinese billionaire out there who didn't profit, but might be bored.
Heck, I wonder what ghaddafi was doing in his last days.

Right.. because a building on fire near the bottom is exactly the same as an incredibly tall building being slammed into by a jumbo jet and then bursting into flames.

It's kind of funny how much of an authority people are on huge jets slamming into buildings, especially as it has never happened before like that.

Originally posted by fleabit
Right.. because a building on fire near the bottom is exactly the same as an incredibly tall building being slammed into by a jumbo jet and then bursting into flames.

It's kind of funny how much of an authority people are on huge jets slamming into buildings, especially as it has never happened before like that.

We've been over this already, the towers were designed to withstand a plane crash, just like the Empire State did.
Also, I'm doubtful planes were even used.

Some info for the Dr. on Fireproofing, I found it quite revealing...

www.structuremag.org...

Originally posted by 4hero


Some info for the Dr. on Fireproofing, I found it quite revealing...

www.structuremag.org...

Thanks I'll try and read it soon

Originally posted by 4hero

Originally posted by fleabit
Right.. because a building on fire near the bottom is exactly the same as an incredibly tall building being slammed into by a jumbo jet and then bursting into flames.

It's kind of funny how much of an authority people are on huge jets slamming into buildings, especially as it has never happened before like that.

We've been over this already, the towers were designed to withstand a plane crash, just like the Empire State did.
Also, I'm doubtful planes were even used.

Some info for the Dr. on Fireproofing, I found it quite revealing...

www.structuremag.org...

lets see:

b25:
max takeoff weight: 35,000 lb (15,910 kg)
max speed: 272 mph (237 kn, 438 km/h) at 13,000 ft (3,960 m)

757:
max takeoff weight: 255,000 lb (115,680 kg) to 272,500 lb (123,600 kg)
cruise speed: Mach 0.80 (530 mph, 458 knots, 850 km/h at cruise altitude of 35,000 ft or 10.66 km)

nah no difference in impact energy whatsoever.

reply to post by Ilyich

Thank you for the replies... its getting late here, but I wanted to leave you with a bit of YouTube type demo they do in France. Where they pull down whole buildings by collapsing one floor first. Once initiated, the weight of the floors above act upon each floor all the way to the ground. I don't know if you have seen this one before. Worth a look...

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by 4hero

Originally posted by fleabit
Right.. because a building on fire near the bottom is exactly the same as an incredibly tall building being slammed into by a jumbo jet and then bursting into flames.

It's kind of funny how much of an authority people are on huge jets slamming into buildings, especially as it has never happened before like that.

We've been over this already, the towers were designed to withstand a plane crash, just like the Empire State did.
Also, I'm doubtful planes were even used.

Some info for the Dr. on Fireproofing, I found it quite revealing...

www.structuremag.org...

lets see:

b25:
max takeoff weight: 35,000 lb (15,910 kg)
max speed: 272 mph (237 kn, 438 km/h) at 13,000 ft (3,960 m)

757:
max takeoff weight: 255,000 lb (115,680 kg) to 272,500 lb (123,600 kg)
cruise speed: Mach 0.80 (530 mph, 458 knots, 850 km/h at cruise altitude of 35,000 ft or 10.66 km)

nah no difference in impact energy whatsoever.

Yes the B25 is much lighter, and slower, I'm not disputing that at all. But the damage to the ESB was minimal considering, and you'd naturally expect a bigger hole/damage for the 757.

However, the WTC towers were newer, and stronger in design, and were built to withstand a commercial jet. They withstood the 1993 bomb and did not collapse.

The 'planes' also hit the least vulnerable part of the towers.

My belief is the tv footage was faked and no planes were used, so I could just say no planes anyway, but I'll play along the best I can.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Ilyich

 

Thank you for the replies... its getting late here, but I wanted to leave you with a bit of YouTube type demo they do in France. Where they pull down whole buildings by collapsing one floor first. Once initiated, the weight of the floors above act upon each floor all the way to the ground. I don't know if you have seen this one before. Worth a look...

Nice footage.

Although difficult to compare to the WTC collapses becuase they we much taller, and the collapse did not start in the middle like this video.

This is quite interesting...

reply to post by 4hero

Although difficult to compare to the WTC collapses becuase they we much taller, and the collapse did not start in the middle like this video.

The weight of these building "tops" were actually far less than WTC tops I think. By how much I don't know. But consider the square acre of each floor in WTC times 15 floors at the top. Plus, once the floor begins to fall it gains mass relative to its "still" weight. After falling 12 feet its weight is many times the force necessary to collapse the next floor, the next, and so on.


Here we can see the building under construction. The cement floors are hung from the core and the outer exoskeleton (by hangers) like a trampoline is supported all around. Each floor is "hung" that way. This is a simple design that compromised materials time and money, to be as cheap and high as possible. As each floors supports broke, the outside girder structure was pushed outwards to fall along with the rest of the structure. The remaining elevator and stairwell core fell last if you remember seeing the videos of that.

Originally posted by 4hero


Yes the B25 is much lighter, and slower, I'm not disputing that at all. But the damage to the ESB was minimal considering, and you'd naturally expect a bigger hole/damage for the 757.

However, the WTC towers were newer, and stronger in design, and were built to withstand a commercial jet. They withstood the 1993 bomb and did not collapse.

The 'planes' also hit the least vulnerable part of the towers.

My belief is the tv footage was faked and no planes were used, so I could just say no planes anyway, but I'll play along the best I can.

during design of the WTC what speed did they expect the 707 commercial jet to impact the wtc to be able to withstand it? max speed or near landing speeds?

i can understand when people say no planes were used in the pentagon, but to not have planes at the WTC??

