Russian Skyscraper Fire vs. 9/11

[#1 Klaus fan]

You have to believe that when the floors came down the floor supports (and the floors) were so strong they pulled the whole core down also (every column did not even directly support a floor). So you have to believe the building was very strong but also very weak at the same time.

I have never really seen or paid attention to what kind of supports the floors had but the material thickness of a core column was about an inch halfway up the building.

Sorry I was wrong. This may have been the typical smaller core column at halfway point:

[CT_Muscle]

No worries, the FBI found one of the Terrorist passports on the streets of new york right before the towers fell


The Magical Passport found its way out of the terrorists pocket, out of the plane before it exploded in the plane and towers

Wasn't this guy on a terrorist watch list? Why the FUCK would he use his real passport.....BULLSHIT

[Pray_4_War]

I have a question for those dipshits skeptics that think the CIA or the .gov were the ones that made the towers collapse.  Are you contending that there were no Islamic hijackers?

Also, if you do accept that hijackers hit the WTC with planes, why would the .gov need the buildings to collapse in order to get support for their "war on terror"?  Even if they didn't collapse, wouldn't the planes hitting the WTC and the pentagon be enough?  I don't see the added benefit (for lack of a better word) in purposely making the buildings collapse.

I can understand people that are curious about the buildings collapsing the way they did.  It was odd.  What I don't get is those people that deny the mountain of evidence showing the hijacked planes hit the WTC, Pentagon and Pennsylvania.  Some people belive that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon.  It's pretty obvious what happened on 9/11.

Are the .gov, the airlines, the victims, the victims families and the terrorists all in this together?  All those people are keeping their mouths shut about the "truth"?  Doubtfull. 

[GigantorX]

I'm a Structural Engineer.

Throughout history, no steel building constructed after 1900 has ever collapsed due to a fire, ever; not even shitty ones built in 3rd world countries.  Not even when they tried to do it intentionally back in the early 1900's to test theories.  The twin towers were designed to take multiple plane impacts without the structural integrity being compromised.  In fact, the Structural Engineer who designed the buildings said they could withstand three 747 jets hitting them at the same time.

Go figure.



 Overload just crushed the correct ^

Interesting.

[quadzilla456]

Also, if you do accept that hijackers hit the WTC with planes, why would the .gov need the buildings to collapse in order to get support for their "war on terror"?  Even if they didn't collapse, wouldn't the planes hitting the WTC and the pentagon be enough?  I don't see the added benefit (for lack of a better word) in purposely making the buildings collapse.

Always follow the money trail. Silverstein made quite a profit after just buying the complex through insurance payouts:

Before:
Six months before the 9/11 attacks the World Trade Center was "privatized" by being leased to a private sector developer. The lease was purchased by the Silverstein Group for $3.2 billion. "This is a dream come true," Larry Silverstein said. "We will be in control of a prized asset, and we will seek to develop its potential, raising it to new heights."

After:
A federal jury on Monday ruled that the assault on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center was in fact two occurrences for insurance purposes. The finding in U.S. District Court in Manhattan means leaseholder Larry Silverstein may collect up to $4.6 billion, according to reports.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein.html

If the complex was only partially destroyed they would have had to restore it. But with everything collapsing it was very convenient for Mr. Silverstein and his fake tribe.

[Radical Plato]

It's obvious that the twin towers didn't come down due to a comparatively small fire or the planes hitting them, not to mention Building 7 which had no plane hit it.  The simple fact is, some people don't like to imagine that maybe their Government isn't quite what they think it is, that they might be up too no good, they may even in fact be borderline evil.  Some people's mind will literally be blown if they start to accept that things maybe aren't quite right, there whole world-view will be shattered into a thousand tiny pieces.   How anyone could buy the official story and not even think that it is suspicious for 3 large buildings all to collapse in an identical way due to fire when historically, there isn't a single precedent.

