See other 9/11 Articles
Title: View of a Military Expert: Why the Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed
Source:
www.serendipity
URL Source: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/finn/5/soldier5.htm
Published: Oct 22, 2006
Author: anonymous Finn
Post Date: 2006-10-22 12:30:26 by robin
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 2720
Comments: 275
View of a Military Expert: Why the Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed The airplanes did not a have true effect on the destruction of towers; they were needed to give an excuse for odd Orwellian wars at the same time when the USA is turned into a police nation, like the German Third Reich, to some extent. The towers took the impacts of crushing Boeing 767's. The towers were originally built to take impacts of Boeing 707's, which are approximately of the same size and was widely used in the 1970's. Fires that kindled from the fuel in the planes were too shortlasting and weak to be able to severely damage the structure of the skyscrapers. Even in the extreme situation, the heat from a kerosene fire cannot threat the durability of a steel trunk. With the temperature of carbohydrate fires that reaches only 825 °C (approx. 1517 °F) steel weakens at 800 °C (approx. 1470 °F) and melts at 1585 °C (approx. 2890 °F). In the skyscrapers of the WTC the surroundings were not at all ideal as there were far too many steel columns and they led heat away from the burning area. WTC 1 burned for 102 minutes and WTC 2 for 56 minutes only. A fire burning much longer, from 10 to 20 hours, could slowly increase the burning temperature down to perhaps 1100 °C (approx. 2010 °F). Provided there is more substance to burn, such a fire will damage concrete and irons, but not severely heavy steel constructions. In mid-February in Madrid, the Windsor Tower (see above) burned for over 20 hours, which led to a fire stronger and hotter than that in the WTC, but even the collapses of the Windsor Tower caused by the very strong and long-enduring fire were minimal and limited to the upper floors. If either of the WTC tower had started to collapse because of fires the collapse would have been limited to only a few of the floors and then stopped. The impossibility of a gravitational collapse is closer seen in other documents. A collapse would produce large pieces, and does not explain reports of fine dust from concrete, huge amounts of dust and pieces of steel ejected outwards. Destruction of the towers by explosions is clear according to the photographs and reports of the eye witnesses. In the picture below, a range of cutting charges have just exploded in the down left sector and a typical white cloud is formed outwards from the wall. Down right, explosions are seen as well. Even a flame is seen. In video tapes taken of the so-called collapses of the WTC, more explosions of these cutting charges can be seen. The explosions advance quickly, with a gap of a couple of floors, cutting the strong steel pillars in the outer wall. The explosions are timed so that it appears that the tower collapses occur in the same timing as in a gravitational collapse. The explosions are not completely synchronized in timing, probably a few charges are triggered by radio, and other charges explode out of the impulses of one of these charges (infrared, pressure wave). More challenging problems to the demolition men, however, were the central cores of the buildings and the 47 steel pillars more robust than the ones on the outer rounds. The pillars of the central cores were made of steel even 100 + 100 mm thick, thicker than the side armours of a battle tank. Cutting those, even with explosives, is extremely difficult. One would need to surround the whole pillars, every single pillar on every floor intended to get blasted, with powerful cutting charges. These charges would have needed to be placed in such a way that the users of the skyscrapers could not notice these preparations. As seen in the following pictures, the cores of the towers were not distracted by thousands of powerful cutting charges but by a modern thermonuclear explosive, a small hydrogen bomb. In the picture below, a hydrogen bomb explosion, the bomb having been placed in the cellar and directed to the core, has reached the roof of the tower and the upper parts of the outer walls. On its way up the waves of fire pressure partially penetrated about 100 floors of concrete and steel. Over ten million degrees of heat caused by a hydrogen bomb sublimised all water within the concrete in a moment. Water exploded extremely quickly into 24-fold volume and totally pulverized the concrete. Even people and computers that were in the buildings disappeared turning into heat and light. That is why almost nothing of them was found in the ruins. Burning radiation is absorbed in steel so quickly that steel heats up immediately over its melting point 1585 °C (approx. 