This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Europe's Tallest-To-Be Building Is Burning - Live Feed
First the Costa Concordia was a sinking example of the failing European experiment, now we may have an even better case study of the continent's burning ambitions, as the Moscow Federation Tower, designed to be the tallest building in Europe, is engulfed in flames. As RT says, "As firefighters try to put out the flames on the top floors, the danger the incomplete building might collapse is growing every minute." Watch live here until the feed is shut off.
h/t Mario
»
- 32060 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
'The floors were not strong enough to support the floor above it, let alone all the office crap and pieces of the plane that were on it. One falls onto the next, onto the next, drastically increasing the downward force. Viola, freefall speed.'
Seriously, now it's the weight of the desks, pulverized airplane bits, copy and fax machines, and pieces of paper that helped each successive floors fall on top of the next, with no deviation in angle whatsover, because of course, paper weighs a shitload. HOW FUCKING STUPID DO YOU THINK WE ARE? Do they pay you by the post for this drivel?
"HOW FUCKING STUPID DO YOU THINK WE ARE?"
Not stupid, merely having poor impulse control, and more interest in sticking to poorly argued mythology as a means to express distrust of government, rather than digging out facts that go counter to non-mainstream mythology (though just as damning to government, if not more).
You are assuming that they fell at freefall speeds. They clearly diddn't. Watch the fucking videos. You can see debris falling from the side of the building, presumably at freefall speed. You will see that the bulk of the building took ~2.5x as long to fall.
How can you live with yourself telling these lies? WATCH THE FUCKING VIDEOS and stop denying reality.
Let's forget physics, oh, you did. Check out architects and engineers for 911 truth. Their video cliearly states tha law of conservation of energy. It describes in detal that 4 floors crashing would have the energy to implode 4 floors more, that's it, so your need to do some research before making comments on something you know nothing of.
4 floors crashing has the energy to only hurt 4 floors more? HAHAHAHA. Epic fail dude. That isn't even physics. Do you understand the falling mass is additive?
Kinetic energy is proportional to mass and the square of velocity.
Impulse resistance of a static floor is a constant value.
This means that as more floors fail (adding mass) and the resistance from below is distributed evenly (less resistance per unit of mass) the velocity of the falling floors also increases.
Espescially when you consider that the outer building structure failed, meaning that the force of the falling mass was not simply that of a single floor, but that of the entire building section above on its way down.
That's great but what happened to the thousands and thousands of tons of reinforced concrete and steel in those buildings? The rubble piles should have been at least 300 feet high which of course they were not. Answer the question of how all that concrete and steel got turned into powder and the fact evidence of the Hutchison Effect was everywhere and you'll be onto something. Pancaking and/or thermite doesn't turn either into dust.
The entire WTC basin was filled with debris. They spent months removing and testing it...
The steel shell from the outer structure stood there like twisted fingers for a long time before the demo crews cut it down piece by piece.
You obviously did not see the site and the tremendous amount of labor which went into clearing it.
The tubs were what, 50, 60 feet deep? So my question still stands, by very conservative estimates that's still two big lumps of multi hundred thousand tons of steel and concrete. You're right, I never saw it first hand. However, the "fingers" of some of the exterior do not constitute the amounts of steel and concrete in those buildings, even with the tubs full. You make it seem as if those things were just hollow shells and a few hundred foot high fingers of steel would be all that would logically remain because the rest was in the tubs were full of 1300'+ buildings? That in itself is stunning and worthy of just bowing out and leaving it to you guys. I should learn to stay out of these 9/11 discussions as it's never worth it. Thanks.
It was a skewed rectangle with sides about 980 and 520 feet, and a depth of about seven stories. It was massive.
How did that tub not sustain any damage, aside from some on one wall, with a million tons of concrete and steel falling on it in less than 15 seconds a piece? Remarkable.
Debris? What Debris?
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ardoucette/wtc-5277.jpg
I'm not saying there was no debris, just a small fraction of what would constitute 2 1300'+ towers. Where is the rest/majority of the debris? Interesting vertical holes drilled through the centers of the WTC buildings too but I'm sure there's a suitable explanation that makes sense. It's obvious neither of us are going to convince the other of anything so what's the point? ;)
It has proven my point that this issue is too polarized and emotionally crystalized in our psyches one way or another that is handily being used to divide us further on a few fronts. I have no doubt this was part of the plan and it seems to be working famously also I surmise. Regards
From Sept. 14/01 allegedly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T4hWCRvUSM
I think XenoFrog was the one who placed the Thermite.
Ps.
You are like a bad rash that just won't go away.
"That's great but what happened to the thousands and thousands of tons of reinforced concrete and steel in those buildings? The rubble piles should have been at least 300 feet high which of course they were not."
Did you notice that in the weeks after 9/11, the streets of New York were covered in cocaine?
What you say? Not cocaine?
What was it then?
OH; PULVERISED CONCRETE?!
Your reputation seems pretty good around here, whatever you say and thanks.
Youre most welcome. The bill for my consulting effort will be in the mail.
Only two so far with no perception of sarcasm?
How "lucky" were they that none of the buildings fell to its side. Or are you going to tell us next that skyscrapers are by design only allowed to collapse into their footprint?
I don't need to tell you anything, physics explains how outer-structure buildings will collapse.
WTC could *NEVER* have fall over onto its side. That's simply not how gravity and static forces work.
Outer-structure buildings? What about the large number of massive central columns, shown in this pic of the North building during construction? If you can't even get basic construction facts correct, why should anyone take your comprehension of physics for granted?