Originally posted by intrptr

The weight of these building "tops" were actually far less than WTC tops I think. By how much I don't know. But consider the square acre of each floor in WTC times 15 floors at the top. Plus, once the floor begins to fall it gains mass relative to its "still" weight. After falling 12 feet its weight is many times the force necessary to collapse the next floor, the next, and so on.

Here we can see the building under construction. The cement floors are hung from the core and the outer exoskeleton (by hangers) like a trampoline is supported all around. Each floor is "hung" that way. This is a simple design that compromised materials time and money, to be as cheap and high as possible. As each floors supports broke, the outside girder structure was pushed outwards to fall along with the rest of the structure. The remaining elevator and stairwell core fell last if you remember seeing the videos of that.

Yes I'm fully aware of how the building was constructed, and the way you have described it, it's any wonder it stood at all!

I am also aware of pancake collapse theory, but you fail to include some important information.

Firstly the 2 buildings cannot be compared, both are different shapes/construction, and both collapsed in a different manner.

If we were to follow your theory here, what in your opinon caused the initial collapse? It would take key beams failing simultaneously on each floor for a pancake to occur, and for it to continue collapsing. Due to the resistance from the 100 floors below I find it very hard to believe that the top 15 floors gathered enough momentum on their own to down the building so fast.

Also, if you notice how the concrete was ejected outwards with such force, can you explain how a pancake collapes could generate such outward energy?

How come the central core beams were also pulverised?

Unfotunately physics does not allow the pancake theory to be upheld.

reply to post by 4hero


Like he said. His people thought the buildings could be structurally compromised given the intensity of strike, fires and height of flames. The gas fed, wind fed, furniture fed, steady heat worked on the floors of impact, slowly increasing internal temperatures until an hour later, when just one floors blasted remains gave way. Then gravity did the rest, straight down, all the way to the ground. Just like you, me, and a million people standing in the city saw it happen.

Yah, it was planned beforehand, brilliantly. Exploiting strengths and weaknesses all along the line. Who thought a box cutter would cut its way into control of the worlds biggest aircraft filled with 10,000 gallons of fuel, and be piloted by crazy people smack into the biggest most vulnerable buildings in the world? I never would have dreamed somebody would attempt such a thing and it prove so successful. Awesome crazy energy, man.

Originally posted by choos

during design of the WTC what speed did they expect the 707 commercial jet to impact the wtc to be able to withstand it? max speed or near landing speeds?

i can understand when people say no planes were used in the pentagon, but to not have planes at the WTC??

This I cannot answer, but one would expect they considered it's max crusing speed, which is very similar to a 757's max cruising speed. I doubt they would have used take-off/landing speed to base their design on.

If they can have no planes at the pentagon then no planes at the WTC is equally feasible. If you watch september clues (all videos), and extra info on the cluesinfo forum, you might come to the same conclusion. I could write an essay on that question, but it's way easier if you go and check it out for yourself and see what you make of it.

reply to post by 4hero


Watch the French demo video again. There are moments in there that look exactly like 911.
Puffs of smoke blow our as each floor gives way under the weight of all the floors above. And nothing can fall faster than gravity. Free fall is free fall. Notice the french video when after the collapse the pile of pulverized concrete around the base. Look at the walls exploding out and falling in pieces to the ground. Watch it over and over and notice the parallels. Except for fire.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by 4hero

 

Watch the French demo video again. There are moments in there that look exactly like 911.
Puffs of smoke blow our as each floor gives way under the weight of all the floors above. And nothing can fall faster than gravity. Free fall is free fall. Notice the french video when after the collapse the pile of pulverized concrete around the base. Look at the walls exploding out and falling in pieces to the ground. Watch it over and over and notice the parallels. Except for fire.

Dude, you're trying to compare 2 different buildings! Your building did not have 100 floors below it, and was probably completely cleared internally prior to the demolition.

You also forget the building in your video was rigged with carefully placed explosives, so that all resistance was removed. The WTC towers, which were supposed to be able to withstand a plane crash, were supposedly felled by a plane crash/fires, that did not burn hot enough to melt steel.

So it's no wonder the building in your video collapsed like that, and if anything, showing that video shows that the WTC buildings must have also been rigged one way or another, to collapse with minimal resistance at a similar speed to your video, which was a deliberate controlled explosion.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by 4hero

 

Watch the French demo video again. There are moments in there that look exactly like 911.

And moments that do not, such as the top section undergoing deceleration when it impacts the lower section and does work failing structural components.

reply to post by JibbyJedi


this residential building caught fire due to negligence, there weren't any planes that flew into it. the fire have been put out and the residence in that building is now homeless. this happen last week

Just so that you know, some of the buildings in other Emirates does not follow proper guidelines for Occupational Safety. this fire is the 3rd major fire in the past few months..the other 2 gutted another residential building and a warehouse.

reply to post by 4hero

during design of the WTC what speed did they expect the 707 commercial jet to impact the wtc to be able to withstand it? max speed or near landing speeds?

I think he's right. 737 I think, off course, in the fog, wanders over city and... pow. Would be flying slower and low on fuel. But fuel and sustained fire wasn't factored (especially 10,000 gallons, 767 and 500 mph). More like...

POW

.

reply to post by 4hero

Okay, last one for tonight. It's 1:30 AM here.

You also forget the building in your video was rigged with carefully placed explosives, so that all resistance was removed.

Look at the title... "Explosiveless Demolition Compilation". At the end they show the tractors pulling the cables. Thanks for your time all. I hope we meet again on another thread.