2890 °F) and above its boiling point around 3000 C (approx. 5430 °F). In the pictures down below, super hot groups of steel pillars and columns, torn from wall by pressure wave, are sublimized. They immediately turn into a vaporized form, binding heat as quickly as possible. Bursts upwards, even visible in the picture below, are not possible for a gravitational collapse or for cutting charges which are used horizontally. In the upper picture the explosion is in theory 100 times stronger than in the picture below, but in practice the difference is only four times due to the capability of direction of the small hydrogen bomb. In the picture at the right, the brown shades caused by a hydrogen bomb are seen, while the top of the tower that is already collapsing is breaking down and the posture straightens up as the hydrogen bomb pulverized the core and it lost all its resistance. The piles point the blasts of the cutting charges. (Gehue plate 12) Extremely hot, sublimating pieces are not created with many methods. For comparison, pictures of subterranean nuclear explosions where the explosion is blasting onto surface and into the air: Ess1.2 Kt WTC 2 Banberry 10 Kt underground Radioactivity in air creates shades of brown. (The subterranean nuke in the picture on the right is 10 times stronger than the small nuke on the left.) This is the reason why the FBI did not search the crime scene. Ground zeros of nuclear weapons are a health risk and belong to the FEMA. Poster Comment: For the rest of this: Writings of a Finnish Military Expert on 9/11 Writings of a Finnish Military Expert on 9/11 Written in spring 2005, a modestly language-corrected version Corrected by another person than the original author. The photographs attached in this non-profit distribution are for securing volatile, important evidence on 9/11 for discussion and education. Author hereby grants full permission to reproduce the drawing 'The Bombs in the WTC' and his writings. You are encouraged to mail, publish and mass produce these documents or your enhanced versions of them. Due to concerns for his personal safety, the author has chosen to remain anonymous. And a glance at some of what he's fighting for (to keep it fair and balanced): 
Storax Sedan 104 Kt shallow underground
Steel pillars are turned into dust. 
The author has chosen to remain anonymous so I'll post this photo of a Finnish soldier. Why? Well because I like looking at Finns, even with green faces.
/9_11/$FILE/9_11.jpg)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-166) not displayed.
.
.
.
#167. To: RickyJ (#165)
You know what we will think? Why are the American people - well you poseurs that think the demolitions were planted in any case - not rising up in arms? Ambushing soldiers? Police? Targeting political officials and govt employees? In Hungry the people are rioting in the streets over the govt fudging the economic data and you saps sit around saying the govt dynamited buildings down. I don't know about you but if I accepted the govt was dynamiting buildings I wold arm myself get some guys and start killing the enemy. The fact that you types have not risen up in arms to end this evil to me indicates that this is an intellectual fantasy on your parts - a way to give form to your fears of Big Brother. The Black Helicopter - FEMA is the shadow govt - UN troops are hiding in American bases ready to take over the USA for the UN crowd from the 90s who found a new expression for their frights after 9/11.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Ambushing soldiers? Police? Targeting political officials and govt employees? In Hungry the people are rioting in the streets over the govt fudging the economic data and you saps sit around saying the govt dynamited buildings down. I don't know about you but if I accepted the govt was dynamiting buildings I wold arm myself get some guys and start killing the enemy. The fact that you types have not risen up in arms to end this evil to me indicates that this is an intellectual fantasy on your parts - Why? Because the sheople don't give a damn just as they are not rising up at the destruction of the Constitution and their Freedom in the name of "safety." Neither did they rise up for the Weavers or Waco. Does this mean by your logic that it isn't happening? Of course not. People alone will end up incarcerated or dead and most have children they don't want to leave behind. It will only work if everyone does it. That doesn't say much for the backbone of the cowards in this country. Believe me, if I had no children [something to live for], I'd have made the front page already doing exactly as you suggest. Your argument in no way discounts the veracity of what is going on. 9-11 notwithstanding, why in your opinion have people not risen up against the theft of their Freedom..or do you not think that that has happened either?