How did all of the WTC buildings collapse into their own footprints, given that the heat distribution of all the fires were very non-uniform, which would lead to listing and partial collapses, rather than simultaneous failures of columns that hadn't even been touched by flames?
It's easy to invoke physics, especially when you never have to show you work, but those of us with an education in these matters know better.
Yes, notice how there are no spannign trusses or vertical supports except for the outer and inner towers.
Now, do a simple force diagram of a floor with it's COM off-center... now you no longer have vertical compression resistance from the structure, you have cantilever support from the long beams. They will immediately fail at their hinge and commence falling down... straight down.
There is no horizontal truss support. The building will not, cannot, topple. No matter where the failure begins, a shifting of the COM to that side results an immediate vertical collapse.
Couple that with the fire stressing the beams and it fell down just as you would expect such a building to fall.... no secret thermal cords or bombs required.
The problem with your argument is the central columns. The floors hang on the columns, so if all the floors pancaked, then the central columns should have been standing at the end. The only way the collapse could have happened at near free-fall speed would be if these columns were severed, and in fact there is abundant evidence of cleanly-cut columns from the 9/11 debris.
No, the cantilever force on the pivots from the horizontal beams puts *outward* strain on the central tower before the join fails. When this occurrs from all sides the central tower is torn apart.
At the same time, the outer support tower is pulled inward.... This is an elementary concept. The downward force on the suspended floor pulls outward on its central support and inward on its outer support. The result is a pancake collapse.
There is NOT evidence of cleanly cut columns... and I don't know why people think thermite results in a clean cut.
Put some thermite in your pipe and smoke it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE
Here are your clean cut columns complete with dirty slag as you would expect when 45 degree thermite cutter charges are put in place:
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=9/11+cut+columns&hl=en&safe=off&biw=1508&...
Drop the free-fall thing already. That has been debunked thoroughly.
The design of the structural system was not to accommodate what it realized that fateful day. The design of these particular structures (long span trusses from inner core to outer curtain wall) is one that would be expected to exhibit a tendancy under progressive collapse to "pull" the outer walls inward the center (catenary behavior) at first and under greater load (i.e. impact loading) simply shear the connections at the exterior and/or inner vertical load bearing members. The inner core would be effectively crushed under the increasing and accelerating mass - again, the connections being failed more readily than anything else.
If anyone noted, the towers did not collapse so perfectly when the upper portion of the towers first began to fall. What you folks dont understand is how little rotation and loss of structural integrity was needed to fail the majority of members and connections at a couple of key levels in a short amount of time, allowing the tower mass to be mobilized and fall mostly straight down rather than "crunch" and fall over like tree that has been cut and falls off the stump it was cut from. Such a "stop and fall over" behavior would require some sort of serious change in stiffness at some lower level in the tower - which is NOT how buildings are constructed folks. For the tower to be "pulled" over by the top would require more ductility and strength than was present (again, think about the connections).
Well, it's somewhat sloppy shorthand for 'it fell in a manner that without precise scientific measurement, appears remarkably similar to a controlled demolition.'
As for the claim that the cores "would be effectively crushed," my question is: by what? The floors hang off the columns. When a floor collapses, it doesn't crush the column it's mounted to. The only way what you describe could happen would be if each central column was severed with explosives as the tower collapsed, and that is in fact what looks like happened.
Interestingly, this video analysis shows that although the North building collapses at less than free fall acceleration (it was 0.64 * g during the initial stages of the collapse), the wave front that moves down the building as the collapse proceeds, does actually follow free fall.
WTC 7, on the other hand, did fall at free fall acceleration, and this has been admitted by NIST when they were confronted about it and were forced to revise the final WTC 7 report.
What is important is the connections, not the members herein. The columns sections, beams, and diagonal bracing in the core structure are all individual parts and pieces (probably all under 50 ft long). It gets ripped apart at the joints.
Also, free fall acceleration is not possible when any building is meeting resistance of additional structure below. It can accelerate to a particular velocity (who the heck knows what the max is) as mass increases due to the nature of a progressive collapse, but not terminal velocity.
WTC 7 was probably (I speculate) damaged to a degree that it was deemed unsafe - and unreliable to repair. However, I have read stories about what might have been housed (and never recovered) out of WTC 7 which does make it sound suspicious. Remember, I have never said this wasnt a conspiracy. I think it was a massive false flag event. I jumped in only to point out the fallacy of free-fall, and the plausibility of a progessive collapse that occurs in a manner that is largely downward.
Please look at the last two links I posted. It will become clear that 9/11 was a controlled demo. WTC7 fell at free-fall acceleration for almost 2 seconds before it smashed into the ground. Free-fall acceleration, by definition, means that there was no force opposing descent.
I love how my comment explaining that KE = 1/2mv^2 has so many junks.
Yeah. That about sums this thread up. Tyler should bury this one in some deep, dark hole. Embarassing.
hahaha... ok now you're just trolling... no one could possibly believe something so stupid.
I believe it is your 911 truth architects and engineers who forgot their physics. With each successive floor collapse, one of your inputs to force (mass) is increasing, thus the force is increasing. Also, part of that conserved energy is the work it took to lift those thousands of tons of steel, cement, office furnishings, etc., up a thousand feet or so against the force of gravity. That's an awful lot of potential energy. The initial dose of force (in the south tower) was gravity acting on the thirty-five or so floors above the point of aircraft impact. In the north tower (hit first, fell second) it was about twenty-five floors.
I hope those "1500 A&E experts" (sic) are only designing single story structures. Fortunately there are upwards of 85,000 architects in AIA who do not belong to AE911truth, so at least some of the buildings in the US ought to be safe.
