57 votes

Skyscraper on fire in Dubai - No Pancake Effect

Burning for 8 hours, no pancake effect.

Washington Post: DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Rescue crews in Dubai safely evacuated a 34-story residential tower Sunday after a fire gutted portions of the building, police said.

The blaze charred the outside of the structure and send gray smoke drifting over a major development known as Jumeirah Lakes Towers, a cluster of high-rise apartment buildings and shops on the southern edge of Dubai.

Video below:

Continue...

http://www.liveleak.com/v...




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

a .223 round travels at 2600

a .223 round travels at 2600 feet per second. A 308 round is around 2200 feet per second. Both are rifle rounds.

A 45 ACP, which is the slowest round is 850 feet per second.

Not correct

3300 feet per second x 3600 (3600 seconds in an hour) (3,300 x 3600 )= 11,880,000 feet

11,880,000 divided by 5,280 ( the number of feet in a mile ) =
2250 mph

my comment below is incorrect...and I used a calculator!
I failed to hit a zero button when calculating.

I actually did much better in school when there were no such calculators! LOL

" In Thee O Lord do I put my trust " ~ Psalm 31:1~

Actually

If I remember correctly, an M-14 shoots a 7.62 round at approximately 3300 feet per second, which works out to be about 225 mph.

Hope I did my math correctly

Other rounds fired from other calibers are faster up to approx. 275 mph

" In Thee O Lord do I put my trust " ~ Psalm 31:1~

Feet per second to MPH

Sorry, you slipped your decimal place!

350 MPH = 513 Feet per second

A bullet moving at 3300FPS is covering 2250 MPH

Planes are not bullets or artillery shells.

A tank round travels between 2000FPS and 4000FPS.

Live Free or Die

Yes you are correct

I should not have hooked all those math classes back in the 60s!

:-)

" In Thee O Lord do I put my trust " ~ Psalm 31:1~

Keep in mind

WTC 7 was not hit by a plane either.

Was wtc7?

Please let us know what your research unveils.

sad that others don't seem to

sad that others don't seem to realize that 2 planes took down 3 buildings.

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
― Ron Paul

Reality is that

No planes took down 3 buildings!

" In Thee O Lord do I put my trust " ~ Psalm 31:1~

very true...

very true...

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
― Ron Paul

Wait....

so, according to Fireant, debris knocked down WTC7....well then, why didn't debris knock down any other buildings in the complex?? Why JUST bldg 7??

According to NIST the debris played no significant role

in building 7's collapse. Fireant's pet theory isn't even shared by NIST.

fireant's picture

NIST is now believable?

They got that wrong, as well as many other things. We have plenty of evidence of major structural damage to 7. I doubt fire alone would have caused the entire building to collapse. The intensity of the fire in the eastern portion of the building may have caused the east penthouse collapse, but the load would have shifted and supported the building were there no other damage. It was the documented gouge in the building which then caused transfer of load to the perimeter, which it could not carry.
Richard Rotanz, deputy director of New York City's Office of Emergency Management, was tasked with inspecting 7 immediately after the collapse of 1WTC. He describes gaping holes in the floors above, and columns just dangling. His comments are here at the 3:45 mark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=kMr...

Undo what Wilson did

Why Are You So Dead Bent

on believing the crap that the MSM and the Bush jerks put out? Why do you keep defending their idiotic story? Are you really that in denial or are you a plant working for them? Either way, you are wasting your time trying to convince us that 3 buildings just fell perfectly straight down like a a demolition. 1 maybe, it would be a real fluke, but maybe, 2? No way, THREE? Are you for real? I have seen you defend that lame BS on other posts. Get over it. It was rigged!

skippy

.

.

BS

BS.

3 buildings were brought down with thermite.

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
― Ron Paul

fireant's picture

Fine. Produce the structural evidence.

It'll be there if you are correct.

Undo what Wilson did

That's Hard to Do

Since they HAULED IT OUT OF THE COUNTRY!

skippy

fireant's picture

It was all inspected prior to being cleared for recycle.