Some day this will be common knowledge and people like you will either be known as idiots, or agents of the evil regime that carried out this atrocity upon the citizens of the USA.
#168. To: Destro (#167)
Why are the American people - well you poseurs that think the demolitions were planted in any case - not rising up in arms?
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
#169. To: angle (#161)
Excuse me for mistyping F when I should have written C - in any case you tell me at what temperature steel loses strength in? Can you tell me a temperature by temperature analysis of the lowering of steel strength till failure?
First you say:
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#170. To: RickyJ (#163)
So in other words you have no experts in those fields just guys who write stuff.
Now we must define what work in that field means.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#171. To: IndieTX (#168)
You guys are not sheeple - you guys are claiming this happened - - hence you can't be sheep - Why do this if you don't care abou the sheeple? self defense - revenge - two reasons - go for it. Fakers. That is the real sin on you guys part - claiming such a thing and then not doing what needs be done. Anyone who claims they know the govt planted explosives in the buildings and allows such people to rule them is deserving of contempt.
Why? Because the sheople
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#172. To: Destro (#170)
I have? I am not relying on any, I repeat, any so-called “experts” or lay people for my conclusions of what happened on 9/11. I am relying on the evidence that is readily available and using own knowledge of physics and structures, in particular the WTC towers, to reach my determination that the towers did not come in the manner they did due to the planes hitting them and the resulting fires. If you must rely on "experts" to have an opinion on this matter then I would suggest physics researcher Dr. Stephen Jones.
So in other words you have no experts in those fields just guys who write stuff.
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#173. To: IndieTX (#168)
The people will rise up when their actions affects a critical mass of people and the elite know that. That's why concentration camps have been built all over the USA.
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#174. To: angle, RickyJ (#161)
And you know who you are a lousy shill for? MI6/CIA. By trying to focus on explosives in buildings you are distracting people from focusing on the MI6/CIA Mujahideen networks that existed and still exist. Useful idiots to the American regime.
You're a lousy shill
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#175. To: Destro (#171) (Edited)
You ask for an explanation and dismiss it out of hand. You are no longer worth arguing with. Typical Bot tactic. AND you fail to answer my question of you. Why haven't you risen up for reasons other than 9-11 I ask again? Because you are a StateInc shill.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
#176. To: Destro, angle, RickyJ (#174)
Well go for it Destro(y). Give us the goods on the "MI6/CIA Mujahideen networks that existed and still exist". You might even get some credibility
By trying to focus on explosives in buildings you are distracting people from focusing on the MI6/CIA Mujahideen networks that existed and still exist.
#177. To: tom007 (#176) (Edited)
You might even get some credibility Start here: The Yugoslav Caldron “The CIA recruited and trained the jihadists” Also here: From: A Half- Dozen Questions About 9/11 They Don't Want You to Ask More dispositive than these speculations, however, are the very real connections between Washington and Islamic jihadists in the Balkans throughout the 1990s. The report hints at this relationship by mentioning the presence of charity fronts of bin Laden's "network" in Zagreb and Sarajevo. In fact, the U.S. government engaged in a massive covert operation to infiltrate Islamic fighters, many of them veterans of the Afghan war, into the Balkans for the purpose of undermining the Milosevic government. The "arms embargo," enforced by the U.S. military, was a cover for this activity (i.e., using military force to keep prying eyes from seeing what was going on). A key Washington fixer for the Muslim government of Bosnia was the law firm of Feith and Zell. Yes, Douglas Feith, one of the principal conspirators involved in launching the Iraq war under the banner of opposing Islamic terrorism, was a proponent of introducing Islamic terrorists into South Eastern Europe. Do the "Islamofascists" of pseudo-conservative demonology accordingly seem less like satanic enemies and more like puppets dangling from an unseen hand? Or perhaps the analogy is incorrect: more like a Frankenstein's Monster that has slipped the control of its creator.
