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.

no.....

no, not a good little sheep. Maybe he's credentialed architect or structural engineer. Or maybe he's has a Ph.D. in physics and is trying to show us how things really happened.

or..........or not.

I think we'll never really know

exactly what happened that day. There are 9-11 Truthers, 9-11 debunkers, 9-11 debunkers of the debunkers and so on. TPTB would probably infiltrate any kind of movement or coalition on the verge of breaking it and lead it astray (if indeed it was an inside job) The thing that makes ME skeptical is the Petro-dollar and what Saddam was doing in 2000 with his oil- we had to take his ass out and FAST we just needed a good excuse, what better excuse than the largest "terrorist attack" in our nations history that we could associate him with? So i always thought, maybe they knew it was coming (from all of the years of M.E meddling) and just let it happen- so we would have the excuse. But that doesn't explain building 7....

I guess demolition experts will become obsolete- since it's now been discovered you can perfectly collapse a building (with demo-expert precision) by simply starting some small office fires. The whole thing is such a mess.

"I am Troll fighter, number one"

-Ernest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxWb-ViejPg

Most of us know already and so does Steve Pieczenik

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/05/04/top-us-government-in...

Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under three different administrations Steve R. Pieczenik says he is prepared to tell a federal grand jury the name of a top general who told him directly 9/11 was a false flag attack.

Involving:
Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Hadley, Elliott Abrams, and Condoleezza Rice amongst others as having been directly involved.

Pieczenik’s assertion that Bin Laden died almost ten years ago is echoed by numerous intelligence professionals as well as heads of state across the world.

Bin Laden, “Was used in the same way that 9/11 was used to mobilize the emotions and feelings of the American people in order to go to a war that had to be justified through a narrative that Bush junior created and Cheney created about the world of terrorism,” stated Pieczenik.

During his interview with the Alex Jones Show yesterday, Pieczenik also asserted he was directly told by a prominent general that 9/11 was a stand down and a false flag operation, and that he is prepared to go to a grand jury to reveal the general’s name.

“They ran the attacks,” said Pieczenik, naming Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Hadley, Elliott Abrams, and Condoleezza Rice amongst others as having been directly involved.

“It was called a stand down, a false flag operation in order to mobilize the American public under false pretenses….it was told to me even by the general on the staff of Wolfowitz – I will go in front of a federal committee and swear on perjury who the name was of the individual so that we can break it open,” said Pieczenik, adding that he was “furious” and “knew it had happened”.

“I taught stand down and false flag operations at the national war college, I’ve taught it with all my operatives so I knew exactly what was done to the American public,” he added.

Pieczenik re-iterated that he was perfectly willing to reveal the name of the general who told him 9/11 was an inside job in a federal court, “so that we can unravel this thing legally, not with the stupid 9/11 Commission that was absurd.”

Pieczenik explained that he was not a liberal, a conservative or a tea party member, merely an American who is deeply concerned about the direction in which his country is heading.

November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul

fireant's picture

Which has zero to do with CD or how the buildings fell.

This helps make my point. It doesn't have to be CD for there to be inside help or knowledge. Let Pieczenik speak. I want him to.

Undo what Wilson did

fireant's picture

The problem is they were not small office fires.

The east portion of the building was pretty intense, and the entire building was involved. It was a progressive fire throughout the day. FDNY called it a four alarm upon arrival. Video shows the whole building involved, and firefighters were concerned the building would collapse. They would not have abandoned rescue efforts for their brothers around 6WTC without good reason.
Watch this FD raw video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk5o-zmvMiM&feature=relmfu
Note at about 1:20 the fireman states, "Look at the hole in that building. It's gonna come down. Let's get everybody out of here."
Then watch this, which gives FDNY testimony of on scene responders: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMr3ZSL6l-4&feature=related

Undo what Wilson did

fireant...give it up

fireant...give it up already!You are not convincing anyone here about anything,if you haven't noticed by all the down votes.

BOOOOOOO

I'm inclined to agree with fireant on some of this stuff, not because I trust the government or know anything about structural engineering or even accept what he says, but because I effing hate group-think and mob behavior. I have been in the exact same lonely position as fireant with the NaturalNews/Infowars crowd about GMO alarmism and MKUltra.

Downvotes don't matter. I can't remember who said it, but "as soon as you find yourself in the majority opinion, it is time to reevaluate your position."

fireant's picture

I can't help it if everyone gets so upset over a few facts.

I'm just not going to remain silent in the face of false assumptions. Not on this issue. Yeah, it's lonely here, but fact is fact. All the structural evidence shows structural failure. No getting around it. No grand jury will assemble for CD based on that fact alone. Count on it. With all the evidence we have at our disposal, if you can't find clear structural evidence of CD, the jury will show you the door. End of story. Do you want a new investigation or not?

Undo what Wilson did

The east portion of the building was pretty intense

"The east portion of the building was pretty intense, and the entire building was involved" ~ fireant You are FOS the entire building was not involved and you know it. You try to make it sound like every piece of steel beam was glowing cherry red which is what it would take for a possible partial failure anyway.

You are still in denial of the fact that black smoke is indicative of a "cool fire" ie: not hot enough to collapse a steel frame building regardless of the modern design.

Repeat after me:

White Smoke = Hot Fire
Black Smoke = Cool Fire (oxygen starved)

November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul

fireant's picture

Black smoke does not indicate a "cool" fire.

