9/11: FDNY Member Says "Definitely" Bombs in Towers?

[Pardalis]

Pardalis: I'm 63

I'm sorry to say, but you have the reasoning of a 13 year old.

 

[Sentinel]

Oh, and for the fake mother F******* out there with LC two weeks and believe it The hood is definately going to represent. No fear hear, so keep talking that Sh8t cause we are going to see whos scared. I hear roxdog and dj P*ssy like hanging with police informers?

We are going to blow up the spot.


Sentinel

 

[T.A.M.]

Sentinel:

I doubt you'll have to do much with any of the loose changers. The minute the police move toward them they will likely all shut up for fear of their parents getting word of it and grounding them.


TAM

 

[Sentinel]

LOL

Thats true. most of them will cutting school to get there. It seems that all they can relate too. I've seen one lc forum where one guy states hes fifteen and was having a debate with a thirteen year old about lc being a hoax. The first question out of dylans mouth was "was his nam paul isaac jr ?" thats when the kid stated the other guy was thirteen. I'd like to know if there is a law against pandering to children? and if so can we get a charge?

Also would like to put a word out to the IRS since theres over 50.000 dvds that were passed and sold. Can we get an audit against LC, Please? I will be contacting the local and state tax authories later today and will be passing the word to the IRS.


I'm sure at $17.95 a pop he must be making quite a profit off our loved ones for sure. He seems to flying all over the country alot. Whos paying to flight charge and why isn't dylan jason or corey on the no fly list since they are som much against the admin?


Two weeks and counting.



Sentinel

 

[Christopher7]

How many have been exposed to elements that would casue them to collapse?

I'll explain this since you seem to think in such limited terms:

There are 'X' numbers of highrise buildings in the world.

Of them, only a small fraction are considered 'steel framed'. Many more have concrete cores, concrete bases, etc.

Of those steel framed highrise buildings, only a fraction of have been on fire. (for that matter, not many non-steel framed ones have had big fires either)

Of those steel framed highrise buildings on fire, only a tiny, tiny fraction had the fires out of control burning for mulitple hours and exposing structural elements to danger.

What remains is a tiny sample, and what you have doesn't help your case:

1) Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia: Columns sagged from heat, even with the concrete covering the steel frame. Structural Engineers recommended abandoning the firefighting efforts. Water never stopped being pumped on the building. Building eventually destroyed due to fear of collapse.

2) Madrid Sheraton: Concrete core building with steel frame portion. Steel frame portion collapsed due to fire. Concrete portion survives due to it being, well, concrete.

That leaves WTC 1, 2 and 7. Which did not have the advantages of the above buildings.

So bouncing around saying that "NO MODERN HIGHRISE STEEL FRAME BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAOSED FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN A CD" implies that steel framed highrise buildings are in danger falling all over the place.


Reply) Wrong! it means just the opposite ie steel frame buildings don't fall down ...ever. Even in earthquakes they partially collapse an wind up looking like the leaning tower of wherever.


In short, you are being deceptive.

ETA Just re-read your post, Where does is say that the steel frame portion failed?

You don't know what you are talking about.
There are 2 diffrent kinds of steel construction.

The Madrid Sheraton was a steel renforced concrete, that is, steel rebar (round pieces of steel) are set vertically and wraped with more rebar to make a cage. Then a form is placed arround the rebar and cement is poured into the form. I have done this kind of construction meny times (on a much smaller scale)
This kind of construction is not as strong as steel I beams which are NOT surrounded by concrete because they don't need the concrete. Unlike rebar they are self supporting.
A steel frame building means a steel I beam frame.
Madrid was not a steel frame building, it was a steel reinforced concrete frame building.
I hope i'v made that clear enough for a layman to understand.
If not let me know.

 

[Christopher7]

You, sir, are being deliberately obtuse. That's just rude. I'd appreciate it if you'd start taking this subject seriously. You TOLD ME that you read the quotes I gave you from the experts on the scene. You also read the observations of controlled demolitions experts who were there.

I don't think you understood them at all, however. Read them again, and try not to act like a little boy any more. This is a serious subject.

Obtuse? On the contrary sir, i was very direct. I did read the quotes and stated that the firemen and the CD experts saying "the building is comming down" and then it comes down, doesn't explain a GLOBAL collapse but rather a collapse that looks like the Ok. City bldg. Sorry if i didn't make that clear.

 

[simakperrce]

If that is the clip, then what building is he referring to? And as to my point above, did you hear the comment "here we go again?"

