48 votes

This fully engulfed 40 story skyscraper should collapse into its own footprint any minute now...right?


http://youtu.be/izNDNHK3_N8

GROZNY, Russia (TheBlaze/AP) — Fire has engulfed an unoccupied 40-story apartment building currently under construction in Chechnya, a once war-torn republic in southern Russia.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/03/stunning-photos-l...

Comment viewing options

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

Thanks man.

I really don't care much for people throwing the term "troll" around willy-nilly just because a conversation is going on that they don't personally find useful. I certainly didn't think any of your comments deserved to be categorized as "trolling" and, although I disagree with him and don't find his arguments convincing, I didn't see any comments from snakepit that could reasonably be classified as such either. My guess is that the commenter has a very broad definition for what a "troll" is. The sad part is that this individual's comment makes him (or her?) into the very thing he accuses everyone else to be.

I'm reaching up and reaching out.
I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me.
And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been.
We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been.
Spiral out.

Maybe it's too hot to fall down.

The steel may have exceeded the melting point indicating that the entire building is now liquid. However, the shape of the building would cause the heat to create updrafts which keep the building from falling. As the fire consumes itself and retreats the updrafts would cease as well, and the metal will cool back to solid form. To the untrained scientific eye it would appear that the steel never melted to liquid form.

9-11 was a panda job.

Uh...

Did you just say the building would be kept aloft due to updrafts?

Eric Hoffer

sharkhearted's picture

Still burning....engulfed in flames....no collapse

Wow I guess the architects and engineers in Chechnya are much better than the architects and engineers for WTC7, eh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ1P2K1j-gQ

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

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

robot999's picture

You mean the

"architects" and "engineers" at NIST right?

"Government is the entertainment division of the military-industrial complex". - Frank Zappa

sharkhearted's picture

Haha them too...

But I was actually using a little irony:

I was making the point that wow, the chechnyan building stood even fully engulfed in a raging inferno.

Yet WTC7 with a few fires, came down in symmetry at nearly the speed of gravity.

Thus my point that wow Chechnya must have some good architects and engineers to design a building like that, where the architects and engineers for WTC7 must have been really sh*tty if the official NIST account is to be believed.

:-)

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

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

sharkhearted's picture

Government disinfo agents too weak to ever make a valid point

HOW ABOUT COMPARE IT WITH WTC7 then, snake pit?

Comparison:
1. Height-This tower was only 40. WTC7 was 47.

2. Design- Both high-rises. Steel and concrete.

3. Fire location-The fire on this tower ran up the side. In WTC7 it was scattered throughout the building. (This is highly irrelevant but I am including it because govt troll snake pit had it as a point).

4. Response-Nobody was fighting the fire in the WTC, it ws too high up.

NOT TRUE! There is recorded NYC firefighter audio that they said they could contain the fires they just needed to get some hoses up there. But the "collapse" (controlled demolition) was initiated while they were trying to do just that, sending all of those extremely brave firefighters...to their deaths. :-(

5. Source- No plane hit this tower. NO PLANE HIT WTC7!!!!

6. Mass-The mass of this building was similar to the mass of WTC7.

Now Snakepit is not able to tell you exactly how I think either of these fires should have played out. He's no expert (that is obvious) and each situation is different, however what he can tell you is that he is a PAID GOVERNMENT ACTOR funded by the taxpayer to help continue to parrot the official state-sponsored conspiracy and the cover-up of the worst mass murder (and still unsolved) event in American history!

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

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

Now on to your argument.

Its better than the twin tower comparisons, but still doesn't cut the scientific mustard.

1. 40 stories compared to 47- I'll give you that. Not exact, but close.
2. Both steel and concrete- My backyard shed is steel and concrete. That they are both high rises built out of similar materials hardly constitutes similar design. Humans and elephants are made out of the same basic elements, are we "similarly designed" enough to assume an experiment on an elephant would yield the same results as one doen on a human?
3. Fire location-you admit they were differnet here, but then claim it somehow doesn't matter. It matters. If I punch you in the leg, would that have the same effect as me punching you in the face? Location matters.
4. Response- you just admitted they weren't fighting it. They intended to fight it, but they never started because they couldn't get the proper equipment in time. Thus, not the same.
5. Source-true, no plane hit WTC7, but the "source" is still different. WTC7's fire and damage was caused from the nearby towers, furthering the damage was the collapse of those towers nearby. That was not the case in either of these other two tower fires where the fire was started some other way, and no massive structures collapsed nearby, shaking the ground and sending debris at the towers.
6. Mass-I'll give you this. The masses must have been somewhat similar, about as similar as the 40 stories to 47 stories. Not perfect science, but good enough for this debate.