[Radical Plato]

It would be hard to watch this professional presentation, supported by highly qualified professionals and not come away at the very least sceptical and suspicious.  I don't imagine those who buy the official line would ever watch such a documentary.  It is produced by "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth)" which is an American non-profit organization of architects, engineers, and demolition experts who dispute the results of official investigations into the September 11 attacks, including the 9/11 Commission Report. It supports the conspiracy theory that the World Trade Center was destroyed by explosive demolition.

[Ropo]

This building burned far longer and was completely engulfed. Why didn't it collapse/turn to dust?

Only element missing is jet fuel.

Are you really so dumb? Only elements missing are the plane hitting to the building, 40 tons of kerosene etc. and still you are missing the point completely. This house wasn't on fire as a house. Instead of that, only the plastic insulation of the facade of the building was on fire. So it is just stupid to compare this to WTC towers.

Second point you are missing is this: The idiots with the foil hats has claim that WTC towers were demolished by the explosives. While all explosives in this world are made of chemical compounds, and all chemicals react to heat, how you can make completely heat resistant explosives out of them?

In the documents from the WTC we see that collapse starts exactly from the area hit by the plane. That simply means that explosives have to be in that area. How the hell, while first of all you has to know where plane hits, what damages it does, how to hide tons of explosives from flames and heat for an hour.

In real world there isn't any explosives which doesn't react to heat, so it is completely impossible scenario. You don't believe it? Answer these simple questions: Where is all signs of the explosions? Where is the shock wave? Where is the burst of light? Where is the sound made by tons of explosives going off? Why even the windows of the building doesn't break, when collapse begins? There was 56 massive core colums made of steel, and cutting those with explosives doesn't even break windows? Even idiots like you shoud understand that it is impossible.

[Radical Plato]

Are you really so dumb? Only elements missing are the plane hitting to the building, 40 tons of kerosene etc. and still you are missing the point completely. This house wasn't on fire as a house. Instead of that, only the plastic insulation of the facade of the building was on fire. So it is just stupid to compare this to WTC towers.

Second point you are missing is this: The idiots with the foil hats has claim that WTC towers were demolished by the explosives. While all explosives in this world are made of chemical compounds, and all chemicals react to heat, how you can make completely heat resistant explosives out of them?

In the documents from the WTC we see that collapse starts exactly from the area hit by the plane. That simply means that explosives have to be in that area. How the hell, while first of all you has to know where plane hits, what damages it does, how to hide tons of explosives from flames and heat for an hour.

In real world there isn't any explosives which doesn't react to heat, so it is completely impossible scenario. You don't believe it? Answer these simple questions: Where is all signs of the explosions? Where is the shock wave? Where is the burst of light? Where is the sound made by tons of explosives going off? Why even the windows of the building doesn't break, when collapse begins? There was 56 massive core colums made of steel, and cutting those with explosives doesn't even break windows? Even idiots like you shoud understand that it is impossible.

What are you talking about, plane hitting buildings is irrelevant, WTC7 collapsed identically to the twin towers and never experienced a plane hitting it.

[Nails]

What are you talking about, plane hitting buildings is irrelevant, WTC7 collapsed identically to the twin towers and never experienced a plane hitting it.

And not a word mentioned about it in the 9/11 commission report

[Radical Plato]

These are some of the things that make me sceptical about it all, not a complete list, but just a few of the things of the top of my head.

• The building fell through the path of greatest resistance at near free fall speed
  
  
• Pools of molten iron found in the debris of the buildings were evidence of the existence of thermite.
  
  
  • Researchers found unignited nano-thermite in the dust produced by the collapse of the World Trade Centre
    
    
  • Many of the eyewitness accounts that recounted many explosions were ignored by the official investigation.
    
    
    • Academic professionals like Steven E. Jones who support 9/11 conspiracy theories have been fired from their jobs.  Effectively silencing academics who disagree with the official line.
      
      
    • And no modern high rise has ever collapsed from fire, before or since 9/11

[tommywishbone]

What about the support beans destroyed when the planes hit?