Give us the goods on the "MI6/CIA Mujahideen networks that existed and still exist".
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#178. To: Destro (#169)
In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900º C (1,500- 1,700º F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600º C (1,100º F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments). At temperatures above 800º C structural steel loses 90 percent of its strength. Yet even when steel structures are heated to those temperatures, they never disintegrate into piles of rubble, as did the Twin Towers and Building 7. Why couldn't such dramatic reductions in the strength of the steel precipitate such total collapse events? High-rise buildings are over-engineered to have strength many times greater than would needed to survive the most extreme conditions anticipated. It may take well over a ten-fold reduction in strength to cause a structural failure. If a steel structure does experience a collapse due to extreme temperatures, the collapse tends to remain localized to the area that experienced the high temperatures. The kind of low-carbon steel used in buildings and automobiles bends rather than shatters. If part of a structure is compromised by extreme temperatures, it may bend in that region, conceivably causing a large part of the structure to sag or even topple. However, there is no example of a steel structure crumbling into many pieces because of any combination of structural damage and heating, outside of the alleged cases of the Twin Towers and Building 7.
you'll ever get is when they lower the box. - Hud 1963
#179. To: Esso (#178)
SUPERB!
Mark
The FBI, rather than trying to prevent a terrorist attack, was merely gathering intelligence so they would know who to arrest when a terrorist attack occurred.— Robert Wright - Former FBI agent
Given the scope of the tragedy from last week, I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C., that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink."— Christie Todd Whitman - 9/18/2001
#180. To: Destro (#169)
You're the one trying to discredit the fact that the towers were demo'ed. The onus is on you, shill.
Can you tell me a temperature by temperature analysis
#181. To: RickyJ (#173)
the truth is common knowledge. That's why these shills are desperately trying to distract from the fact that the towers were demo'ed. It is the catalyst for the end of the neocons.
The people will rise up when
#182. To: Esso, Kamala (#178)
Because they don't have an aircraft shear their support structures - the WTC and WTC7 were not your standard frame built skyscrapers - There were no internal beams for example - so you can get that open air office. See examples: http://www.concretethinking.org/main.asp?page=827 The ability of structural steel to withstand major fires is under scrutiny. The latest findings of the US-based National Institute of Standards and Technology into the collapse of the World Trade Center couple with the recent collapse in fire of the perimeter steel columns of the Madrid Windsor Torre building question the performance of structural steel in fires in high rise buildings. And it is not just in high rise buildings. The avocation by the UK Chief Fire Officers' Association of a boycott of fire fighters entering burning steel framed superstores and warehouses is also raising questions about the use of steel for low rise buildings reports Anna Scothern, Head of Performance at The Concrete Centre. http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/nc/ne/?id=101283 Madrid: A fire of an unknown source has affected one of Madrid's most famous skyscraper. The fire began at the 21st floor at about 22.30 GMT Saturday 12th of February and rapedly extended along the building. Torre Windsor had been under renovation works for the past year and fortunately the building remained empty. Part of the facade has collapsed and firefighters had to abandoned the building due to the risk of collpasing of the structure.
