Dubai tower fire contrast w WTC collapse?

[Rock]

Dubai tower engulfed in flames just like WTC buildings which collapsed in own footprint. But Dubai tower still standing. Is it due to higher burning temp of jet fuel vs. items contained in hotel/condo building? Thoughts?

[Winston]

Dubai tower engulfed in flames just like WTC buildings which collapsed in own footprint. But Dubai tower still standing. Is it due to higher burning temp of jet fuel vs. items contained in hotel/condo building? Thoughts?

Neither.

1. The WTC was brought down by controlled demolition, and so was building 7 which wasnt even hit by a plane. Even Dan Rather and Peter Jennings said so on the day of 9/11, but were told not to say it again the next day.

2. Jet fuel doesnt matter. Normal fires burn at about 1000 F. It requires 2700 F to melt steel. But even if the fires in WTC reached 2700 F, still, the WTC towers cannot collapse in 11 seconds at free fall speed, because each tower has 500,000 tons of RESISTANCE underneath them. That resistance has to be removed first, such as with controlled demolition. Buildings dont have zero resistance, thats why the roof over you in your house doesnt come down on you. The foundation has to be destroyed first.

3. Skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire. Several years ago, there was a skyscraper in Shanghai on fire for many hours yet never collapsed. So the Dubai example is nothing new.

4. If fire could destroy a skyscraper then demolition companies would be out of business. It takes months for them to rig a skyscraper to be demolitioned. Not a few hours with a simple fire.

5. Buildings on fire break down gradually and unevenly. Not fast down in its own footprint.

Make sense?

[droid]

2. Jet fuel doesnt matter. Normal fires burn at about 1000 F. It requires 2700 F to melt steel. But even if the fires in WTC reached 2700 F, still, the WTC towers cannot collapse in 11 seconds at free fall speed, because each tower has 500,000 tons of RESISTANCE underneath them. That resistance has to be removed first, such as with controlled demolition. Buildings dont have zero resistance, thats why the roof over you in your house doesnt come down on you. The foundation has to be destroyed first.

Steel doesn't need to melt and become liquid for a building to collapse. Strength is substantially lost way before that with increased temperature:

http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tables/ ... fects.html



Since the structural safety factor for buildings is normally 2.0, you would think it makes sense that a 1100F (600C) fire can result in failure of an already compromised structure

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_of_safety

Also, the downward momentum of the huge falling mass makes it pretty much unstoppable. Even Controlled demolition relies on explosives being on selected locations only, so whether the collapse points were created by airplanes or explosives is irrelevant for the purposes of the quoted argument.

No expert on the whole subject, but where are the proofs of any team setting up and hiding all the fancy explosives and then having the planes hit exactly where the explosives were installed, without setting them off immediately?

[Winston]

2. Jet fuel doesnt matter. Normal fires burn at about 1000 F. It requires 2700 F to melt steel. But even if the fires in WTC reached 2700 F, still, the WTC towers cannot collapse in 11 seconds at free fall speed, because each tower has 500,000 tons of RESISTANCE underneath them. That resistance has to be removed first, such as with controlled demolition. Buildings dont have zero resistance, thats why the roof over you in your house doesnt come down on you. The foundation has to be destroyed first.

Steel doesn't need to melt and become liquid for a building to collapse. Strength is substantially lost way before that with increased temperature:

http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tables/ ... fects.html



Since the structural safety factor for buildings is normally 2.0, you would think it makes sense that a 1100F (600C) fire can result in failure of an already compromised structure

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_of_safety

Also, the downward momentum of the huge falling mass makes it pretty much unstoppable. Even Controlled demolition relies on explosives being on selected locations only, so whether the collapse points were created by airplanes or explosives is irrelevant for the purposes of the quoted argument.

No expert on the whole subject, but where are the proofs of any team setting up and hiding all the fancy explosives and then having the planes hit exactly where the explosives were installed, without setting them off immediately?

No you are missing the point. Doesn't matter if the steel melted or weakened. The WTC had about 110 floors. Damaging a few floors at the TOP of the building isn't going to destroy 100 floors below them at the rate of FREE FALL speed. Each tower collapsed in 11 or 12 seconds. That's near the rate of free fall. The bottom line is that you CANNOT remove 500,000 tons of RESISTANCE as though it were thin air. There is NO WAY around this. It's basic common sense.

Why do you think no high rise structure has ever complete collapsed from fire before? None. Zero. You have zero evidence that it's possible for a skyscraper to collapse from fire.

