How did the World Trade Center collapse?

@parados,

parados wrote:

When has a steel building ever been allowed to burn for hours without fighting the fire?

When you can find me one of those, then we can talk about the next requirements.

Ok,here you go:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

1 Reply

@Amigo,

All of those were fought by fire fighters.

Do you have one that wasn't battled by fire fighters?

You can't even seem to meet a simple requirement here.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

All of those were fought by fire fighters.

Do you have one that wasn't battled by fire fighters?

You can't even seem to meet a simple requirement here.

fire fighters weren't fighting the fires in the WTC buildings?

If so, Is there some theory out there claiming the WTC buildings collapsed the way they did because of the absence of a traditional fire fight?

And finding that type of example is not a simple requirement. But I will look into it.

1 Reply

@Amigo,

Quote:

fire fighters weren't fighting the fires in the WTC buildings?

You didn't know that? And you want us to do some research?

Quote:

If so,

If so? There is no IF about it.

Quote:

Is there some theory out there claiming the WTC buildings collapsed the way they did because of the absence of a traditional fire fight?

Theory? WTF? Who needs a theory? It's a fact. There was no firefighting that occurred in the towers. No water, No firemen with hoses. How can you NOT know that. If you want to claim no building ever collapsed then we have to find a building with similar circumstances.

1. You have found NONE that had no firefighting. That makes the towers unique in that sense.

Now.. the next simple question.. Find me one building that has ever had a plane crashed into it. Or in the case of Tower 7, a building that had 2 large buildings come down next to it.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

When has a steel building ever been allowed to burn for hours without fighting the fire?

It matters not whether the fires were fought on other buildings, Parados, it only matters that fires raged in some steel buildings for much much longer, much much hotter and there was no catastrophic failure, ever.

Why were there three in the same day when at least two of the buildings were specifically designed to survive exactly the thing that happened, a strike from a 707 airliner?

1 Reply

@Amigo,

Amigo wrote:

kickycan wrote:

Amigo wrote:

STEEL BUILDINGS DON'T COLLAPSE SYMMETRICALLY AT A FREEFALL SPEED BECAUSE THEIR ON FIRE YOU FUCKEN RETARDS!!! IT WOULD BE THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY

BECAUSE IT'S IMPOSSIBLE

Bullshit.

What'ya got?

How does a steel building collapse symmetrically at close to freefall speed because it's on fire?

And when has it happened before?

I don't know how it happens, I'm not a damn physicist or an expert on how buildings are supposed to fall. It happen on 9/11/2001 though. Aren't you paying attention? And just because you haven't seen something before doesn't mean it can't happen. And it certainly doesn't mean that some insidious plot has taken place and our own government has killed 3,000 people just to have a good excuse to take over Iraq. Just my two cents.

2 Replies

@kickycan,

And here I always thought that you were capable of much more than 2 cents worth, Kicky.

The things that puzzle about these events don't have to culminate in "the government did it".

0 Replies

@kickycan,

kickycan wrote:

Amigo wrote:

kickycan wrote:

Amigo wrote:

STEEL BUILDINGS DON'T COLLAPSE SYMMETRICALLY AT A FREEFALL SPEED BECAUSE THEIR ON FIRE YOU FUCKEN RETARDS!!! IT WOULD BE THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY

BECAUSE IT'S IMPOSSIBLE

Bullshit.

What'ya got?

How does a steel building collapse symmetrically at close to freefall speed because it's on fire?

And when has it happened before?

I don't know how it happens, I'm not a damn physicist or an expert on how buildings are supposed to fall. It happen on 9/11/2001 though. Aren't you paying attention? And just because you haven't seen something before doesn't mean it can't happen. And it certainly doesn't mean that some insidious plot has taken place and our own government has killed 3,000 people just to have a good excuse to take over Iraq. Just my two cents.

I agree with all this? It just makes sense to me that if a plane flew into a building and caused it to collapse it would collapse in a less orderly fashion but when you say "Hey why did it fall like that?" Nobody has a good answer except "your a conspiracy nut." But thats just how people are I guess. I don't really care anymore.

and I'm very proud to be in the minority.

2 Replies

@Amigo,

Quote:

But thats just how people are I guess. I don't really care anymore.

Ya gotta care, Amigo. People just shouldn't be this intellectually lazy.

1 Reply

@JTT,

We'll it's to late to care innit, ya'll in Iraq already.

America stubs it's toe, Iraq gets raped... meanwhile in sports...

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

It matters not whether the fires were fought on other buildings, Parados, it only matters that fires raged in some steel buildings for much much longer, much much hotter and there was no catastrophic failure, ever.

I see.. it matters not if you compare apples to oranges as long as you reach your conclusion. Never mind that the facts don't support your conclusion. And never mind that you accuse all the engineers that have spent decades studying the way buildings collapse disagree with you. You prefer to claim they know nothing and we should rely on your BS.

Quote:

Why were there three in the same day when at least two of the buildings were specifically designed to survive exactly the thing that happened, a strike from a 707 airliner?

Ah.. now you are introducing the airliner and ignoring the fire.
You haven't even found a single building that had a fire rage for hours without it being fought like the 3 buildings that collapsed. But now you want to ignore the fire and pretend that the airplane was the only thing involved. By the way a 707 is smaller than the planes that did hit the towers and they didn't expect the 707 to be full of fuel in their calculations.