Yet even when steel structures are heated to those temperatures, they never disintegrate into piles of rubble, as did the Twin Towers and Building 7. Why couldn't such dramatic reductions in the strength of the steel precipitate such total collapse events?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#183. To: rickyj, angle (#178)
Because they don't have an aircraft shear their support structures - the WTC and WTC7 were not your standard frame built skyscrapers - There were no internal beams for example - so you can get that open air office. See examples: http://www.concretethinking.org/main.asp?page=827 The ability of structural steel to withstand major fires is under scrutiny. The latest findings of the US-based National Institute of Standards and Technology into the collapse of the World Trade Center couple with the recent collapse in fire of the perimeter steel columns of the Madrid Windsor Torre building question the performance of structural steel in fires in high rise buildings. And it is not just in high rise buildings. The avocation by the UK Chief Fire Officers' Association of a boycott of fire fighters entering burning steel framed superstores and warehouses is also raising questions about the use of steel for low rise buildings reports Anna Scothern, Head of Performance at The Concrete Centre. http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/nc/ne/?id=101283 Madrid: A fire of an unknown source has affected one of Madrid's most famous skyscraper. The fire began at the 21st floor at about 22.30 GMT Saturday 12th of February and rapedly extended along the building. Torre Windsor had been under renovation works for the past year and fortunately the building remained empty. Part of the facade has collapsed and firefighters had to abandoned the building due to the risk of collpasing of the structure.
Yet even when steel structures are heated to those temperatures, they never disintegrate into piles of rubble, as did the Twin Towers and Building 7. Why couldn't such dramatic reductions in the strength of the steel precipitate such total collapse events?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#184. To: angle (#180)
You are nothing but a CIA/MI6/NATO ball licker.
You're the one trying to discredit the fact that the towers were demo'ed. The onus is on you, shill.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#185. To: Destro (#183)
Facade from any dictionary: The outside front wall of a building. Examples: Facade materials for a building include: • aluminum • brick • glass • masonry • wood
#186. To: Destro (#183)
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11_wtc_videos.html "Never before in history has a steel high rise building collapsed simply because of fire. On 9/11, by coincidence, three such buildings collapsed in ten to fifteen seconds, almost freefall speed. In other words, if you dropped a brick from the top of the World Trade Center it would have taken about that time to hit the ground."
#187. To: robin (#186)
Except in Madrid. There goes your exceptionalisim argument.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#188. To: Destro (#183)
Liar, liar, pants on fire. If the aircraft did shear the support structures then the buildings would have toppled over when the planes hit them. Obviously that didn't happen, they didn't even sway any more than a windy day would have made them sway. On 9/11 there was no wind to speak of in NY City from what I have heard, so that additional normal horizontal stress on the building was not present that day. It is a blatant lie to say there were no internal beams when there were 47 core columns in each tower. When one has to resort to lying to defend a theory, it is a good sign the theory they support is wrong.
Because they don't have an aircraft shear their support structures - the WTC and WTC7 were not your standard frame built skyscrapers - There were no internal beams for example - so you can get that open air office.
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#189. To: Destro, angle (#184)
Desperation time has kicked in for this agent/contractor I see.
You are nothing but a CIA/MI6/NATO ball licker.
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#190. To: RickyJ (#188)
It did eventually as shown here: http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.s html
If the aircraft did shear the support structures then the buildings would have toppled over when the planes hit them.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#191. To: RickyJ (#189)
Yea, because I have a posting history for supporting the USA or Amerian foreign policy on the last decade or so of posting history - oops not really. All you are doing is making it ridiculous for people to hold the view that the USA via the CIA and the British via MI6 were in league with the jihadi groups that carried out 9/11 because we are now lumped in with you wack jobs.
Desperation time has kicked in for this agent/contractor I see.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#192. To: Destro (#191)
You have to lie to support the government’s theory. WTC7, WTC1 and WTC2 are the smoking guns of 9/11. No Arabs demolished those buildings.
All you are doing is making it ridiculous for people to hold the view that the USA via the CIA and the British via MI6 were in league with the jihadi groups that carried out 9/11 because we are now lumped in with you wack jobs.