What downward momentum? Remember the North Tower was hit by the first place near the very TOP of it. Watch the video of the first plane to hit and you will see this. There's NO WAY the top floor is gonna plunder the 110 floors below it at the rate of free fall speed, turning 500,000 tons of resistance into thin air! NO WAY. 100 PERCENT IMPOSSIBLE.

Even if there was a pancake collapse, with each floor progressively adding weight toward a downward momentum, that kind of collapse would still be a lot slower and less complete, resulting in only a partial collapse. There is no way around this. A pancake collapse absolutely could not achieve the kind of collapse that happened. That was well established back in 2006. You seem way outdated on this issue. It's like you are dishing out ideas that people were back in 2001 and have learned nothing since then nor kept up with any 9/11 research since 2001. Shame on you.

As to the proof of people planting explosives, well geez, are you a little kid? Do you think the people who planted the explosives would leave proof of that for someone like you to find? LOLOLOL ROFTL!!!!!!! You're joking right? That's a really dumb expectation.

But to answer your question:

1. A WTC employee named Scott Forbes claimed that there was a 36 hour power down in the WTC the week prior to 9/11. During that time, explosives or thermite or whatever devices could have been planted in the WTC.

2. George Bush's brother, Marvin Bush, was in charge of security of the WTC. He could easily remove that security to allow bombs or thermite to be planted.

3. Thermite residue was found in the WTC dust back in 2006. There are several scientific papers published about this. We discussed this many years ago. It's old news. Where were you? Google "Steven Jones" or "Niels Harritt". This is hard evidence that explosive material was used to blow up the WTC.

4. Many people heard the sound of bombs from the WTC on 9/11. There are many hours of video footage of witnesses reporting this. Even Peter Jennings of ABC and Dan Rather of CBS said that bombs or explosives must have been used. You can watch the footage of them saying that online. We've all seen it thousands of times.

5. William Rodriguez, a janitor of the WTC, said that he felt an explosion from the basement of the WTC push UPWARD from underground, when he was on the ground floor. He has given this testimony many times.

6. There is video footage taken on a tripod which shows that about 12 seconds before the WTC collapse, the ground shook under the tripod, which means that something was detonated UNDERGROUND just before the WTC collapse. This corroborates the testimony of William Rodriguez. You can see this video on YouTube. I've posted it before.

Every researcher knew all this stuff back in 2006. It's been posted many times in many threads in this forum. It's old news. Where have you been since 2001? Geez. How can you not be aware of all this?! What kind of truth seeker are you?!

[Winston]

Here are two cameras from two different angles mounted on a tripod, that show that a small earthquake occurred 12 seconds before the collapse of the WTC tower, which caused visible shaking from the ground and is clearly visible from this footage. This clearly means that a bomb or explosive must have went off under the tower, about 12 seconds before it collapsed. This is obvious proof of controlled demolition, using either known explosives, or high grade military explosives/thermite unknown to the public.





The tower and the shaking are zoomed in here.

[Winston]

Droid,
Some simple examples for you to comprehend:

1. If you were gonna make a simple dinner table in the kitchen collapse at free fall speed, would burning the top of it partially do it? No of course not. A table can survive a partial burn on top. You'd have to destroy all four legs of the table simultaneously to have it collapse at free fall speed.

2. Turn on the gas stove. Will the flame from the gas stove cause the kitchen range to collapse at free fall speed? Of course not. You'd have to destroy the foundation of the range first to do that.

3. When you use a barbecue grill, will the flame from the coals cause the grill to collapse at free fall speed? Of course not. Duh.

Peter Jennings of ABC News even said on live television after the collapse of the WTC that, "Anyone who's watched a building being demolished knows that you have to get at the UNDER-infrastructure of a building to bring it down."

And Dan Rather of CBS News said after the collapse of Building 7, "For the third time today, we watch a building come down using well placed dynamite to knock it down."

Video clips of them saying that are shown in every 9/11 documentary.

[Adama]

Dubai tower engulfed in flames just like WTC buildings which collapsed in own footprint. But Dubai tower still standing. Is it due to higher burning temp of jet fuel vs. items contained in hotel/condo building? Thoughts?

Neither.

1. The WTC was brought down by controlled demolition, and so was building 7 which wasnt even hit by a plane. Even Dan Rather and Peter Jennings said so on the day of 9/11, but were told not to say it again the next day.