There were also reports, which I'm sure Sentinel is aware of, that a third plane was incoming. There was no third plane incoming.

I remember someone on the Radio saying at some point that "there are still 8 planes in the air which are unaccounted for". That part freaked me out since our office was but a mile away from the burning towers and I was having visions of planes hitting left and right and I didn't know what I should do, stay or leave. It was terrible. There was also another false report of a "bomb explosion in front of the State Department in Washington". People were just totally and utterly out of it. Who could blame them?

 

[Christopher7]

Like it or not, there are two theories of what the moon is made of: various minerals, and swiss cheese.

I hope you see my point.

There are countless people who believe the Earth is flat.

I hope you see my point.

If you say so.

By the way, ever chatted with a structural engineer? A fire analyst? Doesn't it strike you as funny that no experts in the related disciplines seem to consider this question a question?

Only for perhaps a moment. Just because something looks like something doesn't mean it is something. (Remember our little flat Earth experiment?) For your controlled demolition to be true, you are going to have to provide physical evidence -- not just residual materials from the scene of the destruction, but also from during the planning stages (for instance: e-mails, memos, procurement orders), the installation stages (including materials transport, manpower involved, independent witness testimony), and the continuing cover-up (proof of one or more pay-offs, for example). Just a couple of these or similar items would help build a case. Simply saying you've studied videos for a couple months does not detective work make.


And by the way, what is it with people and the use of ALL CAPS? It doesn't strengthen an assertion in any way.

Read my post again. I only said that a CD should be considered as an alternate possibility.

Do you know of a qualified structural engineer who states that wtc7 suffered a global collapse because of the debris damage and fires?

The NIST report had all the available information, including what few pieces of steel they didn't illegally destroy, and they coulden't say that wtc7 collapsed due to the debris damage and fires.
Until the final report comes out (if it ever does) the difinative word of the EXPERTS is "appears possible".

 

[Christopher7]

Unless those steel frame High-rises were hit by an aircraft, this comment is irrelavant. Whenever the "No modern high rise steel frame building has collapsed" argument is trotted out, A few things are usually forgotten:

1) It assumes that the structure of the building was intact when the fire started. Not the case with WTC 1&2.

2) It assumes that all fire protection measures built into the building are still functioning. Also not the case with WTC 1&2, As the collision destroyed much of the fireproofing along the impatct area

3) It assumes a "Mundane" cause for the fire (Cigarette in bed, Electrical short, etc), and therefore started small. This is important, because while the fire spreads, it consumes the Fuel available. While the fire heats the Supporting Steel and weakens it, once the fuel available is exhausted, the fire in that location goes out and the steel can cool again. The fire may have spread to other places in the building, weakening the steel there, but never weakens enough steel (Assisted in this by the intact Fireproofing) all at once, and the building remains standing.

compare those to what happened:

The fires in WTC 1&2 started over a very large area all at once, due to the fuel igniting, mostly on the floors where the supporting structure was weakend by the impact, and where the fireproofing was knocked off by the Airplane.

And you can see how the "No Modern steel structures..." Argument doesn't apply.

Dude, we're talking about wtc7. Get with the program

Fires have gutted buildings in L.A., Philly, and Venezuela. In all 3 cases the steel frame was NOT DAMAGED. They were all rebuilt without replacing any of the steel I beams. Fires in buildings don't burn hot enough to weaken steel I beams. Where you get this stuff, one of those debunking sites?

 

[Christopher7]

http://www.fpemag.com/archives/article.asp?issue_id=27&i=153

You are not exactly correct. There have been others prior to 9/11.

Did you read the article?

The 3 buildings they describe in detail were reinforced concrete, they were NOT steel frame. Further, they were in Egypt and Greece where the building codes are lax to non existant.

I repeat: No modern steel frame high rise building has EVER collaosed due to fire or any other reason EXCEPT FOR CD!

Try again.

 

[Mancman]

You don't know what you are talking about.
There are 2 diffrent kinds of steel construction.

The Madrid Sheraton was a steel renforced concrete, that is, steel rebar (round pieces of steel) are set vertically and wraped with more rebar to make a cage. Then a form is placed arround the rebar and cement is poured into the form. I have done this kind of construction meny times (on a much smaller scale)
This kind of construction is not as strong as steel I beams which are NOT surrounded by concrete because they don't need the concrete. Unlike rebar they are self supporting.
A steel frame building means a steel I beam frame.
Madrid was not a steel frame building, it was a steel reinforced concrete frame building.
I hope i'v made that clear enough for a layman to understand.
If not let me know.