Oh no no no.  A 200 ton jet, going 500 mph wouldn't cause any damage. That's just silly. Just last Tuesday a 200 ton jet going 500 miles per hour ran into me and it just knocked me over. I got back up.

[jwb]

I have a question for those dipshits skeptics that think the CIA or the .gov were the ones that made the towers collapse.  Are you contending that there were no Islamic hijackers?

Also, if you do accept that hijackers hit the WTC with planes, why would the .gov need the buildings to collapse in order to get support for their "war on terror"?  Even if they didn't collapse, wouldn't the planes hitting the WTC and the pentagon be enough?  I don't see the added benefit (for lack of a better word) in purposely making the buildings collapse.

I can understand people that are curious about the buildings collapsing the way they did.  It was odd.  What I don't get is those people that deny the mountain of evidence showing the hijacked planes hit the WTC, Pentagon and Pennsylvania.  Some people belive that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon.  It's pretty obvious what happened on 9/11.

Are the .gov, the airlines, the victims, the victims families and the terrorists all in this together?  All those people are keeping their mouths shut about the "truth"?  Doubtfull. 

holy shit I have been saying that for years!

Bin laden didn't even think about the towers coming down he only wanted to hit them.

[Radical Plato]

Oh no no no.  A 200 ton jet, going 500 mph wouldn't cause any damage. That's just silly. Just last Tuesday a 200 ton jet going 500 miles per hour ran into me and it just knocked me over. I got back up.

It's not the first time a building has been hit by a plane.  The Empire State Building has been hit by a plane before.  And the WTC had  massive interconnected steel columns in the cores of the buildings, The core of the building, which carried primarily gravity loads, was made up of a mixture of massive box columns made from three-story long plates, and heavy rolled wide-flange shapes.

[Nails]

The fire was so intense that it burned steel, yet the entire time the building stood, every floor above the flame had people hanging by the window, the fire melted steel not not flesh or bones



Like this woman chillin in building where the plane hit

[zodiac]

just watch Loose change 9/11

[tommywishbone]

It's not the first time a building has been hit by a plane.  The Empire State Building has been hit by a plane before.  And the WTC had  massive interconnected steel columns in the cores of the buildings, The core of the building, which carried primarily gravity loads, was made up of a mixture of massive box columns made from three-story long plates, and heavy rolled wide-flange shapes.

That was a 15 ton, B-25 flying around 150 mph, carrying almost no fuel.  It was looking for it's landing strip in New Jersey and was at the end of a long flight. I don't think that is remotely close to a 200 ton jetliner, filled to the top with fuel and going 500 mph.

Yes, I looked up those silly weights and numbers.

[jwb]

That was a 15 ton, B-25 flying around 150 mph, carrying almost no fuel.  It was looking for it's landing strip in New Jersey and was at the end of a long flight. I don't think that is remotely close to a 200 ton jetliner, filled to the top with fuel and going 500 mph.

Yes, I looked up those silly weights and numbers.

it warms me inside that Tommy WB isn't a delusionite.

[skillz]

Smart enough to bring down the towers, but not smart enough to plant weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Hmmmmmm

[arce1988]

The simple fact is, some people don't like to imagine that maybe their Government isn't quite what they think it is, that they might be up too no good, they may even in fact be borderline evil. 



Check Mate

[Ropo]

What are you talking about, plane hitting buildings is irrelevant, WTC7 collapsed identically to the twin towers and never experienced a plane hitting it.

And that is complete bullshit. WTC 7 came down because WTC 1 collapsed on it and make serious damages in it's structure, and setting it on fire. It burn hours before collapsing, and when it finally goes down, foil hat idiots has to lie their ass of to make it look unusual. Was there something odd about the collapse? Use your own eyes:

Original video

Foil hat idiot version with a loads of bullshit. In their version collapsing starts from the still picture, which hasn't even a clue about the penthouse which was collapsing with the front side of the building. In their video you see only the back and the side walls going down, and you don't even wonder why you can see  sky behind the upper floor windows. You see it because the roof has been collapsed already.