2. Jet fuel doesnt matter. Normal fires burn at about 1000 F. It requires 2700 F to melt steel. But even if the fires in WTC reached 2700 F, still, the WTC towers cannot collapse in 11 seconds at free fall speed, because each tower has 500,000 tons of RESISTANCE underneath them. That resistance has to be removed first, such as with controlled demolition. Buildings dont have zero resistance, thats why the roof over you in your house doesnt come down on you. The foundation has to be destroyed first.

3. Skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire. Several years ago, there was a skyscraper in Shanghai on fire for many hours yet never collapsed. So the Dubai example is nothing new.

4. If fire could destroy a skyscraper then demolition companies would be out of business. It takes months for them to rig a skyscraper to be demolitioned. Not a few hours with a simple fire.

5. Buildings on fire break down gradually and unevenly. Not fast down in its own footprint.

Make sense?

There's no point to discussing this with dogs and swine. You can present the truth to dogs and to swine all day, everyday. They will not believe it. They will hate you for telling them the truth. Then they will turn again and attack you, for telling them. Sleepers cannot be awoken with truth or understanding. They hate those things. Pleasant lies are sweet to their ears. They do not care about truth. Basically trying to convince such people is a waste of time. They will never accept that the government is run by evil people who work for Satan. They prefer to believe that this actually was terrorism, despite all the mountain of evidence to the contrary. Waking up is a terrible prospect which many individuals do not want to experience. Not everyone wants to accept that they have been lied to by their loved ones (the system and the authorities) about everything there is everyday they've been alive. These people would deserve compassion, if they were not dogs and swine. Since they are dogs and swine, and they prove it relentlessly each time you tell them the truth, the best thing is to let them eat their own dung and wallow in the mud, where dogs and pigs belong.

[IraqVet2003]

Dubai tower engulfed in flames just like WTC buildings which collapsed in own footprint. But Dubai tower still standing. Is it due to higher burning temp of jet fuel vs. items contained in hotel/condo building? Thoughts?

Neither.

1. The WTC was brought down by controlled demolition, and so was building 7 which wasnt even hit by a plane. Even Dan Rather and Peter Jennings said so on the day of 9/11, but were told not to say it again the next day.

2. Jet fuel doesnt matter. Normal fires burn at about 1000 F. It requires 2700 F to melt steel. But even if the fires in WTC reached 2700 F, still, the WTC towers cannot collapse in 11 seconds at free fall speed, because each tower has 500,000 tons of RESISTANCE underneath them. That resistance has to be removed first, such as with controlled demolition. Buildings dont have zero resistance, thats why the roof over you in your house doesnt come down on you. The foundation has to be destroyed first.

3. Skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire. Several years ago, there was a skyscraper in Shanghai on fire for many hours yet never collapsed. So the Dubai example is nothing new.

4. If fire could destroy a skyscraper then demolition companies would be out of business. It takes months for them to rig a skyscraper to be demolitioned. Not a few hours with a simple fire.

5. Buildings on fire break down gradually and unevenly. Not fast down in its own footprint.

Make sense?

Hey Winston, it's your friend Iraqvet here once again. I have seen the recent story about the Dubai tower New Year's Eve fire. It is interesting that the entire building didn't collapse due to a fire!!! However, I do believe the Twin Towers (WTC) did collapse (similar to demolition work done in Las Vegas to make way for a new casino) due to EXPLOSIVES and THERMITE along with BLDG. #7 (which was NOT hit by a plane)!!! Both the FALSE FLAG ATTACKS on the WTC and the Pentagon was nothing more than the modern day "Reichtag Fire" or "Operation Northwoods" to bring about a "NEW PEARL HARBOUR" style action (which had been proposed by PNAC in the document "Rebuilding America's Defenses back in 2000) as a pretext to fighting a so-called "Global War On Terror" (GWOT) and invade the Islamic and resource rich countries of Afghanistan and Iraq. Also, Winston I think you and my fellow H.A.ers may have recalled back on July 28, 1945 on a foggy day a B-25 bomber CRASHED INTO THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING IN NEW YORK CITY but yet the whole structure didn't collapse. Here are some interesting links:

1945 AIRPLANE CRASHES INTO THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CodLDGhTe0K

PLANE CRASHES INTO EMPIRE STATE BUILDING-JUL 28, 1945
http://www.history.com/this.../plane-cr ... e-building

EMPIRE STATE B-25-9/11 MYTHS
http://www.9/11myths.com>Home>WTC (Other)