You may want to study this entire article, but here is a snip:
"“Black fire” is a good phrase to describe smoke that is high-volume, turbulent velocity, ultradense, and black. Black fire is a sure sign of impending autoignition and flashover. In actuality, the phrase “black fire” is accurate-the smoke itself is doing all the destruction that flames would cause-charring, heat damage to steel, content destruction, and victim death. Black fire can reach temperatures of more than 1,000°F!"
Taken from "THE ART OF READING SMOKE", by DAVID W. DODSON
http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-158/iss...
From another source: "Thick, dark grey smoke “pushing” out of a structure, suggests a larger, more intense fire. A fire involving petroleum products will produce large quantities of black, rolling smoke that rises in a vertical column."
http://www.firefightingincanada.com/content/view/2139/132/

So I will stand partially corrected. Smoke study has evolved since I was trained years ago. Black smoke is not always an indication of petro based material, but it is clearly not an indication of a "cool" fire.

No, I never even insinuated the steel was glowing hot in 7. The fires were extensive, and plenty hot enough to expand and warp the structural members. Watch this FDNY raw video to get an idea of the extensiveness of the fires in 7, and be sure to listen to the firefighters' comments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk5o-zmvMiM&feature=relmfu

Undo what Wilson did

henry9's picture

600 degree office fires cannot melt steel beams!

Get with it.

Yes they can....

If they were started by a "fire-ant"

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

Yeah even a house fire is way above that.

I'm not saying some people in the CIA wouldn't do that just look at Operation Northwoods... I just don't think they did from the evidence myself.

fireant's picture

Measured temps were in the 1800f range.

That is plenty hot enough for steel to expand, warp, and buckle under load.

Undo what Wilson did

From Building 7 Final Report:

Page 21, Paragraph 4

"...the highest column temperatures in WTC 7 only reached an estimated 300 °C (570 °F), and only on the east side of the building did the floor beams reach or exceed about 600 °C (1100 °F)."

fireant's picture

I meant to say maximum recordings of temps, and in all 3

buildings. No intent to mislead.
There is so much which is inaccurate with the NIST report, I have to question the accuracy of their temp estimates. But those temps are sufficient to expand and warp steel. I do agree that the east end was the hottest portion.

Undo what Wilson did

.

.

.

.

check your data

Jet fuel CAN"T burn at 1800f in and uncompressed sea level fire... 800f is more in the neighborhood. I mean we are just talking about kerosene.

fireant's picture

As if jet fuel was the only thing burning in the Towers.

The fires spread and intensified long after the jet fuel was burnt off. Plenty of video of the downwind south and east sides show fire intense and spreading. The west sides too. Shortly prior to collapse, both towers displayed an increase in the volume and velocity of the smoke, which is hot enough to damage steel on it's own. In firefighting manuals, that is referred to as black fire, which predicts imminent auto-ignition with explosive potential.
1800f was measured in the Towers.
Read about black fire and the properties of smoke in my above post.

Undo what Wilson did

There are plenty of examples

There are plenty of examples throughout history of buildings burning for hours, sometimes days....some older than the WTC.

Obviously we just had crappy buildings. I mean debris made building 7 fall at free fall!

fireant's picture

7 did not fall at free fall speed.

The interior of the building collapsed well ahead of the outer shell, or perimeter walls. Total elapsed time was about 13 or 14 seconds. When the outer shell started down, much of the interior had already collapsed, so you can't say the whole building collapsed free fall.

Undo what Wilson did

Even NIST was forced to admit that building 7

achieved freefall acceleration fireant, and you know it. You are being obstinate.

sharkhearted's picture

EXACTLY. The speed of gravity confirmed without a doubt.

"Obstinate" is a compliment....as if implying rational resistance.

More like "INCOMPETENT obstruction of justice."

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

fireant's picture

Not the whole building.

The east penthouse collapsed several seconds prior to the exterior collapse. If the penthouse collapsed, whatever was below it collapsed. The west penthouse also collapsed prior to the external collapse. To suggest the entire building collapsed at free fall is ridiculous.

Undo what Wilson did

sharkhearted's picture

NO.

You are WRONG (as always), fire ant.

The first 108 feet of the collapse was at the f-u-c-k-i-n-g speed of GRAVITY.

"Free fall."

How are you going to disprove that? You can't.

You would be laughed out of court if you tried.

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

fireant's picture

The first 108' was AFTER penthouse collapse.

The east core had already collapsed, and the west core was in the process of collapsing before your measurement begins. It was whatever remained of the core and the perimeter walls which collapsed at that speed. Stick with facts.

Undo what Wilson did

sharkhearted's picture

DUH!!!!

All you want to do is try to justify the official government bulls-h-i-t account.

Res ipsa loquitur.

If you really think that your retarded opinion can override that of legitimate engineers and scientists...then have at it.

Otherwise....shut the f-u-c-k up!!

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

.

.

Quote: "NIST tracked the downward displacement of a point

near the center of the roofline". This was as the entire building began to collapse. According to NIST, Building 7 was in freefall from 1.75 seconds into the building collapse through 4 seconds or 8 stories equaling 105 feet. They aren't talking about the penthouse. This was an observation of the north face of the building at the center of the roofline as it collapsed.

That said, there are several side by side video comparisons on youtube that are run at the same frame rates, between the building 7 collapse and those of demoed buildings and the difference in acceleration rates is indistinguishable. Sharkhearted supplied a good video of this on one of his posts which you should have watched.

Your half baked theories do not trump what I can clearly see fireant.