Why don't you take a look at this video analysis from AE911 where it is clearly demonstrated that WTC7 actually fell at free-fall acceleration for two and a half seconds. This means there was effectively no understructure opposing the collapse. Physics 101.
Your ignorance is manifest -- feigned or otherwise.
Google David Chandler on youtube for an intelligent discussion of the physics.
"Google David Chandler on youtube for an intelligent discussion of the physics."
The usual cop out; "Go on this treasure hunt, I'll give you the first clue... spend your time hunting down something I PROMISE YOU is there.... PS. youre dumb"
Another of the keyboard truther brigade.
Pardon me for bumping into this bumping engineering cock-fest, but FUCK all this noise.
Whether Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Bullshit, UFO's, Slim Pickens, Rudy Giulianni or Dick Fucking Cheney toppled the towers, it's fucking DONE.
...the REAL problem is what has occured after; stripping of the rights of Americans, the fucking military industrial complex making billions off of it, and the billions more stolen/taken.....and the boneheads we have in power since.
The REAL ISSUE - now that it is done, is how good citizens can take back the country that has been hijacked.
THAT should be the discourse - not all this engineering and conspiracy shit. Jesus FUCK.
So go ahead and down arrow.....but none of this bumping cocks/I'm right you're wrong shit is going to matter.
For me, 911 is a litmus test. Because it was used as the justification for the Patriot Act and all this war on terror hoohaa, defenders of the "official story" go into the category of "not to be trusted" in my book. So threads like this that bring out the disinfo agents are useful in that regard. Arguments like the ones made by Xenofrog on this thread are effectively aphysical, if there is such a word. As in, it can't happen that way.
Also, as an engineer, I feel like I have a good understanding of the physics involved and have done a good amount of research, so I sometimes respond on threads like this because I have more to contribute compared to posts that discuss arcane financial matters. So when articles like this pop up, where the inevitable comparisons are made with 9/11 along with all the usual disinfo, I'm going to call that out.
For me, it's not noise, it's all signal.
Your litmus test is childish. You have systematized the halo effect and that will cause a feedback effect that leaves you in crazy town.
Resist the happy death spiral: http://lesswrong.com/lw/ln/resist_the_happy_death_spiral/
It is a shortcut. I don't have the time to track down what every poster here has said in different threads. But here in this one thread, I get an easily extractable list of people whose opinions and comments I will in the future be taking with a huge grain of salt.
You included.
YOU SAY "FOLLOW ME", I SAY "LEAD THE WAY" BEATLE!
Blah Blah Blah. Building 7?
Sappers have been felling walls for thousands of years by undermining them (ie digging a tunnel like that which went from 1 WTC Plaza to building 7), and then lighting a bonfire in the hole. It's not hard to imagine that those tunnels were filled with flaming debris, or simply turned into a blast furnace.
tmosley, maybe some niggers lit a giant crack pipe under the towers? yah. you may be right!
No, you don't get into freefall at all. Things do not fall through the path of maximum resistance. You're disinfo here is tiresome.
"Things do not fall through the path of maximum resistance."
You might be an engineer - but certainly not a structural engineer.
It is about the energy of the falling mass. The propensity to do straight down through the other floors IS greater than the propensity to fall over. The path of least resistance in terms of the overall mass WAS followed. This is ALSO why controlled demolitions work.
edit: disinformation from an engineer... shame. (unhappy face) . but, at the same time you are an engineer - so I give you a pass on this one! LOL.
Not structural, but I did take some structural engineering and materials courses and have some familiarity with the architecture used in these buildings. I've done enough research to convince myself that the official story is impossible, and alternative explanations better explain the observable data.
I knew on 9/11 itself when I saw the first building collapse that this was all a false flag, and as the day wore on, it became clearer and clearer. I saw this guy interviewed on the street who found one of the passports, and he had the whole Al Qaeda story down. I started laughing it was so patently ridiculous. WTC7 was the clincher. I saw the BBC "pre-collapse report" live. Three days later I wrote a post to indymedia stating my belief that 9/11 was a controlled demo, that it was mostly likely carried out by a rogue group comprised of members of various special ops, Mossad, CIA, and others, and also involvement of PNAC. I also said at the time that it would lead to massive threats to civil liberties and sadly, that has in fact what happened.
The problem with the fire model is that there isn't any evidence anywhere to justify the hypothesis that weakening from fire can bring down steel-framed skyscrapers. Plenty of counter evidence though. Take for example, One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia, a 38 story building which burned for 19 hours engulfing 8 floors. Even the Windsor Building, which burned for almost a day, did have some failures, but the picture I see of the aftermath looks much different the WTC1, 2, and 7. It used construction that was more prone to failure: steel reinforced concrete, rather than steel frame construction. Even so, it didn't collapse into its own footprint.
Then there are also a large number of other observations which are not even included in this theory of weakening followed by catastrophic collapse. e.g. large amounts of molten steel, major explosions below ground level reported by firemen, thermate residue in the ash and debris, evidence of cleanly cut columns and beams, pit temperatures exceeding the burning point of kerosene and office fires, and then there is WTC7. Even data reported in the NIST report on WTC7 failed to show thermal conditions consistent with near simultaneous failure of all the columns. Add to these anomalous facts the put options, the advance notice given to Jewish tenants in the WTC buildings, the "dancing Israelis" videotaping the collapse, the convenient destruction of the records of numerous criminal investigations, the rapid and deliberate destruction of the evidence (shipped to China)... I could go on and on for a long time, but I'll stop here.
Let's hear instead from some people who were actually there, shall we?
