This is what happens when something made of light metal hits a solid wall (in the Pentagon's case, limestone reinforced with steel) at high speed. Were people expecting a plane shaped hole in the Pentagon like in cartoons?
Unseen 9/11 footage shows WTC Building 7 consumed by fire
- Thread starter Arnie
- Start date
This is what happens when something made of light metal hits a solid wall (in the Pentagon's case, limestone reinforced with steel) at high speed. Were people expecting a plane shaped hole in the Pentagon like in cartoons?
saved? The steel half totally collapsed. It was just made in two halls. Concrete reinforced and steel with load bearing outer wall. The steel half Totaly collapsed.
I think you will find that the Madrid tower only had Passive fire protection. No sprinklers.
It was due for a upgrade to a sprinkler system but the fire got there first
Where did you get that from? The crane at the top of the tower was still intact(so says wiki)after the fire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TorreWindsor1.JPG
Cman, have you ever read John Twelve Hawks "The Traveller" trilogy? I bet you'll love it. It's all about how a powerful cabal of bad people are trapping us all in a virtual prison, even themselves. It'll be your favourite book series EVER!
The one thing I don't understand about the CT opinions, is that why would the government bother to wire up towers, have so many potential whistleblowers in on the operation, when all they had to do was sit back and let a terror cell go through with their plans?
Makes a lot more sense to me.
Personally I'm off split minds about the whole thing, but overall I'm still saddened it happened. Irrevocably changed the world, and it's certainly not for the better.
Makes a lot more sense to me.
Personally I'm off split minds about the whole thing, but overall I'm still saddened it happened. Irrevocably changed the world, and it's certainly not for the better.
It was only a partial collapse though, its not like all the unprotected steelwork collapsed, the tower could actually have been repaired like the empire state building was after the bomber except Madrid was ruled uneconomical to repair and demolished.
It kinda proves the point about the WTC and the asbestos though doesn't it, the unprotected steel part collapsed whereas the protected steel part did not.
They put everyone who knew about it on the planes and in the towers.
WTC7 was damaged by burning debris and caught fire. The combination of flames and structural damage resulted in collapse.
Which is what they did.
It should, because that's how they were designed to collapse.
Why? A controlled demolition starts at the bottom, not near the top. If it was a controlled demolition, we should have seen explosions at ground level and the lower floors pulling down the higher floors as they collapsed. Instead we saw the exact reverse: higher floors collapsing onto lower floors and pushing them down.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 6,606
- Location
- Sydney Australia
Nevermind... enjoy your circular arguments...
Last edited:
The crane is a structural member? It is also standing on the reinforced structural core.
The entire structural floors collapse above the 2nd technical floor., all of it.
But then again it is you. Did you have enough several years ago.
It collapsed
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...Study/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm
It wasn't just fire protection it was also reinforced concrete with reinforced concrete floors - what are described as technical floors.
Read the link I gave you earlier
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...Study/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm
And not it was beyond repair it had to be demolished, it couldn't be rebuilt.
Last edited:
Thanks I will
dim
What new facts do you think there are your entire first edited posted is pointless.
And again you keep ignoring fence sitters, or people randomly reading this thread. What do you think they would decide if points went unanswered, maybe that the CT had a point.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 6,606
- Location
- Sydney Australia
Thanks I will
dim
What new facts do you think there are your entire first edited posted is pointless.
And again you keep ignoring fence sitters, or people randomly reading this thread. What do you think they would decide if points went unanswered, maybe that the CT had a point.
Nah mate, I just don't see the point of fleshing it out. And thanks for getting insulting, I have thus far avoided making personal attacks. Regarding fence sitters, I'm curious to what end convincing them either way is supposed to have?
After the partial collapse the building could have been repaired however it would have been completely financially uneconomical so it was demolished. But the building your talking about though isn't a steel framed skyscraper, its steel reinforced concrete, the damage caused to the steel parts cannot be compared to the WTC (although it frequently is) because the steel sections surrounding the concrete core of the Windsor which collapsed were by design much much much weaker than the steel frame of a steel framed skyscraper.
The reason the twin towers collapsed due to fire (after surviving the impacts of jet airliners) is because the fire was above the asbestos fire protection, the reason WTC 7 collapsed is because its fire suppression had been destroyed by the collapse of the twin towers. No conspiracy was involved it was just a tragic series of events that began during the WTC construction (when the decision was made to continue without a replacement for the asbestos fire protection).
NB:
The towers were designed to be hit by a fully fuelled 707 doing 600mph and survive, sadly they were not built to the design. No conspiracy, just a tragic series of events beginning in the 70's when the EPA put health and safety before common sense.
Last edited:
Actually it isn't huge amount difference.
Yes it had a reinforced concrete centre. But the metal floors also had metal load bearing outer wall.
How could it be rebuilt?
It want just money, it would have had to been pulled down and rebuilt. You couldn't just rebuild the collapsed section. The damage was far more extensive than just that.
Nice copy and paste from the CT site. Now have you looked into the construction And other differences,i expect not, so here's a starting point from a debunking site.
http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/topten/mandarin-oriental/
Some pretty important differences, wouldn't you say.
Yes it had a reinforced concrete centre. But the metal floors also had metal load bearing outer wall.
How could it be rebuilt?
It want just money, it would have had to been pulled down and rebuilt. You couldn't just rebuild the collapsed section. The damage was far more extensive than just that.
Nice copy and paste from the CT site. Now have you looked into the construction And other differences,i expect not, so here's a starting point from a debunking site.
http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/topten/mandarin-oriental/
Some pretty important differences, wouldn't you say.
Last edited:
By de-constructing it until the unrepairable parts were gone, then reconstructing/repairing it.
That quote just backs up what I said though, other steel framed skyscrapers have survived worse fires than the towers, because they had better fire protection and the fires were fought better.
The structure was to badly damaged removing the damaged parts would have resulted in a mound of rubble.
You seem to be missing the point. It's not just fire protection, all though plays a massive part. It is the design and more importantly the use of concrete. It isn't as simple as fire protection.
All though I get the feeling we're arguing roughly the same thing.
Only very slightly off topic but is there an explanation of this photo showing what appears to be supporting columns that have been cut in some way?
I've seen it used on many sites claiming that 911 was an inside job and on the surface it does seem to provide strong evidence that at least one of the buildings didn't collapse by plane impacts and fire alone. The photo clearly seems to show a large beam at ground zero that has been cut causing molten metal to form on both the inside and outside of the beam, possible explanations I can think of include...
1. This is a fake photo
2. The photo is real but the beam was cut only as part of the clean up operation after 911
3. The photo is real but natural forces during the collapse somehow cleanly sheered the beam and produced temperatures hot enough to melt the steel
4. The photo is real but was not taken at ground zero i.e. completely unrelated to 911
5. The photo is real and shows clear evidence that something else occurred that aided the buildings collapse
I've seen it used on many sites claiming that 911 was an inside job and on the surface it does seem to provide strong evidence that at least one of the buildings didn't collapse by plane impacts and fire alone. The photo clearly seems to show a large beam at ground zero that has been cut causing molten metal to form on both the inside and outside of the beam, possible explanations I can think of include...
1. This is a fake photo
2. The photo is real but the beam was cut only as part of the clean up operation after 911
3. The photo is real but natural forces during the collapse somehow cleanly sheered the beam and produced temperatures hot enough to melt the steel
4. The photo is real but was not taken at ground zero i.e. completely unrelated to 911
5. The photo is real and shows clear evidence that something else occurred that aided the buildings collapse