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#193. To: Destro (#187)
You chose a really bad example to make your point; Madrid's fire helps make the demolition of the WTC more clear. First of all the facade of a building has a lot of non-structural stuff attached to it, like gargoyles (you're probably acquainted with a few) and other rather poorly attached doo-dads, as these columns must have been. Maybe you'd have better luck arguing about the Pentagon crash. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html The Madrid Skyscraper Fire Sunday 13 February 2005 With morning light, the damage from the spectacular blaze that lit up the night and attracted thousands of onlookers was evident. The top floors were little more than charred steel twisted into destroyed shapes. Everything else was burned away. Roads for two to three blocks in all directions were closed off to traffic, including the main north-south artery Castellana boulevard. Fire trucks, emergency and police vehicles blocked the intersections, while service was curtailed on three subway lines that ran below or near the building. The dirty white smoke that poured upward from the building was visible from several kilometres (miles) away. Against the night sky, bright orange flames shot out the sides and top of building, producing thick columns of black smoke. At about 3 am (0200GMT), at least six of the upper floors collapsed in a shower of flaming metal debris. As the fire burned into the night, all that was visible of the upper parts of the building was the flaming, gutted remains of steel-reinforced concrete floors. The Windsor Building fire provides a graphic illustration of an 800ºC inferno: The fire was so bright it illuminated Madrid: Click images below for full sized photos Madrid to dismantle fire-gutted skyscraper Thursday February 17 MADRID (Reuters) - A 32-storey Madrid skyscraper gutted by the biggest blaze in the city's history will be taken apart piece by piece from the outside because it is too dangerous to enter, a townhall official says. Madrid's eighth tallest building was reduced to a blackened concrete skeleton at the weekend when a fire that lit up the night sky like a huge torch devoured the 106-metre-high building from the top down. "Given the seriousness and extent of the damage ... the adoption of any security measure to avoid new collapses would be totally useless," urban affairs councillor Pilar Martinez said on Thursday. "As a result it will be declared a ruin and (we will proceed with) its complete demolition," she added. A system of cranes will be set up to allow the charred remains, in the heart of the city's financial district, to be picked apart from outside. "It can't be done from inside because of the state of the building, so the cranes will have to be outside and (workers) will cut it apart piece by piece and bring it down." See also: The Collapse of WTC 1: Madrid Exposes a Fundamental Flaw The Collapse of WTC 1: 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? Let's take a look at the cores of the buildings. Windsor Building Core: WTC 1 Core: It is obvious that the core of WTC 1 was far more robust than the Windsor Building's core - this is to be expected since the building was 110 storeys high. Okay, the core of WTC 1 was solid, but an airliner flew directly fly into it. Could this be the reason for the quick collapse? The above indicates that at least 50% of WTC 1's core was intact after Flight 11 hit the building, and the fact that the building remained standing proves the intact core columns could support the weight of floors above the impact level without problems. This leaves a quandary because we are told that the 800ºC temperatures which the Windsor Building's core columns withstood for 18 hours wrecked the intact core columns of WTC 1 in only 85 minutes. Okay, let's assume that some of WTC 1's remaining core columns of were damaged by the plane impact, maybe this could account for the quick collapse of the building. Well, this might be plausible if an 800ºC fire burned at the airliner impact level, but these temperatures did not exist inside WTC 1. When you add to the above the mysterious demise of the building's core you have to conclude that either a fundamental flaw existed in WTC 1's inner core construction, or a fundamental flaw exists in the official explanation of the building's collapse. "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."Amazingly, a construction crane remained perched on the roof.
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4127075 Firefighters shot jets of water onto one of Madrid’s tallest office buildings this morning, fighting to control a blaze that burned all night and threatened to bring down the 32-story skyscraper.
“We are battling Madrid’s most important fire in its history,” said mayor Alberto Ruiz-Gallardon speaking from the scene at about 9am (0800GMT).
“The situation right now is still of high risk,” he added, 10 hours after fire engulfed the Windsor Building in the heart of Madrid’s business and banking district. “It will take hours until this fire is declared under control.”
Amazingly, a construction crane remained perched on the roof.
A filmy soot covered nearby sidewalks and buildings, and a smell of burnt metal hung in the air. 