There is alot to think about for sure. What everyone has to remember is that buildings are not all the same. The WTC towers were very unique for thier time. And the approach to construction plays a pivotal role in the propensity to experience a progressive collapse - and how a progressive collapse might occur. Without thorough review of the structural plans for those buildings, I would not be so quick (as so many are) to conclude it's method of failure points towards conspiracy. Rather, it is the circumstances surrounding the attacks that suggest there is more than meets the eye.
As far as what I see in terms of vertical load systems, is a building with a load bearing exterior facade and inner core. The exteriof facade was severely damaged along with with numerous interior columns and floor assemblies on at least one side of the building. With enough exterior and interior columns damaged, the only way the tower remains standing is the redistibute load from the damaged components to other components around them. This behavior is near impossible to predict or plan for on such a scale. The potential load paths are simply too many and too complicated. Even modern computers struggle to accurately simulate collapse behavior.
Anyhow, fire does not have to melt steel. But, it does weaken steel if the temperature is hot enough. It also can create significant thermal forces. The thermal forces can be real killer on restrained assemblies and/or if isolated to one area, hotter in one area, etc.
Also, floor systems like these, if subjected to thermal loads and/or damaged by not completely destroyed can produce catenary effects on exterior and interior columns. That is, they can create significant internal lateral forces on elements that are designed primarily for axial load. For example, just rip apart the bottom chord of a truss and if the top chord plus metal deck has enough tension capacity (even for a short period of time), the floor will sag and the top chord of the truss will "pull" the supporting structure on each end inward with potentially huge forces (just trigonometry at play here - e.g. cable analsyis).
So, the combination of fire, potential thermal and catenary forces, increased unbraced length of compression elements, load redistribution, damage, etc. all comes to bear on the remaining structure. So many components slowly redistributing loads, yielding, breaking, etc. until finally there is no more reserve capacity - typically the connections failing. Surely the fires did not help this process - but absent the fires, those buildings may have been doomed anyhow and wind load alone was bound to do them in.
Keep in mind also that construction like this is based on assemblies of slender elements. I mentioned this above with I pointed to increased unbraced length of compression elements. Columns per se are only strong if braced laterally by floors and other horizontal or diagonal structural elements. If the floors are dropped or switch from bracing to pulling on the columns, the columns can quickly buckle/bend... and this is without even considering dynamic loading.
good summary geekgrrrl
Even if every structural beam were exploded simultaneously you wouldn't get "true" freefall.
This is funny. Have you ever seen a controlled demolition?
You do know that the structural elements of the two towers were around the outside, and that as such, they would force the floors to fall straight down, producing an inward pressing force above the level of the collapsing floors, causing the whole thing to collapse into a heap, right?
Stop being fooled by your title. It is stopping you from seeing the truth.
OK tmosely. Didn't want to do it but I'm calling you out.
Look at this picture. Do you see an array of inner columns that forms the core of the structure?
I don't know if you know how to read blueprints, but here's the drawing for the 95th floor, showing the central columns in the middle area of the floor plan.
Yet here you are, claiming "that the structural elements of the two towers were around the outside, and that as such, they would force the floors to fall straight down, producing an inward pressing force above the level of the collapsing floors, causing the whole thing to collapse into a heap.."
No. There was an array of massive columns in the core that you keep denying. Sorry dude, the pictures don't lie. Here's another resource, if you are interested in actually educating yourself.
If you actually bothered to look at the videos of WTC, you would see that the buildings didn't collapse anywhere near freefall speed. The only parts that did were parts that formed the dust cloud falling off the side. You could clearly see the bulk of the building taking much longer to (more than 2X as much time) to reach any given height compared with the freefalling crumblies coming off the side.
Fire has never collapsed a sky scraper --- except for 3 on the same day and one of those wasnt even on fire anymore.
There was a great Bloomberg news story where they traveled around looking at all the empty skyscrapers around the world. Russia's tallest building made for a nice stop.
And holy crap, its April. Does it ever warm up in Russia ? Looks cold..... brrrrr
Those buildings being very uniquely designed structures, vulnerable to the burning jet fuel that weakened the curtain walls and caused the floors to sag due to the lack of internal pylons.
Now I realize, you are with the Borg
I've got swamp land for sale, just waiting for the right suckerrrehemmm... Nice citizen to fill it in with a little dirt. For you, special price.
Jet fuel does not burn anywhere close to the temperature needed to cut through this building's support structure. Look it up.
You're an idiot.
Jet fuel, plus all of the fuels inside of a structure, are sufficient yo weaken steel to the failure point. WTC wasn't the first steel building to fail this way and it won't be the last. Plenty of steel structures have been brought down by fire alone, even without the impact of airplanes to compromise them.
Only in the closed mind of the truther is fire incapable of bringing down steel buildings... much like icebergs are incapable of sinking steel ships?
We would love links of the steel buildings that collapsed completely due to fire. We eagerly await your knowledge. Oh, and I do mean completely, not the 10-15 'Lower Floors' still standing bullshit.
Jet fuel does not burn anywhere close to the temperature needed to cut through this building's support structure. Look it up.
Nope,but a prolonged fiore,reaches temps on excess of 1250-1400*, and given enough burn time/high temps,steel girders will warp, and twist, and collapse.
Fuel burns up quick. It explodes and helps ignite other flammable materials. Airplanes burn out. The interior plastics melt and burn, the fabric and carpets burn. The steel structure remains even when the whole thing is engulfed in flames.
You don't need to "cut" or "melt" through the steel. Only heat it to the point where it bends under the weight. And you have the nerve to call me an idiot... sheesh.
And the steel never reached those temperatures according to the tests that were done on the selected pieces.
