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

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by JAY1980

 

All buildings are designed to withstand aircraft impacts... The WTC was built to handle multiple impacts.

Nowhere was WTC claimed to be able to withstand multiple impacts. NOWHERE

Frank A. DeMartini - Manager, WTC Construction & Project Management is on record stating the WTC towers were designed to have fully loaded 707s crash into them. He goes on to say that he believes the towers could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners.



"...It really does nothing to the screen netting."

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by JibbyJedi

 

or to destabilize the 70+ floors below that was designed to hold all that weight plus a lot more.

No they weren't.
The floors below used the same trusses as the top floor.
If the weight on floor 100 exceeded the capacity of the trusses they would fail and the combined weight would fall to the 99th floor. The 99th would then fail. And so on.

edit on 30-4-2012 by samkent because: (no reason given)

Using your own logic, WTC 1,2, &7 should have collapsed instantly after they had damage to them.

reply to post by godfather420

Our government doesn't care if we are chewing this subject to death. They might not of been directly involved but sure as he*% stood by knowing other plans were out there and had all the potential to hit other targets which they did - there was a lot of smoke and mirrors that were arranged for the sick carousel ride we are all on.

As for Mr. Silver(whatever) he sure did make the statement of "pulling" but again, he doesn't care if we heard him. He just screwed up and everyone will move on. It was amazing - just amazing - how fast he got his insurance money. It was like it was prearranged.

I am 66 years of age and can honestly tell you I cannot remember, nor can I find, any history of a building falling down because of fire. Granted there was jet fuel involved - but expert engineers say it is physically impossible for this jet fuel to do what the government claims the jet fuel did - even with the weight of the jets and the upper floor damage it was impossible according to the engineers that investigated it on their own. And of course one of the terrorist passport makes it through the building / through the fire / through the jet itself and lands on the street LOL.

I do not want to even bring up the building falling down - not one / not two / but three huge buildings. And of course one of them just happened to be a government key building with millions records stored. LOL And we have to eat this crap? Oh - the nano-thermite? nah - government says it wasn't used - even after it was proven it was in the dust. Explosions? nah - even recorded on TV - never happened LOL - eyewitnesses of the explosions - nah they were all nuts and had hearing problems. Some of them don't have to worry about their hearing anymore, or anything else for that matter.

Lets not forget the group (most of you know this story ) of foreign men taking a video of the jets coming in for the hit and cheering at the damage. They were also driving a van with a picture of the WTC being hit by planes painted on the side of the van. I mean WTF - how could anyone justify letting them go back home??????? That deal has stink all over it. You cannot make this stuff up. There are so many issues that point to outside control and black op work it makes your head spin - but like always time just keeps erasing the issues. After a generation it is all just another blah blah blah thing and the people who care are replaced by the people who think it is just a interesting subject to debate. Then it just fades into the sunset.

reply to post by Dukesy


Well said Dukesy, well said.


Cheers for your insight and wisdom.

Gotta love the official story and how it stands up to nothing but movie science.

I especially love the towers incinerating into dust part, and the part where the fire got UNDER the building, which had, for some unknown reason..not been impacted by the falling building and many areas were intact.

It is amazing that all the massive structure coming down did not smash into the basements and wreck the bathtubs the buildings were built in.

Incredible how long it takes to put out a fire too !!!

Must have been alot of tires under that building, or was it NAPALM that caused it to continue burning at hotter temps than most ANY fire for months after, while being COMPLETELY under water due to the fact that the NYFD had poured water continously on it for SIX MONTHS!!

Amazing stuff, that jet fuel, it caused more damage than anything save a nuclear blast right under the building would have caused !!

reply to post by Dukesy

It was amazing - just amazing - how fast he got his insurance money. It was like it was prearranged.

They reached a insurance settlement in 2007.
Do you call 6 years quick??

Funny what people believe without a shred of research.

reply to post by Dukesy

Lets not forget the group (most of you know this story ) of foreign men taking a video of the jets coming in for the hit and cheering at the damage. They were also driving a van with a picture of the WTC being hit by planes painted on the side of the van.

That photo was taken from a 'for sale' ad and the buildings photo shopped on to it.
Once again believing in crap you found on the web.

reply to post by Dukesy

You cannot make this stuff up.

Yes you can.

Websites have been doing it for years and making money off of it.

reply to post by Varemia


You assume incorrectly. There are still members on here like me who actually come for the information and not just to have their egos stroked repeatedly. We are few....but we are here....somewhere...........

Just another example of truthers making stuff up.

Com-on people use your critical thinking ! Of course this building will not collapse, it's not even in New York, and it's not September 11th.

What happened to WTC 7 is called a Sudden Building Collapse Syndrome (SBCS) . This phenomena is not well understood yet. A scientific study is currently being conducted by NIST and Popular Mechanics. In a preliminary report a connection was found between the SBCS and geographical location together with the month of September. But it's too early to know for sure what is causing SBCS said Popular Mechanics' Davin Coburn.

As a very wise person once said,
“I will not allow ignorance to continue”

reply to post by GrinchNoMore

Must have been alot of tires under that building, or was it NAPALM that caused it to continue burning at hotter temps than most ANY fire for months after, while being COMPLETELY under water due to the fact that the NYFD had poured water continously on it for SIX MONTHS!!

Nope no napalm just debris.

And it didn't burn for six months either.

They were extinguished on Dec 19.
Here

But don't let the truth get in the way of a good BS lie.

reply to post by samkent

Nope no napalm just debris. And it didn't burn for six months either.

You're arguing pointless details. Even a 3 month burn makes no sense if you believe the OS.

Neither does the molten steel found underground, buried. Thermite/thermate seems to be the best explanation to me. I'm open minded though, my beliefs may change when new information is introduced to me. We all should be open to new information, and not exclusively subject ourselves to "official stories" only. Most of the time they turn out to be like swiss cheese.

Simple really, you can clearly see that the fire in the Dubai Skyscraper is burning much "cooler" than the fire that was burning inside the Trade Centers. Its clear as day, cant you see??

reply to post by JAY1980


First buildings are not designed, except for a few special cases with aircraft impacts in mind

What was done at WTC was an engineer did a calculation of the lateral forces a 707 jet (then the largest and
most common jet in service) would exert on the building if it hit

Object was to see if jet airline crash would topple the building - determined that the jet would exert a force
of some 13 million foot/lbs on the building. Figured it would take a force of 17 million foot/lbs to actually topple
one of the towers. Thus towers would survive with a 40 % margin of safety

They did take the hit and survivve - what the engineers failto do was consider whole other range of effects

That impact would strip fire prrofing off the steel. That the elevators would be destroyed preventing fir fighter
from reaching the impact floors That the water supplies would be knocked off by the impact preventing
sprinklers from functioning and allowing fires to spread.

No fire fighting was done at the 3 WTC buildings which collapsed - WTC 1 & 2 firefighters were unable to reach
the fires due to destruction of elevators

At WTC 7 building was abandoned and let burn because of structural damage and lack of water to fight fires

As for this example - people seem to have problem with reading comprehension

Sharjah, April 28 (IANS/WAM) A 40-storey residential building in Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Saturday caught fire, but there were no casualties. Civil defence personnel managed to contain the fire that broke out in Nahda area around 2 a.m. No one was injured in the blaze but residents were evacuated to a nearby park. However, at least 45 cars were damaged. Firefighters battled for three hours to control the flames. Forensic investigators later began a probe to determine the cause of the fire.

Operative phrase - "Civil defense personnel managed to contain the fire that broke out" ....

Enuf said - fire was contained and extinguished,,,,,,,

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by JAY1980

 

First buildings are not designed, except for a few special cases with aircraft impacts in mind

What was done at WTC was an engineer did a calculation of the lateral forces a 707 jet (then the largest and
most common jet in service) would exert on the building if it hit

Object was to see if jet airline crash would topple the building - determined that the jet would exert a force
of some 13 million foot/lbs on the building. Figured it would take a force of 17 million foot/lbs to actually topple
one of the towers. Thus towers would survive with a 40 % margin of safety

They did take the hit and survivve - what the engineers failto do was consider whole other range of effects

That impact would strip fire prrofing off the steel. That the elevators would be destroyed preventing fir fighter
from reaching the impact floors That the water supplies would be knocked off by the impact preventing
sprinklers from functioning and allowing fires to spread.

No fire fighting was done at the 3 WTC buildings which collapsed - WTC 1 & 2 firefighters were unable to reach
the fires due to destruction of elevators

At WTC 7 building was abandoned and let burn because of structural damage and lack of water to fight fires

As for this example - people seem to have problem with reading comprehension

Sharjah, April 28 (IANS/WAM) A 40-storey residential building in Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Saturday caught fire, but there were no casualties. Civil defence personnel managed to contain the fire that broke out in Nahda area around 2 a.m. No one was injured in the blaze but residents were evacuated to a nearby park. However, at least 45 cars were damaged. Firefighters battled for three hours to control the flames. Forensic investigators later began a probe to determine the cause of the fire.

Operative phrase - "Civil defense personnel managed to contain the fire that broke out" ....

Enuf said - fire was contained and extinguished,,,,,,,

Truthers, you should listen to this man. He's a professional Firefighter/Secret Service/Aviation/Engineer Specialist.

No joke! He's awesome!

I'm sorry....what kind of airplane flew into it? Or which taller building collapsed into it? None you say? Just another bad analogy

reply to post by vipertech0596


Neither happened to WTC7.

reply to post by JibbyJedi


No THAT is a building on fire. Looks like there is a lot of toxic plastic of something because we keep seeing fire dripping down.


I was kind of worried that it WAS going to collapse -- since Dubai literally has MONEY TO BURN, and a lot of the culprits of 9/11 have their trust funds in Dubai banks -- I've always wondered if they were going to do another rigged building so they could point to it and say; "See, steel really does collapse at free fall speed."

But apparently, merely having enough people in suits tell us that everything was perfectly reasonable is enough to cover their tracks.

Still only 3 steel buildings brought down by fire in a manner that looks exactly like a controlled demolition.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
I'm sorry....what kind of airplane flew into it? Or which taller building collapsed into it? None you say? Just another bad analogy

You could fly 4 planes into it and it'll still be standing! WTC buildings weren't hit by planes, so jet fuel is not an option anymore..

Originally posted by Morg234

I'm sorry....what kind of airplane flew into it? Or which taller building collapsed into it? None you say? Just another bad analogy

reply to post by vipertech0596

 

Neither happened to WTC7.

The barriers to entry for the "perfect evidence" are mighty high. That "magic airplane" fuel would have burnt out in 15 - 30 minutes. And it certainly cannot send streams of molten steel down the stairway as the firefighters described.

I really am going to ignore the rest of this thread -- the usual Bush apologists are going to explain to me again how it was so awesome and special because of a plane -- while ignoring the plane that hit the Empire State Building -- sure it was a bit smaller, but the ESB is also more concrete and wasn't DESIGNED to be hit by airplanes -- the WTC was.