There were no reported injuries except for three firefighters who suffered smoke inhalation and exhaustion. At its peak, temperatures reached 800 degrees Celsius (1,472 F), said Javier Sanz, head of Madrid firefighters, on Sunday. The building, reportedly the fourth largest in Madrid, was believed unoccupied when the fire broke out.
The cause was not immediately determined, though emergency services spokesman Javier Ayuso said firefighters think it may have been an electrical short circuit.
Police evacuated a nearby apartment building and hosed down neighbouring office buildings to keep the fire from spreading.
Most of the Windsor Building, about 106 metres (350 feet) high, housed offices of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, a multinational financial services company. The fire appeared to start about three-quarters of the way up the building.
Construction of the Windsor Building began in 1973 and was completed in 1979. The shiny gold building was a landmark structure in Madrid’s business district. The building had been surrounded with scaffolding due to recent repairs.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050217/325/fcpak.html
The 9/11 WTC Fires: Where's the Inferno?
Madrid Exposes a Fundamental FlawThe 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 core was designed to support the entire weight of the buildings several times over. Far more than a mere "service core", it comprised of 47 steel box columns tied together at each floor by steel plates, similar to the 52" deep spandrel plates that tied the perimeter columns together. The largest of these core columns were 18"x36", with steel walls 4" thick near the base and tapering in thickness toward the top, and was anchored directly to the bedrock. The aluminum wings and the planes' fuselage would have been almost instantly shredded into pieces the size of an adult's fist, said Tomasz Wierzbicki, director of the impact and crashworthiness laboratory at M.I.T. Engines and other heavy parts continued to the core, but by working out the amount of energy involved, Dr. Wierzbicki and a student, Liang Xue, determined that at most half the inner columns could have been broken or severely mangled. [New York Times] 
#194. To: RickyJ (#192)
CIA protecting shill. You American gave billions for Muslims to cut off my people's heads for snuff recruit videos and now you are trying to hide this association with the jihad your own money financed and your own govt protects.
WTC7, WTC1 and WTC2 are the smoking guns of 9/11. No Arabs demolished those buildings.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#195. To: RickyJ, robin (#192)
You finally pushed destro over the top with this one.
#196. To: Destro (#194)
So are you a Serb, Bosnian or Croatian? My money? Dude, the Federal Reserve, which is a private bank, prints that money. It is not even majority owned by Americans.
You American gave billions for Muslims to cut off my people's heads for snuff recruit videos and now you are trying to hide this association with the jihad your own money financed and your own govt protects.
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#197. To: robin (#193)
From the University of Sydney, Australia - School of Civil Engineering: http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.s html I value their judgment over your non-experts acting like experts. You would think a civil engineering school from overseas would see through this ruse you claim exists - but sadly for your fevered mind they do not - because your theory is scientific bull.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#198. To: RickyJ (#196)
No.
So are you a Serb, Bosnian or Croatian?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#199. To: angle, RickyJ, robin (#195) (Edited)
No, more like they pushed me under - as in Down Under: From the University of Sydney, Australia - School of Civil Engineering: http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.s html I value their judgment over your non-experts acting like experts. You would think a civil engineering school from overseas would see through this ruse you claim exists - but sadly for your fevered mind they do not - because your theory is scientific bull.
You finally pushed destro over the top with this one.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#200. To: RickyJ (#192)
WTC7, WTC1 and WTC2 are the smoking guns of 9/11. They never saw Dr. Jones coming. Big mistake.
WTC7, WTC1 and WTC2 are the smoking guns of 9/11.
#201. To: Destro (#197) (Edited)
Funny, there's no mention of the Madrid fire. But there is this interesting note you might have missed at the end: This section added 14 January 2006 ************************ Why don't you quote from Michael Chertoff's cousin's article in Popular Mechanics? FEMA!!!!
This website generates many queries from people in response to some of the other theories that are put forward relating to the collapse - namely that it was a controlled explosion.
The initial impact/further weakening by fire reasoning is based on uncontestable knowledge about the behaviour of structures in general, and the weakening of steel under fire conditions, plus video footage of the events and examination of the steel afterwards. The official FEMA report written by engineering experts came to this conclusion based on the evidence.