Of course it did, easily. You only need a 100-200C difference along a steel beam to create distortions and compromise the integrity. It's called thermal expansion. Try it out on a stuck pickle jar lid.
As you know, all jar lids are made of Wood's Metal and they actually melt in hot water... which is why my faucet can open jars.
What's that? You say my jar lids are *not* made from Wood's Metal? Mossad cam in and switched them.
How many times have we read about "terror cells broken, arrests made.." only to read further that it was our government that identified the weak fanatics, approached them with ideas to form a cell and offering ways to procure the materials/weapons to make their dream come true? Only to draw them into complacency before busting them all in high profile stings? If any 9/11 conspiracy makes sense, this is the one for me. Only a few winks and nods and the bust doesn't happen, and the money and passports and training commence.. Sorry to be so simplistic. I am neither an engineer, nor an economist. But if our government wanted its false flag, wouldn't it be easier to just set it up and let it happen? There you maintain plausible deniability. Those building collapsed because jets hit them. Because that was the way it was planned.
This is exactly my point. *If* you want to beleive in a conspiracy, then all you need is to accept that the government chose *not* to stop a terrorist cell they knew about.
Airplanes, fanatics, fires and physics do the rest.
This reason the conspiracy theorists have spun out of control with their nonsense is that the very foundation of their theory is patently false.
If they claim that planes and fires cannot bring down buildings they are wrong, no question about it. Every other ridiculous claim is designed to somehow redeem the flawed foundation about fires.
Thanks. I followed Xeno's posts from the start, and while I admire the tenacity and in-your-face common sense and up-voted the whole way, I wonder why we all tend to argure the physics when the premise is flawed. It's actually a real-world oberservation. As in, given the subject and the attendees of a meeting I have to attend at work, I pretty much know who I'm going to piss off.
Well this is the third time now you've tried to repeat your mantra, so I guess it's time for me to repeat mine. Can you give me a link to a building that collapsed due to fire, and no, the LOWER 10-15 FLOORS still standing in your other example won't cut it, sorry.
Can you find me another building that was hit by a fully loaded 747?
Your assertion that no structural steel building had ever collapsed due to fire has been proven wrong. You need to learn the importance of saying "oops": http://lesswrong.com/lw/i9/the_importance_of_saying_oops/
You mean like WTC7?
Which tests you won't of course be sourcing, because it's made up, or part of the viral 'truther' mythology.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+16%3A13-14&version=KJV
XenoFrog, I notice a lot about you in your responses, and in people in general, which makes it easy to determine the spirit of your offer(s). Your offer(s) determine questioning as a result, so, umm, what part of the 911 report would you direct our attention to, regarding your response(s)/offer(s) on WTC 7, that fall in line (LMAO) with the official report? Uh, there is no need to respond, lol, to this question, you have the right to remain silent. If you are compelled to show you actually ''care'' about life and the lives of people that were and are so affected, meaning everyone that knows about 911, your response to this question will (re)confirm the spirit of your offer(s) to everyone, including yourself.
Fear not XenonFrog, the leaping spirit of contempt is overcome in the end. Silence is equal with the greatest sin. Let us witness your offer leap onto the net, so the spirit within you defines the body in agreement and not out of order with the Truth, which is not a choice. Lol. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diT3FvDHMyo&ob=av2e
Charcoal does. Burning jetfuel will make quite a bit of that when it lands on carbonaceous material.
Read this sequence: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Death_Spirals_and_the_Cult_Attractor
Anyone here ever run catenary or thermal calculations on structural elements? Or the connections of structural elements (usually the weak point)? Effects of unbraced length on columns subjected to unanticpated combined loading (axial plus bending)? Etc.?
Yikes.
Like I said, there is no other way WTC could have come down.
It could have NEVER toppled over with a collapse at the opper floor.
I would think that if it was not for the robust core, the towers would have come down much sooner. They were in fact a very well-built buildings.
So since this is a website leaning to the thoughts of the financial world, what are your thoughts on the absurd and outrageous level of puts placed on the airlines and financial institutions just before the attacks occured? These finanacial transactions were through Alex Brown (the private client services division of Deutsche Bank) who was once headed up by Buzzy Krongard, the executive director of the CIA at the time of the attacks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/10_09_01_krongard.html
Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call options. Assuming that 4,000 of the options were bought by people with advance knowledge of the imminent attacks, these "insiders" would have profited by almost $5 million.
- On September 10, 4,516 put options on American Airlines were bought on the Chicago exchange, compared to only 748 calls. Again, there was no news at that point to justify this imbalance; Again, assuming that 4,000 of these options trades represent "insiders," they would represent a gain of about $4 million.
- [The levels of put options purchased above were more than six times higher than normal.]
- No similar trading in other airlines occurred on the Chicago exchange in the days immediately preceding Black Tuesday.
- Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 2,157 of its October $45 put options bought in the three trading days before Black Tuesday; this compares to an average of 27 contracts per day before September 6. Morgan Stanley's share price fell from $48.90 to $42.50 in the aftermath of the attacks. Assuming that 2,000 of these options contracts were bought based upon knowledge of the approaching attacks, their purchasers could have profited by at least $1.2 million.
- Merrill Lynch & Co., with headquarters near the Twin Towers, saw 12,215 October $45 put options bought in the four trading days before the attacks; the previous average volume in those shares had been 252 contracts per day [a 1200% increase!]. When trading resumed, Merrill's shares fell from $46.88 to $41.50; assuming that 11,000 option contracts were bought by "insiders," their profit would have been about $5.5 million.
As you say, since this is a financial website, or at least used to be, let's give it a financial answer.
