[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

latest false flag attack?

On 20/09/18 12:06, z9wahqvh wrote:

> posit a mechanism for building collapse that [..]
> has never been seen before or since, despite the fact that planes do 
> crash into buildings and fires do happen in buildings pretty frequently.


A B-25 crashed into the Empire State building in the 1940's, but that 
was about 10 tons flying at about 150 mph, versus 150 tons at 500 mph.

A cargo 747 crashed into a 10 story apartment building in Amsterdam in 
1992 [1]. It was flying straight down when it hit. IIrc 40-odd people 
were killed. The building was made of reinforced concrete, and the part 
which was hit was demolished down to the ground by the impact, but the 
fire was put out quickly and most of the rest of the building was OK.

An Air France Concord crashed into the ground then hit a three-story 
hotel, killing 4 on the ground and all on the plane.

Then there was the Pentagon, and there are are some cases of large 
aircraft hitting houses and light aircraft crashing into various buildings.

But apart from WTC there have been no incidents where a large aircraft 
has crashed into a high-rise, skyscraper or large steel framed building, 
either before or since.

[1] I was in Amsterdam and heard the crash - we were warned on 
short-wave radio to stay inside because there might have been nerve gas 
in the plane. The ordinary radio said all was well. Didn't know whether 
to be scared or not.


WTC1+2 were built of sprayed fire resistant material coated steel 
(SFRM/S) structure to a lightweight-framed-tube design.

Very few buildings like them were ever built, the 
lightweight-framed-tube design went out of fashion in the late 70's/ 80's.

SFRM/S is still used sometimes though, if you want cheap - although if 
eg the chance of war damage is high then it would be excluded. That's 
partly why the Burj Khalifa is built of reinforced concrete.

In most cases of fires in high-rise buildings, the building is made of 
reinforced concrete, not SFRM/S. The concrete protects the steel much 
better against heat than SFRM.

In general SFRM/S buildings do not collapse in actual fires, though if 
the fire lasts for a long time in one place they can be badly damaged, 
come close to collapse, or even collapse.

Most fires are progressive, and in high-rises very often spread is 
upward by external means, the flames outside the building setting the 
downwind parts of higher stories aflame rather then whole floors being 
on fire.

Most fires are fought by firemen, who tend to start at the bottom and 
work up - so while a fire may last several hours, an individual part of 
the building is unlikely to be on fire the whole of that time.

Also, WTC had no sprinklers. Modern buildings have them as standard, and 
many are refitted with them. Even when they fail to control the spread 
of a fire, they lower the temperature.

Apart from WTC:

There are no other cases of large fires in high rises where the fire 
spread so quickly.

There are no other cases of fires in SFRM/S buildings which lasted for 
more than four hours in one place.

There are few other cases of fires in SFRM/S high-rises in which an 
entire floor was on fire. Most often only one side of the building 
burns, the fire spreading up the outside of the windward side.

Of these few cases, One Meridian Plaza springs to mind - the SFRM there 
was rated for four hours, not the usual three. The fire lasted for 11 
hours, though not at full intensity in any one place - it covered nine 
floors, and was least fought by firefighters.

Even so, the building came very close to collapsing, and later had to be 
demolished (by disassembly, not explosives).

I know of no other cases where there was a large fire in a SFRM/S 
high-rise and no firemen to fight it.

I know of no other cases of large fires in high rises which were 
preceded by such extensive mechanical damage.

I expect there are examples of the last two, in war situations or the 
like. If anyone knows of any could they let me know please.


WTC1+2 collapsed because they were built of unusual materials (sprayed 
fire resistant material/steel), and to an unusual design (lightweight 
framed-tube). One might expect the method of collapse to be unusual.

If they had been made of reinforced concrete, to a traditional design, 
they wouldn't have collapsed. They wouldn't have been so tall though, 
and they would have been more expensive to build.

If they had been made to a traditional steel-framed design, even with 
SFRM/S, it is unlikely that they would have collapsed, and certainly not 
in that way. But then they would have used twice as much steel, and been 
twice as expensive.


WTC7 fell because there were no firemen to put the blaze out. The 
mechanical damage might have provided a point of first failure, but it 
wasn't really significant, the building would have collapsed anyway.

There probably weren't enough firemen in Manhattan to fight the initial 
five major fires in WTC7, even if they hadn't been busy with WTC1+2 - 
and then there weren't enough firemen as they were either dead or busy 
rescuing people elsewhere.

The rescue firemen stayed until 2:30 or so, but there never was any 
significant attempt to actually fight the fires in WTC7.

They were too big, there weren't enough firemen, plus the water mains 
had been destroyed by the collapse of WTC1+2. There wasn't anything the 
fire department could do to fight the fires.

So the fires went unfought and merged into a single blaze - and guess 
what, a building which was rated for 3 hours structural fire resistance 
lasted on fire for 7 hours hours before collapsing.

- Peter Fairbrother