Samples of key pieces and irregular pieces were saved and cataloged.
There are hours and hours of raw video of the debris fields taken at different times, from the day of until completed. There are volumes of photos of same. Plenty of evidence. Have you bothered to look? None of that evidence suggests controlled demolition. That evidence overwhelmingly shows structural failure.

Undo what Wilson did

Comedy Central

Onward Through The Fog, fireant.

We should call you, 'Timex'.

lmao

Seriously?

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCP...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4

http://rense.com/general75/thrm.htm

Why else do think dozens of local, state, and federal laws and protocols were broken in the hurry to get all of the evidence/debris out of the country?

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
― Ron Paul

fireant's picture

You can answer that yourself if you just think.

None of the other buildings were large span design. They were traditional steel box framed, and they received their damage directly from the top. 7 is the only one which received undercutting damage.

Undo what Wilson did

If you look at

the map of the WTC complex, you clearly see that WTC 5 and 6 took the brunt of the debris. I don't buy it, sorry.

Question

First off, I appreciate your input in the conversation because debate is good. However, I'm wondering what your thoughts are on the speed of the 3 collapses. Wouldn't pancaking mean the collapse should've been slowed as each floor fell onto the next?

fireant's picture

I appreciate your reasoned questions.

Regarding the Twin Towers, the floors below were initially damaged and weakened due to the impact of the planes into the cores, or the transfer of energy from the floors into the cores, or both. The shock to the cores would have weakened truss connectors several floors below. The floors below also were progressively weakened as the collapse ensued due to shock to the cores and splaying of the cores. I believe floors were collapsing well ahead of the collapse line we see from the exterior. It is important to note the cores were not completely severed when collapse began. The falling tops would also have stressed the cores below. We can see from falling perimeter walls outrunning the collapse line that there indeed was some resistance on the interior. We also have an "earwitness" with the absolute best vantage point. That would be one of the survivors in Stairwell B. Listen to his comments at the :30 mark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWiCxz5ki80&feature=related
Regarding 7, since we can clearly see the interior collapse prior to the outer shell falling, it is not a stretch to assume that once the building started down, it primarily was the perimeter walls falling. The twist in the building prior to starting down is a major clue. That move alone would have weakened the joinery of whatever structure remained on the interior.

Undo what Wilson did

I understand your reasoning

I once argued as you do, in fact. The narrative, as presented by NIST, MSM, and others has a dose of physics and reality. If that were indeed designed, I would expect it to coincide with the physics of the scene as closely as possible.
There is ample evidence to me of explosions occurring where and when none was warranted by a plane impact.
The story of William Rodriguez is not that hard to find, and his MSM interview which was only an excerpt of his real words, and purposely rearranged to suit the narrative. A quick Google for his name will provide all you can stand. ;)
I also highly recommend Barry Jennings story.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LLHTh_UjBc
In summary (which doesn’t sum it up at all, please treat yourself and watch) there was a massive explosion in tower 7, which was not an oil tank, according to Barry, before either 1 or 2 fell, and after both planes had already hit them.
Also, Professor Steven Jones has published information about the dust from the scene, and has not yet been refuted in any reasonable way. He is personally attacked, to be sure, but, the scientific evidence he presents speaks for itself. I have looked at the debunking sites as well, but most simply try obfuscation, misrepresentation and personal attack, often in the same treatment.
If the physics were closely duplicated, the stories from boots on the ground can help clear up some issues.
And, in my view, the towers and the pentagon cannot be seperated, and that story is too full of holes all on it's own for me to swallow. Just some of my thoughts.

Just open the box and see

I think you just like to

I think you just like to argue with people.Do you really expect people with any commonsense at all to believe this B.S. you spew?

fireant's picture

If you consider fact to be B.S., that is your prerogative

.

Undo what Wilson did

Fireant is a good little

Fireant is a good little sheep.

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
― Ron Paul

Uh oh,

Uh oh, he called him a sheep, he has won the argument hands down!

Oh Ad Hom, how you show up in the least expected places.