American Airlines' stock price had fallen 21% from mid-July to early September 2001. On 7 Sept 2001, the firm issued a number of press releases that were quite negative. Parsing through them over the weekend, analysts who followed AMR estimated that this newly released data would triple AMR's expected loss. Monday the 10th was the first day customers of the analysts' firms would have had a chance to hedge themselves against the newly expected losses, so the put volume is quite reasonable, even a bit low considering the bad operating news.
Regarding UAL, there were other days in 2001 where put volume was more than twice what it was on 10 September. In addition, the 911 Commission found that 95% of the September put volume was by a single investor, and that investor had also BOUGHT more than a hundred thousand shares of AMR. In other words, it looks like a pairs trade of sorts, long AMR and hedged with UAL puts.
This might be appropriate..? ;)
http://tinyurl.com/7ygtcmj
Nanothermite never collapsed such buildings prior to 9/11, either. What's your point?
Russia's different.
That fire's probably one criminal gang punishing another. And one of those gangs will be the government.
Could you be more clear about the "different" part?
The private one has a better retirement plan though a worse health plan
Wonder how long it's going to take before it collapses into its own footprint.
"...As firefighters try to put out the flames on the top floors, the danger the incomplete building might collapse is growing every minute."
if it collapses, it would be the first time in history such an event occurred from fire....if it collapses, it would most likely be from explosives such as happened at wtc 1, 2, 7
"Pull it"
"Light it"
" Yes, that worker certainly does say they’re getting ready to “pull” building six. Then we have a quote from Luis Mendes, from the NYC Department of Design and Construction:
“We had to be very careful about how we demolished building 6. We were worried about building 6 coming down and damaging the slurry walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.”
Interesting. They needed to be sure that building 6 came down in a “controlled” way. But wait a second: the video clip that Alex Jones presents – the clip that’s shown on all the conspiracist websites –ends abruptly at this point. Huh? Where’s the money shot? Why’d they cut it there?
Here’s why:
Because the following scene shows how building 6 was “pulled”: with cables attached to the hydraulic arms of four excavators, not with explosive charges."
---
Consistent with the usual conspiracist editing of facts to suit the myth.
Welcome to the end of the world, where "Collect on the insurance" is a legitimate business venture.
Thank god it is insured by AIG.
Polite terminology, please... In the FIRE economy, we refer to that as "extracting oxidation equity."
Vodka crates caught fire?
OH right another skyscraper made of steel girders which is in danger of suddenly collapsing due to 400 degree fire....uh huh sure.
They were storing jet fuel up there.
Wow, so you think a fire fueled by jet fuel won't even burn paper?
Interesting.
Rather, you are justifying your hatred of the government by attributing all evil to them, the negative corollary to the halo effect.
Read this to identify your bias and learn to overcome it:http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Death_Spirals_and_the_Cult_Attractor
I wonder how much insurance Larry Silverstein is carrying on this one.
Considering Russia's marvelous reputation for quality production, I figure the skyscraper was being made of paper ma'che held together with war surplus duct tape...
Oh no! Somebody might not live out their dreams of proving that they have the smallest dick in the world!
Wow, what has a sunken ship or a burning tower to do with "continent ambitions" ?, whatever that is. You really need to start treating your europhobia, Tyler.
Dumb Hulk question, Moscow is in Europe ???
Yes, Asia begins at the Ural mountains
Believe me – if you were there you wouldn't notice it.
Yes, along with everything else west of the Ural Mountains.
Edit - I suppose I should learn to type faster.
Yes and Europe is a continent too.
medium rare Boris!
On the live feed I think I just saw a rocket in the shape of Big Boy launch with Dr. Evil aboard.
New meaning to the skyscraper index
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyscraper_Index
Given typical Russian technological prowess and environmental foresight, they probably put an unshielded nuclear reactor in the top of this building, too.
Would you settle for used nuclear fuel rods from Chernobyl.
I must be missing something: -
What has the MOSCOW Federation Tower got to do with Europe?
That way it is sensational. If the headline said "Asia" nobody would care... They've got Tepco who created much more interesting fireworks last year.
What continent would you say Moscow is in?
Europe and asia?
Dumb Ass !!! Asia begins at the Ural Mountains... Any idiot knows that !!!
Try telling that to all the politically-correct but geographically ignorant numbskulls who believe that Orientals, and ONLY Orientals, are "Asians".
I guess the "Orientals = Asians" crowd never stopped to ponder on just which continent the Indians, and Pakistanis, and Iranians, and Arabs, and Israelis, and Turks, and Armenians, and Georgians, and Azerbaijanis live.
akak said:
These same numbskulls will be dumbfounded to the point of smoke coming out of their ears if you refer to westerners as Occidentals.
I know it sounds mental but it was accidental when I referred to Occidentals as Orientals
I don't care what they say, Hulk is a quick learner!
:)
pods
So, we may yet prove or disprove the WTC7 enigma here.........
Yeah right, no steel frame buildings have ever fallen by fire, er, except on 9/11 ( there were 3).
Those buildings were "made in the U.S.A.". Besides my bicycle I never bought anything made there that was built to last.
That is not correct.
Fire is one of the most significant threats to steel buildings... or was secretly replacing and rewriting materials science and civil engineering textbooks part of this conspiracy 100-years in the making?
Hey fucknuts, fire has never caused the total collapse of a steel framed super structure in the history of steel framed construction, period. In fact, no steel framed super structure has ever totally collapsed for any reason other than controlled demolition.
On 9/11 we are to believe that 3 steel structures did just that?