So you've almost narrowed it down to 4 variables. The other two are still a bit off, but close enough for me for this argument.
However, you skipped a few things. My variable 7, which you didn't address, includes any variables which we just aren't taking into consideration. Unless exact replicas of these buildings had been tested using the exact methods each tower was set on fire, then we don't have conclusive evidence of what other variables might have been in play when comparing the two.
On top of which, as I briefly mentioned, the fact that two massive structures had just collapsed near WTC7 is a huge variable which you just can't reproduce in the case of the Chechnia tower or the Windsor.
Take away those important factors and you have still left yourself with a science experiment which has 4 variables being tested at the same time. This just isn't good science, by any stretch.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

I'll get to your argument in a moment, but first....

...Government disinfo agent? Really? Have you seen my history of posting on here? I have maybe 3 or 4 articles I've posted which run counter to the majority on the DailyPaul, but I have about 40 articles which are quite obvious pro-Ron Paul, for the cause, free market, anti-government stuff. To call me a disinfo agent is just pathetic. I disagree with Nystrom every so often, but I think even he would vouch for me that I am not some disinfo troll.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

sharkhearted's picture

OK I will take you at your word

But you have your head in the sand when it comes to 9-11.

And in so doing, you are propagating the cover-up of the worst mass-murder, unsolved crime in american history.

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

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

This comparison is too weak to be called science.

In science, you need consistency in order to test 1 variable at a time. This situation has several variables all taking place at once, yet you guys think it should be an example of what should have happened in the twin towers.

Variables:
1. Height-The twin towers were 110 stories high. This tower was only 40.
2. Design-Their construction was completely different.
3. Fire location-The fire on this tower ran up the side. The fire in the WTC was near the center.
4. Response-Nobody was fighting the fire in the WTC, it was too high up.
5. Source-A plane hit the WTC. No plane hit this tower.
6. Mass-The mass of each WTC is several times the mass of this tower.
7. Unnacounted for-I am no expert and wasn't at the scene, so it is easily possible that several other variables exist which I have not accounted for, further adding to the list of variables which make this comparison unscientific.

Now I'm not claiming to be able to tell you exactly how I think either of these fires should have played out. I'm no expert and each situation is different, however I can tell you that making this comparison is too weak to even be called science. It rests securely in the realm of fallacy.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

SteveMT's picture

Compare it with the Madrid Windsor hotel fire.

http://www.911myths.com/html/madrid_windsor_tower.html
[picture at link]
The [Madrid] Windsor Building was of a similar truss design to the twin towers, the fire started 11 storeys from the top of the building, and it burned at temperatures of 800ºC for more than 18 hours [AFP]. The core of the building did not fail.

The fire in WTC 1 is reported to have burned at 800ºC and was located roughly 17 storeys from the top of the building meaning the inner core supported only 6 additional floors of weight above the fire zone in comparison to the Windsor Building. WTC 1 collapsed after only 85 minutes, reportedly through core failure.

Don't you find this odd?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_core.html

one New york plaza

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/02/nyregion/tower-disaster-ec...

'With the old buildings, you know the building's going to hold,'' said Neil P. Winberry, a retired New York fire captain. ''You've got time to work.'' After the city fire code was changed in 1968, allowing a widespread shift from masonry fireproofing to a light, spray-on product, Mr. Winberry said, ''we could not understand how this was going to work; we had no faith in it.''

''The protection of steel members in a really fire-resistive building must be accomplished by materials that cannot be readily removed or damaged,''

And one meridian plaza - Under extreme fire exposure the beams and girders sagged and twisted and cracks appeared in the concrete floors.

The only reason these did not collapse is because firefighters were able to put out the fire. WTC wouldn't have collapsed, either, but the authorities decided to "pull" the fireman out of the building and to let it burn.

If they didn't collapse

you can't observe whether or not they pancaked like WTC, can you?

but you can tell

If the structural steel melted or not. and it did

So?

It didn't collapse. Seems you are proving *our* point. Melting yes, collapse no.