[jwb]

And that is complete bullshit. WTC 7 came down because WTC 1 collapsed on it and make serious damages in it's structure, and setting it on fire. It burn hours before collapsing, and when it finally goes down, foil hat idiots has to lie their ass of to make it look unusual. Was there something odd about the collapse? Use your own eyes:

Original video

Foil hat idiot version with a loads of bullshit. In their version collapsing starts from the still picture, which hasn't even a clue about the penthouse which was collapsing with the front side of the building. In their video you see only the back and the side walls going down, and you don't even wonder why you can see  sky behind the upper floor windows. You see it because the roof has been collapsed already.

That original video clearly shows parts of the building collapsing on the other side well before the rear facade falls. Nice find.

[Mrdibbs]

The wtc 7 collapse is just hilarious to watch. The idea of a burning building collapsing like that hahaha.

[Ropo]

These are some of the things that make me sceptical about it all, not a complete list, but just a few of the things of the top of my head.

• The building fell through the path of greatest resistance at near free fall speed
  
  
• Pools of molten iron found in the debris of the buildings were evidence of the existence of thermite.
  
  
  • Researchers found unignited nano-thermite in the dust produced by the collapse of the World Trade Centre
    
    
  • Many of the eyewitness accounts that recounted many explosions were ignored by the official investigation.
    
    
    • Academic professionals like Steven E. Jones who support 9/11 conspiracy theories have been fired from their jobs.  Effectively silencing academics who disagree with the official line.
      
      
    • And no modern high rise has ever collapsed from fire, before or since 9/11

And where is the evidence for any of those claims? There is no such thing. Building collapsed in the direction of the largest force at the moment, gravity, because there isn't any force which could change that direction. No pools of molten iron, no nano thermite, but signs of iron and aluminium oxide which means only corrosion. Many eye witnesses has seen aliens and ufos, they beleve gods and leprechauns, but how about this: THERE WASN'T ANY SIGNS OF ANY KIND OF EXPLOSION AT THE RUINS.. Not even one column or beam which has been cut by the explosion. In whole 9/11 episode there isn't any sign of any explosion, which means there isn't any shockwaves, not sounds of explosion, nothing which would even look like an explosion. Please point out even one burst of pressure, which has speed at least of mach1? There isnt' such thing, but in the real life even this ridiculous nano-thermite shit detonates with the speed of more than 1000 meters per second. How that would look like in the enviroment like that, with all that smoke and dust? Furthermore, thermite and nano thermite is powder, which becomes the super hot liquid when it is ignited. It ignites by heat, so how it works in the building which is on fire? How you can cut massive columns by the liquid, which burns it way only to the direction of gravity?  Where is all the smoke and light from that over 3000°C temperature of the thermite? It would glow brighter than sun. Don't forget that there was need for hundred of tons of that shit..

[Ropo]

It's obvious that the twin towers didn't come down due to a comparatively small fire or the planes hitting them, not to mention Building 7 which had no plane hit it.  The simple fact is, some people don't like to imagine that maybe their Government isn't quite what they think it is, that they might be up too no good, they may even in fact be borderline evil.  Some people's mind will literally be blown if they start to accept that things maybe aren't quite right, there whole world-view will be shattered into a thousand tiny pieces.   How anyone could buy the official story and not even think that it is suspicious for 3 large buildings all to collapse in an identical way due to fire when historically, there isn't a single precedent.

Small fires? There was 4000 square meters in each floor, and on each square meters there was 420 megajoules of fire load. There were 7 floors totally on fire, so do your math. 7 x 4000 x 420 000 000 joules = what. Small fire? You crazy bastard haven't seen anything as big as that in your life..

All your claims are based on lies of the foil hat idiots, and there isn't any evidence to prove any of them. If there would be something, you surely would point it out, would you?