But....
1. 2 of the buildings were hit by planes.
2. the fires were then allowed to burn without anyone fighting them.
3. the 2 buildings collapsed because of BOTH of the above

1. WTC 7 was damaged by the towers collapsing
2. WTC 7 then burned for HOURS without anyone fighting it.

Now if you don't want to be intellectually lazy, you will address ALL my points and not ignore some of the facts of the case. But we all know which way you will swing on this, don't we? You will ignore one or the other of the 2 main issues that caused the collapse.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

I see.. it matters not if you compare apples to oranges as long as you reach your conclusion. Never mind that the facts don't support your conclusion. And never mind that you accuse all the engineers that have spent decades studying the way buildings collapse disagree with you. You prefer to claim they know nothing and we should rely on your BS.

Have you noticed, Parados, that you just spout generics without any detail? What conclusion have I drawn? None whatsoever. But you, like most other people are scared shitless to look at the anomalies.

Why did WTCs 1 & 2 collapse? Present the argument of "all the engineers". "all the engineers" are pretty much in agreement; no steel structure subjected to fire had ever or has ever collapsed, save for WTCs1,2 & 7.

Quote:

1. In October 2004 in Caracas, Venezuela, a fire in a 56-story office tower burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors. Two floors collapsed, but the underlying floors did not, and the building remained standing. See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/18/world/main649824.shtml

2. Also in February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4263667.stm

3. In February 2005 there was another "towering inferno" in Taiwan. The fire burned for about an hour and a half, but the building never came close to collapsing. See http://www.itv.com/news/world_404914.html [This page has been removed.]

4. In February 1991 a fire gutted eight floors of the 38-story One Meridian Plaza building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The fire burned for 18 hours. The building did not collapse. See http://www.sgh.com/expertise/hazardsconsulting/meridian/meridian.htm

5. In May 1988 a fire at the Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles destroyed four floors and damaged a fifth floor of the modern 62-story building. The fire burned for four hours. The building did not collapse. See http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/interstatebank.html

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

Have you noticed, Parados, that you just spout generics without any detail?

LOL.... I guess you missed the part where I posted the link to the engineering study of why the buildings collapsed.

Quote:

Why did WTCs 1 & 2 collapse? Present the argument of "all the engineers". "all the engineers" are pretty much in agreement; no steel structure subjected to fire had ever or has ever collapsed, save for WTCs1,2 & 7.

ROFLMAO.. None has collapsed? Perhaps you should start by researching the McCormick fire in Chicago.
http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/ETD/Available/etd-050406-105306/unrestricted/rnacewicz.pdf
Starts on page 41 including graphs of how the steel strength was affected by the fire.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/docs/mccormick_fire.jpg

But again, your list compares apples and oranges. Your list of buildings with fires, includes NO buildings that were first hit by an airplane before the fire.

Bait and switch JTT... you first talk about the planes and ignore the fires, then you talk about the fires and ignore the planes. You are a one trick pony that is too simplistic to even see your errors.

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

ROFLMAO.. None has collapsed? Perhaps you should start by researching the McCormick fire in Chicago.

Wow, that was some tall building, Parados. Was it one storey or two?

Quote:

The 1960 exposition hall was destroyed in a spectacular 1967 fire, despite being thought fireproof by virtue of its steel and concrete construction. At the time of the fire, the building contained highly flammable exhibits, several hydrants were shut off, and the sprinklers proved inadequate suppression. Thus the fire spread quickly and destructively,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCormick_Place

Speaking of apples and oranges, your favorite trick, why don't you have a look at something that is a bit more comparable, like the links I gave.

1 Reply

Or this one, Parados.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070209160404/www.elmundo.es/documentos/2005/02/windsor/index.html

Click on "entrar" and follow along by clicking on "siguente."

1 Reply

@Amigo,

Amigo wrote:

It just makes sense to me that if a plane flew into a building and caused it to collapse it would collapse in a less orderly fashion but when you say "Hey why did it fall like that?" Nobody has a good answer except "your a conspiracy nut."

"How did it fall like that?"

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/eagar-0112.html

Isn't that a good answer?

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

Wow, that was some tall building, Parados. Was it one storey or two?

Unable to so some simple research JTT?

Hell, look at the cars in the front of the photo. Check out the doors under the awning. McCormick center was not a 10' tall building, nor was it a 20' tall building.

By the way if you bothered to check out my link. I am curious what you know about how the modus of elasticity of steel changes when it is heated.

2 Replies

@JTT,

And what size plane hit that building?

1 Reply

@kickycan,

kickycan wrote:

Amigo wrote:
It just makes sense to me that if a plane flew into a building and caused it to collapse it would collapse in a less orderly fashion but when you say "Hey why did it fall like that?" Nobody has a good answer except "your a conspiracy nut."

"How did it fall like that?"

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/eagar-0112.html

Isn't that a good answer?

You know whats funny about these 911 threads? It's always one guy trying to get the other guy to read some link to volumes of science **** we don't want to read ourselves. Your grazy if you think I'm going to read all that ****.

Did you read? Just tell me the good parts.

0 Replies

I started in 2005. You guys take the torch.

http://able2know.org/topic/60150-1#post-1584301

0 Replies

How did the World Trade Center collapse?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know