However, should additional evidence come to light that supports a different theory, the author is willing to reassess his views.
The fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel
There has never been a claim that the steel melted in the fire before the buildings collapsed, however the fire would have been very hot. Even though the steel didnt melt, the type of temperatures in the fire would have roughly halved its strength.
There would have been variations in the distribution of the temperature both in place in time. There are photos that show people in the areas opened up by the impact, so it obviously wasnt too hot when those photos were taken, but this is not to say that other parts of the building, further inside were not hotter. In addition, to make a reasonable conclusion from these photos, it would be important to know when they were taken. It might be possible that just after the impact the area wasnt very hot, but as the fire took hold the area got hotter.
The way the building collapsed must have been caused by explosions
One demolition expert on the day of the collapse said it looked like implosion but this is not very strong evidence. Implosion firstly requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the building. When and how was this explosive placed in the building without anyone knowing about it. Second, implosion required more than just explosives. Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day to day like WTC was.
Why did the building fall so quickly?
The buildings did fall quickly - almost (but not exactly) at the same speed as if there was no resistance. Shouldn't the floors below have slowed it down? The huge dynamic loads due to the very large momentum of the upper floors falling were so great that they smashed through the lower floors very quickly. The columns were not designed to carry these huge loads and they provided little resistance.
What about World Trade Center 7?
I have not studied WTC in any great detail and cannot offer any theories on its collapse mechanism. In the chaos of the day, little attention was paid to WTC7, so there is less evidence available on the damage it sustained before it collapsed. However, some questions that you may want to ponder ...
* While it did not receive any direct impact form the planes, how much debris hit at as the main towers collapsed and what damage did it cause?
* To what extent (if any) did the shock or vibrations caused by the collapse of WTC1 & 2 affect the integrity of WTC7?
* Did any unseen damage to the WTC7 foundations occur in the collapse of WTC 1 & 2?
* Did any of the fire suppression systems in WTC7 function?
The author respect people's right to question theories, but at the present time the author does not believe there is enough evidence for him to change his views on this incident.
#202. To: robin (#201)
I have no problem with the statement in question. He is keeping an open mind if anyone has any new evidence - none has presented itself and it in no way supports your position. Try again - find an expert on that level from a different country no less - like I did.
But there is this interesting note you might have missed at the end:
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#203. To: Destro (#202)
On the previous thread I posted a link to the German engineers who studied 9/11.
#204. To: robin (#201)
When 'your side' can get people with the credentials in science and engineering like PM did and refute the PM article in a scientific peer reviewed manner then you guys graduate to the real world. Some guy studying the evidence based on what he sees on YouTube and then blogging about it don't cut it.
Why don't you quote from Michael Chertoff's cousin's article in Popular Mechanics?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#205. To: Destro (#204)
Some Aussie who quotes FEMA don't cut it here.' Chertoff's cousin tried to pretend he wasn't related to DHS Michael Chertoff at first. What does that tell you?
#206. To: robin (#201)
I can't believe FEMA said this. Steel is a very good conductor of heat, which would have made it very hard to heat up enough at any one point to lose half of its strength at that point. All of the steel supporting structures in that building were connected. If fire was heating one part of the building to the point of the steel losing half of its strength, then the rest of the steel on that floor would have been scorching hot, way too hot to touch as we see the woman in the photo clearly doing. Also the firemen reached the impact floor and reported only two small pockets of fire that they were sure they could knock out with only two hoses right before the South tower started to collapse.
There are photos that show people in the areas opened up by the impact, so it obviously wasnt too hot when those photos were taken, but this is not to say that other parts of the building, further inside were not hotter.
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#207. To: RickyJ (#206)
Excellent point Ricky, but you're not an Aussie expert who quotes from FEMA.
.
.
.
Comments (208 - 275) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest