40-storey skyscraper fire does not line up with new understanding of physics

[Drett]

Apparently a 40 storey skyscraper in Chechnya burnt for hours. The surprising thing is it did not free fall into its own footprint. It counters the new understanding of physics since September 11, 2001, that limited fire damage can cause buildings to implode at almost free fall speed into their own footprints

Chechnya skyscraper on fire - video | World news | guardian.co.uk

 

[Tintin]

Very interesting. The only explanation I can see is that God's hands stayed the building to keep it upright.

 

[Drett]

Very interesting. The only explanation I can see is that God's hands stayed the building to keep it upright.

Interesting you should say that. Some are saying it is God's will that it burnt. So God took Gods hand away.

 

[zone]

Apparently a 40 storey skyscraper in Chechnya burnt for hours. The surprising thing is it did not free fall into its own footprint. It counters the new understanding of physics since September 11, 2001, that limited fire damage can cause buildings to implode at almost free fall speed into their own footprints

Chechnya skyscraper on fire - video | World news | guardian.co.uk

tsk....you sound like a conspiracy theorist drett

now i go back to playing with my my barbie gymnast toy.

 

[Drett]

I really hate the term conspiracy theorist. It lumps people who are not sheep and critically look at what is happening in the world with people who believe that various dead people are still alive.

 

[zone]

I really hate the term conspiracy theorist. It lumps people who are not sheep and critically look at what is happening in the world with people who believe that various dead people are still alive.

i don't like the term either.
the buzzwords are built-in to the trauma-based m.c. process.
its genius, really. the way it works.
it's okay.
over the years we've been able to develop our own shorthand.
keeps it simple, i reckon.

 

[Drett]

There was a sky scraper in Beijing in 2009 that also broke the new laws of physics.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

apples and oranges...

buildings with different architectures are going to burn differently...in fact buildings after 9/11 have been specifically designed to be more structurally resistant to large scale fires...

also different materials burn at different temperatures which will affect the structure of a building differently... the materials burning in the world trade center included jet fuel which burns at around 900 degrees celsius... the olympus tower fire was mainly insulation...foam insulation burns at 360 degrees celsius while cellulose insulation burns at only about 230 degrees celsius...which is the same temperature as a 75 watt light bulb...

finally the position of the fire will affect the structure of a building differently...the olympus tower fire mainly just burned up exterior insulation...the interior of the building and its structure was barely affected...

this is like using a kitchen fire to deny that fire destroyed the hindenburg...but this is pretty much representative of the extremely low quality of the 'evidence' presented by 9/11 deniers...

 

[Drett]

apples and oranges...

buildings with different architectures are going to burn differently...in fact buildings after 9/11 have been specifically designed to be more structurally resistant to large scale fires...

also different materials burn at different temperatures which will affect the structure of a building differently... the materials burning in the world trade center included jet fuel which burns at around 900 degrees celsius... the olympus tower fire was mainly insulation...foam insulation burns at 360 degrees celsius while cellulose insulation burns at only about 230 degrees celsius...which is the same temperature as a 75 watt light bulb...

finally the position of the fire will affect the structure of a building differently...the olympus tower fire mainly just burned up exterior insulation...the interior of the building and its structure was barely affected...

this is like using a kitchen fire to deny that fire destroyed the hindenburg...but this is pretty much representative of the extremely low quality of the 'evidence' presented by 9/11 deniers...

Looking at history there has been only three steel frame buildings that collapsed. The third building had no jet hit it.

Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country… Most of the other buildings in the [area] stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire... ‘Fire and the structural damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’, Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett said. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)

There is some still unanswered questions.The building stood for more than an hour and a half. Videos of the north tower's collapse appear to show that its television antenna began to drop a fraction of a second before the rest of the building. The observations suggest that the building's steel core somehow gave way first… (Glanz and Lipton, 2002; emphasis added)

But how? What caused the 47 enormous steel core columns of this building (which supported the antenna) to give way nearly simultaneously? That mystery was raised by the FEMA report (FEMA, 2002, chapter 2) and the New York Times (Glanz and Lipton, 2002) yet not solved in any official report (FEMA, 2002; Commission, 2004; NIST, 2005). The odd behavior was not even mentioned in the final NIST report (NIST, 2005).
In this paper I question the

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Looking at history there has been only three steel frame buildings that collapsed. The third building had no jet hit it.

Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country… Most of the other buildings in the [area] stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire... ‘Fire and the structural damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’, Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett said. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)

There is some still unanswered questions.The building stood for more than an hour and a half. Videos of the north tower's collapse appear to show that its television antenna began to drop a fraction of a second before the rest of the building. The observations suggest that the building's steel core somehow gave way first… (Glanz and Lipton, 2002; emphasis added)

But how? What caused the 47 enormous steel core columns of this building (which supported the antenna) to give way nearly simultaneously? That mystery was raised by the FEMA report (FEMA, 2002, chapter 2) and the New York Times (Glanz and Lipton, 2002) yet not solved in any official report (FEMA, 2002; Commission, 2004; NIST, 2005). The odd behavior was not even mentioned in the final NIST report (NIST, 2005).
In this paper I question the

actually other steel frame buildings have collapsed due to fire...for example the mccormick center in chicago...

and about 'partly evaporated' steel in the debris pile...steel has a boiling point of around 3,000 degrees celsius...that is hotter even than the burning temperature of thermite...do you think they used a nuclear bomb to bring down the building or something?

more likely whoever thought they saw 'partly evaporated steel' just didn't know what they were talking about...

but then this whole 9/11 conspiracy theory depends on people not knowing what they are talking about...

 

[Drett]

actually other steel frame buildings have collapsed due to fire...for example the mccormick center in chicago...

and about 'partly evaporated' steel in the debris pile...steel has a boiling point of around 3,000 degrees celsius...that is hotter even than the burning temperature of thermite...do you think they used a nuclear bomb to bring down the building or something?

more likely whoever thought they saw 'partly evaporated steel' just didn't know what they were talking about...

but then this whole 9/11 conspiracy theory depends on people not knowing what they are talking about...

Well done. I will need to do more work on this. I feel it did not fall naturally but I have not done the proper research yet to determine this.

 

[jimmydiggs]

They should have consulted Prof. Benith.

 

[zone]

this is like using a kitchen fire to deny that fire destroyed the hindenburg...but this is pretty much representative of the extremely low quality of the 'evidence' presented by 9/11 deniers...

how embarrassing. really.

according to my estimate, you're approx. 2-3 years behind in your investigation.
that's if you stay at it round the clock and check every fact.

and it might take longer since you're digging in the wrong pile for your info.

how anyone doesn't know where to start looking is beyond me.

Cui bono?


who is 'denying' 9-11? that's a neat twist.

LOL....it happened.

the question is WHO DID IT?

a-a-a-anyways...you'll figure it out...sooner or later. maybe.

.........

"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed."

John F. Kennedy
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel
April 27, 1961



JFK - such a conspiracy nut.
what a kook.
he got himself shot for nothing.
he got his brother shot too.

what? STAND DOWN? why?

it's my JOB to protect the President!


(possible scenario - 'oh! because cave-dwelling box-cutter madmen have given the order - OKAY I GET IT!')

........

i don't even bother discussing or arguing 9-11 in detail any more with the real deniers - people who have the most incredible ability (willingness) to deny reality and history, no matter how much evidence they are given.

they have learned to not trust their own eyes.

they live right in it daily - and react exactly as they were programmed to do.
even when they set out to 'discover the truth', they pick up the bread crumbs laid down for them.
its fascinating to see it happen.

hmm...i wonder if should find out WHO had their offices in Building 7.
which was not struck by anything.

3 TOWERS CAME DOWN...not TWO.
*cough*

why is math so hard?

 

[Drett]

how embarrassing. really.

according to my estimate, you're approx. 2-3 years behind in your investigation.
that's if you stay at it round the clock and check every fact.

and it might take longer since you're digging in the wrong pile for your info.

how anyone doesn't know where to start looking is beyond me.

Cui bono?


who is 'denying' 9-11? that's a neat twist.

LOL....it happened.

the question is WHO DID IT?

a-a-a-anyways...you'll figure it out...sooner or later. maybe.

.........

"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed."

John F. Kennedy
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel
April 27, 1961



JFK - such a conspiracy nut.
what a kook.
he got himself shot for nothing.
he got his brother shot too.

what? STAND DOWN? why?

it's my JOB to protect the President!


(possible scenario - 'oh! because cave-dwelling box-cutter madmen have given the order - OKAY I GET IT!')