Almost, but it still leaves many variables.

You almost took away one variable out of at least 6. The similar truss design helps your case, however we are still dealing with at least 5 other variables. On top of which, the similar truss design, when put into a much smaller lighter building, doesn't completey take away the variable.
Again, I'm not claiming anything other than the fact that this comparison is just very poor science. To use it as evidence to convince people of the 9/11 theory does more harm than good because it really makes it seem like you guys are reaching too far.
If 9/11 was an inside job, or allowed to happen, arguments like this do more harm than good in bringing the truth to light.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

SteveMT's picture

Free fall WCT7 versus No fall Madrid Windsor Tower

That difference alone seems to override the rest. Free fall symmetric collapse of WCT7 after an asymmetric hit and asymmetric fires is another. Pancaking without a pancake is still another.

but the WCT7 collapse was not symmetric

one beam goes first, the little structure on the roof collapses about 8 seconds before the rest falls - how is that symmetric ?

SteveMT's picture

Have you seen the video?

Did WCT7 tip over, or did it go down nearly perfectly horizontally? It could not have been planned any better by a demolition team. Were there any big chunks of the building left where there had been no fires. Over half the build should have remained. Had the building been set for demolition, how would the building coming down looked more symmetric then the actual "collapse?" "Redundancy" is built into every skyscraper, so systemic collapse doesn't happen should one component fail. All except WCT7, WCT1, & WCT2 so it seems.

What you are assuming is just not typical.

You assume it should fall like a broomstick being tipped over. But it isn't built that way. The tower isn't one giant stick that should tip over. It is more like when your kid stacks markers one top of each other to make a tower. When it starts to fall, the weak parts give way. It doesn't fall perfectly into "its own footprint" as you guys like to say, but it is close. It certainly doesn't just tip over like a broom stick. You guys just assume that it should so you can feel better about your theory when it doesn't. Then you use examples of much smaller buildings as comparisons when in fact they aren't very comprarable at all. Much much smaller structures can sometimes tip over like that, but when a building gets to a certain height, if part of it starts to tip, it starts to collapse and break rather than continuing to tip like a broomstick would.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

SteveMT's picture

Why then use demolition experts to bring these things down?

Set some fires anywhere, push in some random columns, and just wait seven hours. Doing it like this would save a lot of money.

This seems ridiculous, but I'll respond anyway.

Why does the forest service do controlled burns rather than just light a match and hope for the best? Starting a building on fire to bring it down is a more dangerous task full of more variables than are worth the saved cost, not to mention a huge environmental hazard. In addition, you can't be sure if the fire wouldn't spread to nearby buildings, if the building will burn "correctly" if you could even call it that, if the destruction would be minimally intrusive on the surrounding area, etc. A controlled demolition is just the safest way to do it, regardless of the cost.
But I think you knew that. It seems you just felt like throwing some extremely random scenario out there for lack of a more logical rebuttle.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

In the case of the tower with the antenna,

that top piece tips over and is pretty clear as day moving that direction of it's tipping. So if the piece with all the weight is falling out and away then shouldn't there still be at least like half, or even at worst case a third of that tower still standing? So what's so strange is that not only does the entire building below the plane crash essentially pulverize, the top chunk of building above the crash should be sitting on the ground "somewhat" recognizable. But instead, it is pulverized as well.

So if we go with the pancake notion of failing floors smashing down on the following floors beneath as the cause for the pulverized concrete then something needs to fall on the top chunk to pulverize it?

I'm just thinking out loud. Also, isn't the smoking gun the fact all 3 collapsed the way they did on the same day during the same event. If this were possible to happen to a building, could it happen at this frequency?

Nice!

No buildings left. "Dustified".

What would the Founders do?

Well, well, well

Where are the government sponsored trolls ironman77 and snakepit22?

I am sure they have some water to carry for their sponsors.

Arguments: good!!

Name calling: Bad...

Please leave the fear mongering and collectivism at the door, it make exploration of, and dissemination of the truth more difficult.

This is a nice healthy debate, that I am otherwise enjoying!!

I'm here buddy, all is not lost.

I'll get to this in a minute, just let me get my breakfast in first.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

We know where the alex jones shills are

Parrots repeat whatever their owners say - different owners, still a parrot.

Lol

"Alex Jones shills." You've already lost, Sir. Move along, now.

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.