BTW, the pipe meme ain't helping, Oppy. "A pipe gives an intelligent man time to think and a fool something to stick in his mouth". In your case I'll go with the latter.
"Hey fucknuts, fire has never caused the total collapse of a steel framed super structure in the history of steel framed construction, period. "
Patently false.
quote:
The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's largest exhibition center. It like the WTC used long steel trusses to create a large open space without columns. Those trusses were unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire protection due to the impacts.
"As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire."
http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm
Opps, truthers.
Double 'fucknuts' to you, lyin', dissemnblin' asshat.
McCormick Center was a large span exhibition hall and not a steel framed super structure in any way resembling modern office towers. Here's a link on what did happen at McCormick Center: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnDyM_8JSyM
"McCormick Center was a large span exhibition hall and not a steel framed super structure in any way resembling modern office towers. "
Wiggling your way out of it with your own choice of definitions, I never saw that one coming.
You tried to use an exibition hall and compare it to a skyscraper, and he's the one wiggling. Classic fail, and caught.
And we've already been through this with both of you, your 10-15 LOWER FLOORS STILL STANDING EXAMPLE WON'T FUCKING DO. Come up with something better, or shut the fuck up.
"You tried to use an exibition hall and compare it to a skyscraper, and he's the one wiggling. "
Lol. First, it's a steel framed building. "It never happened before", the troofers say. The opposite is shown to be true.
OMGZ EXHIBITION HALL, NOT SKYSCRAPER, you rant.
There's a scraping alright, and thats the sound of your sorry ass pulling at the goal posts.
"And we've already been through this with both of you, your 10-15 LOWER FLOORS STILL STANDING EXAMPLE WON'T FUCKING DO."
Brilliant. You conveniently forget how super the WTC indeed was, with thousands of tonnes of debris falling on it to utterly flatten it.
Or maybe 90% of the structures weight being accelerated at 10 m/s^2 for 700 feet just had its inertia cancelled out. What, were UFOs with antigrav tech, brough out of their mothballing in Area 51 involved in the government controlled demo?
Disingeneous, and purpusefully lying bunch is what the 9/11 "truthers" are.
McCormick Place, Interstate 580, Dogwood Elementary School, Mumbai High North, Windsor Building (Madrid), Rosewood Mall... there are many more examples.
Fire is, and has always been the primary threat posed to steel buildings.
You count on no one doing any reseach. The Windsor tower DID NOT COLLAPSE even though it was engulfed in flames for many hours. I'll leave the rest for people to check for themselves.
Nobody said fire is not a threat to steel buildings, only that none have ever totally collapsed as a result, but you know this... asshat.
The entire tower did not collapse, that is entirely the point!
The base floors which were dual concrete cores without long steel girders survived the fire... the floors above which *were* single concrete core girder construction, like WTC, all collapsed rather quickly in the fire.
So basically, you are saying that something that was built quite redundantly, with quite the reinforced core, no matter what you say, anyone can see for themselves:
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/construction-1.jpg
http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/4536/im958lguq5.jpg
Was then pulverized, so that there is NO CORE LEFT, here look for youself:
http://0.tqn.com/d/architecture/1/0/d/p/SmolderingWTC.jpg
So, the bullshit concrete for the first 3 floors, still there, the triple steel core for the lower part of wtc, puddle of steaming liquid metal for the next 6 months.
You're on crack, Zio man.
Yes there was, in Los Angeles. Or maybe it was San Francisco. Or maybe..
anyway, they made a documentary about it with Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway.
I think i see Putin flying the chopper
That's a pretty cool helicopter they're using to fight the fire.
The entire ‘war on terror’ is a crock of horse$hit based on the fraud of September 11th. The World Trade Center DUST SAMPLES prove conclusively that THERMATE was used to implode the three towers: WTC 1, 2 & 7; NOT Jet aircraft loaded with Kerosene, as our television sets have asserted to shocked Americans. The jets were merely theater & eyewash providing Hollywood-style distraction and drama. ENGINEERING FACT: Never BEFORE or SINCE 911 have steel framed buildings collapsed from fires. Professor Steven Jones (BYU) and his colleagues tested the World Trade Center dust samples collected from several locations in lower Manhattan with electron microscopes and have found the forensic trace evidence of THERMATE in the dust as well as oxides of iron, aluminum and other signature elements consistent with Thermate. The entire war on terror and subsequent police-state takeover of UK and USA are based on the fraud of 911. Science vs. political science. See Physics911 dot net, AE911truth dot org, PatriotsQuestion911 dot com, PilotsFor911Truth dot org, FirefightersFor911Truth dot org. It is time to wake up.
Hyping fear about terrorism is an act of terrorism of itself. They are doing it to justify more security and control does not change the fact, that this government IS the terrorists.
Government handing technology and production offshore to leave US unemployed,
terrified of losing our jobs, homes, unemployment benefits…
the treasonous economic sabotage, rolling in a police state,
IS TERRORISM.
The Fascist merger of government, corporations, wall street, bankers,
IS TERRORISM.
The humungous false flag of 9-11 conveniently got rid of lots of records ... money laundering and all kinds of deals on various floors of the Twin Towers, records of a very alive investigation of particular parties by the Office of Naval Intelligence in one of the towers and Building 7. Many Naval intelligence personnel were killed and records destroyed when the new offices in the Pentagon were blown up, allegedly by a humungous, hi-jacked commercial airliner making an impossible flight path even by an expert pilot with "the plane" making a hole in the wall that obviously was far too small for its size. And all those plummy C.I.A. records and IRS records also went down with the demolition of Building 7, which took 7 to 8 seconds for the fall; 10 and 12 seconds for the respective Towers.