........

i don't even bother discussing or arguing 9-11 in detail any more with the real deniers - people who have the most incredible ability (willingness) to deny reality and history, no matter how much evidence they are given.

they have learned to not trust their own eyes.

they live right in it daily - and react exactly as they were programmed to do.
even when they set out to 'discover the truth', they pick up the bread crumbs laid down for them.
its fascinating to see it happen.

hmm...i wonder if should find out WHO had their offices in Building 7.
which was not struck by anything.

3 TOWERS CAME DOWN...not TWO.
*cough*

why is math so hard?

For me it seems obvious but I got a slack and was not ready for the spin. Any suggestions on which pile I should start digging ?

 

[zone]

For me it seems obvious but I got a slack and was not ready for the spin. Any suggestions on which pile I should start digging ?

Cui bono?
who benefits.
LOL...

motive, means, opportunity.
makes it pretty simple.

i reckon we could find out if Kennedy was killed by muslim terrorists.
if not, he meant some other monolithic and ruthless conspiracy.



"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed."

John F. Kennedy
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel
April 27, 1961

 

[zone]

For me it seems obvious but I got a slack and was not ready for the spin. Any suggestions on which pile I should start digging ?

heya drett....a fun and easy method for checking out these characters is to find one (for example) who has been a playah in every administration; in every major scandal from each administration....and just toggle around seeing who his friends are.

and wouldnt ya know you end up with a short list of the usual suspects - the stuff that doesnt seem connected is always connected.

like:

Scooter Libby

Scooter Libby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - click

you know...bits like: Legal career, his former Professor etc.
at times one wonders how you can get guys to keep committing crimes.
just looking at something like his novel *cough*: The Apprentice,
blackmail and just plain like-mindedness and appetites seems pretty obvious.
(these guys always seem to come from Yale)

course Eli Yale made a haul in opium smuggling for the British East India Company.
he-e-e-e-y: the British East India Company

but back to 9-11...when GW tries to put Kissinger in charge of the truth commission, well.
ya know. how believable is that.
but theres your toggle switch again.
Kissinger.

 

[Drett]

Cui bono?
who benefits.
LOL...

motive, means, opportunity.
makes it pretty simple.

i reckon we could find out if Kennedy was killed by muslim terrorists.
if not, he meant some other monolithic and ruthless conspiracy.



"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed."

John F. Kennedy
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel
April 27, 1961

Hi Zone

My understanding of Kennedy is he did not go ahead with operation Northwoods to fake a terrorist attack on the US to give the green light to attack Cuba and he paid for that with his life.

All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." - David Rockefeller

 

[zone]

Hi Zone

My understanding of Kennedy is he did not go ahead with operation Northwoods to fake a terrorist attack on the US to give the green light to attack Cuba and he paid for that with his life.

All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." - David Rockefeller

Ya...made it easier since they we're catholics....he was also threatening to say no to Israel....plus going after Meyer llansky not good for your health

 

[Donkeyfish07]

There's thousands of PHD level scholars that are on board with the "Fire couldn't have done it reasoning". I've never seen a physicist say otherwise

 

[PeteWaldo]

apples and oranges...

buildings with different architectures are going to burn differently...in fact buildings after 9/11 have been specifically designed to be more structurally resistant to large scale fires...

also different materials burn at different temperatures which will affect the structure of a building differently... the materials burning in the world trade center included jet fuel which burns at around 900 degrees celsius... the olympus tower fire was mainly insulation...foam insulation burns at 360 degrees celsius while cellulose insulation burns at only about 230 degrees celsius...which is the same temperature as a 75 watt light bulb...

finally the position of the fire will affect the structure of a building differently...the olympus tower fire mainly just burned up exterior insulation...the interior of the building and its structure was barely affected...

this is like using a kitchen fire to deny that fire destroyed the hindenburg...but this is pretty much representative of the extremely low quality of the 'evidence' presented by 9/11 deniers...

Indeed. The architect explained it within a day or two. Maybe even the same day. I've forgotten exactly when now.
There were 4-5/8" bolts holding the ends of each floor support beam. Those bolts were designed to hold those beams in sheer. The fire didn't get hot enough to melt the beams, but it did get hot enough to cause the beams to deflect a little. Once the beams began to deflect, the 5/8" bolts were no longer in sheer but in tension. Since they weren't designed for a tension load with that weight they failed. The weight of the first floor to fail, falling down on the next one, was more weight than that floor was designed to bear, and so on. As the floors pancaked onto the next floor down there would naturally be a little self-aligning as they did so. It would have been difficult for and exoskeletal building like that to have done other than fall in a vertical column.
It was a closely engineered building. I don't get what's so hard to understand.