Wherever now there is a major building blown up or an unexpected fire in countries in which the U.S. has an "interest," I look to the United States and the C.I.A. and Blackwater and Zionist Israel and their demolition experts, the Mossad, as the culprits to set various factions against each other, to keep chaos and destruction going to confuse the population, etc.
In some way Cheney will get his because it works that way, if not this lifetime, another or another. He has all the traits of a psychopath which makes him somewhat less than human, but since neither you nor I are in charge, we have no idea what awaits him or who he really is.
What a collection of diabolical ones have come together in these years of the beginning of the 21st Century to destroy. Maybe that is necessary to birth something new. We'll see. Ultimately it's really up to The People, masses of people who have had enough of oppression, and hunger, and strife and injustice and all those lousy things that a $mall percentage of the population engineer for their own ends and their own gains.
"World Trade Center DUST SAMPLES prove conclusively that THERMATE was used to implode the three towers: WTC 1, 2 & 7"
Oh stuff your conspiracy trolling.
And no, WTC7 wasn't an instantaneous collapse.
I've seen houses of cards take longer to collapse than WTC 7.
pods
you must be with the Borg too. What planet are you working from?
The Planet Zio, you might have heard of it.
Most people have never heard of building 7 coupled with the fact that is has received next to no coverage would leave any intelligent thinking person to question. Throw in the fact that building 7 housed the FBI, SEC and was the largest CIA hub outside Langley on the east coast and the questions get more complex.
We need to look no further then the commissioners of the 9/11 board as well as members of the Select Committee on Intelligence who in quoting Words of US Senator Bob Graham, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence spoke in lengths about foreign government involvment which has been sealed and classified.
“I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing — although that was part of it — by a sovereign foreign government… It will become public at some point when it’s turned over to the archives, but that’s 20 or 30 years from now.”
Questions about who leaked the info regarding airforce one as target and how did they get a hold of the codes.
Questions about how the E4B “doomsday” plane was in the air over New York during the second attack as well as spotted over DC when the Pentagon was hit.
Questions about a number of FBI and state Dept whistleblowers whos testimony has either been retroactively classified (Sibel Edmonds) or has not even appeard in the mainstream news.
When not one person is fired or even reprimanded on 9/11 and when people are ordered to stand down or not pursue leads is in my opinion…obstruction of justice.
Why doesn’t the FBI release all the other video’s taken near the Pentagon? Wouldn’t the governments official position as to what hit the Pentagon be proven and all the speculation would be eliminated ?
How could the Pentagon, the most protected building in the world, be successfully attacked by a lumbering commercial jetliner?
Where was the ground to air missile defense system on 9/11 which is automatically fired at a plane approaching the Pentagon when the pilot fails to enter a four digit code?
Why were F-15s ordered to fly at an intercept speed that was slower than the commercial aircraft speed?
Why 6-months before 9/11 were procedures changed which required Vice Presidental or Presidential authority for a shoot down order when this new set of procedures meant another layer of supervision, longer time to make a decision and the previous system worked well ?
After the first plane hit the WTC tower, with another hijacked airliner headed in that direction, and 30 minutes to spare, why did NORAD or the Whitehouse not call the NY Port Authority and warn them to evacuate the other tower to save lives ?
When four classified NORAD exercises were being held, and hijackings began taking place, why wouldn’t a commander have ordered the exercises stopped to prevent confusion by false radar blips as computer software can be stopped instantly?
What are the odds that Al-Qaeda pilots, not being able to find the Whitehouse managed to hit the Pentagon just where the records for the missing $ 2.3 trillion were stored? And how does anyone in the government or the news media know that’s why he hit the Pentagon if no black boxes survived ?
How can a building fall at free fall speed unless the supporting steel beams below have not already had their supporting strength completely eliminated to prevent any resistance that might slow down the free fall speed?
If steel can now be melted from a conventional kerosene fire (jet fuel), why do we even need blast furnaces?
Snip the cut n paste blah blah blah.
Explain to me why all the conspiracy peddlers insist on cutting the first 5 seconds of the video footage of the WTC7 out, so their audience doesnt see that the back of the building is collapsing a good while aheadof the front, ie. whats known as a progressive collapse.
Of course: because if its know that the WTC7 collapsed progressively, the entire 'troofer' movement more or less collapses with it, as a bunch of liars.
"If steel can now be melted from a conventional kerosene fire (jet fuel), why do we even need blast furnaces?"
Skyscraper + 800 feet tall elevator shafts + jet fuel = ....
Allow it to settle in.
the extra 5 seconds?
And that repudiates the fact that WTC7 was a planned demolition?
create your own burn pile, get it really hot. burn up some furniture. throw some fuel on it for your own entertainment. hint, the fuel won't increase the temperature. you will find that none of the metal parts will burn or melt.
"And that repudiates the fact that WTC7 was a planned demolition?"
Yes, as the 'truthers' insist in all their 10 years of narrative that it was an instantaneous (understood as all of the building fell at the same time) collapse, when obviously it wasn't.
"you will find that none of the metal parts will burn or melt."
Melting isn't required, as structural steel loses most of its tensile strength when heated even halfway to melting; enough to collapse the structure.
No wait, you said there were 5 seconds of tape missing or withheld.
The collapse is pretty instant even including 5 seconds of lag. It's ok though. It took me a while to swallow it as well.
The 5 seconds I'm referring to are the ones showing how the roof structures on the back of the building (re. to the camera) disappears, while the undamaged north face is intact.
Giant fires get hot enough to smelt steel.
That is how it was done in the long long ago. But you don't see a lot of fires of that size and concentration.