The core of the Madrid tower was reinforced concrete, but the upper 16 stories of perimeter columns(which failed completely) were nothing but steel.

On the subject of the Madrid Winsdor fire, can anyone guess as to what was actually fuelling that fire? Since it was in the middle of a renovation programme I wouldn't expect any combustibles that you would find in an office or hotel to be present.

 

[Pardalis]

I repeat: No modern steel frame high rise building has EVER collaosed due to fire or any other reason EXCEPT FOR CD!

They (WTC1,WTC2 and WTC7) collapsed due to fire AND structural damage.

 

[T.A.M.]

Did you read the article?

The 3 buildings they describe in detail were reinforced concrete, they were NOT steel frame. Further, they were in Egypt and Greece where the building codes are lax to non existant.

I repeat: No modern steel frame high rise building has EVER collaosed due to fire or any other reason EXCEPT FOR CD!

Try again.

ANSWER 1: YES. I have read the article!!! Did you??

The 3 buildings they go on to speak about are not the ones I am referring to (if you read the article, you would know that). Those buildings are described in detail because of the uniqueness of their collapse, not the material they were made from (if you read the article you would know that as well!!!!).

As to where they are from, I could care less, as the CT grandiose statement, which of course you have spued here at nauseum, is...

"No modern steel frame high rise building has EVER collapsed due to fire or any other reason except CD." You do not state "In North America" anywhere, but you do say "EVER".

Just so everyone understands where I am coming from, I will do what I rarely due, and that is to reprint here, the entire article I have referred to...

(Bold my emphasis)

From FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING MAGAZINE ARCHIVE:

Historical Survey of Multistory Building Collapses Due to Fire
By: Jesse Beitel and Nestor Iwankiw, Ph.D., P.E.

INTRODUCTION
There have been, and remain to be, continuing concerns about the adequacy of structural fire protection in the wake of the 9/11 tragedies. As significant as these events were, they were also clearly not representative of the normal accidental impact of fire on building structures. To assess the extent and nature of structural collapses due to fire in taller buildings, a review of existing information about fire incidents resulting in structural collapse was collected and reviewed.

The survey was international in scope and included building collapses due to fire in structures with four or more stories that had occurred during the 1970-2002 time frame of the survey. Both total and partial collapses were included in the survey. Since no database exists that systematically identifies building collapses due to fire (including the NFIRS system), the survey was necessarily exploratory. The survey methodology included a review of both news sources and technical literature, as well as inter-views with a wide range of individuals knowledgeable in structural fire protection. Twenty-two fires were identified that caused either partial or total collapse of a multistory structure. The adequacy and code compliance of the original structural and fire-resistant design of the identified buildings were beyond the scope of the project and were not assessed. While the number of fire events may appear low (average of one/year), these fire events are high-consequence occurrences with respect to loss of life, injuries, and economic costs.
article continues below
Dupont

This survey of structural building collapses due to fire causes was sponsored in 2002 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) as part of a larger project. The complete report is available from NIST.1

SURVEY RESULTS
For the purposes of this NIST survey, multistory buildings were defined as those having four or more stories. Nonbuilding structures, such as tunnels, bridges, observation or transmission towers, were not included. Either partial or total failure of the structural framing, members, and/or connections was considered to have constituted a collapse, and it was necessary for a fire to have been the direct cause of this failure.

A total of 22 such cases were identified through 2002 after extensive searches of the literature, news, and other contacts, with the Sept. 11 disasters in New York and Washington, DC, counting as five of these incidents [World Trade Center (WTC) 1, 2, 5, and 7, and the Pentagon]. The cases occurred not only in the U.S. and North America, but also internationally. This NIST survey data demonstrated that buildings of all types of construction and occupancies, in the U.S., North America, and abroad, are susceptible to fires, particularly older buildings and those that may be undergoing construction, renovations, or repairs. The total fatalities were dominated by the Sept. 11 WTC disasters, which were unique in that they were precipitated by terrorist attacks that substantially damaged the buildings' structural framing and destroyed their fire protection systems prior to the fires.

The NIST survey of 22 fire-induced building collapses from 1970-20021 identified a variety of conditions, materials, locations, and buildings. Fifteen cases were from the U.S., two from Canada, and five from Europe, Russia, and South America. The numbers of fire collapse events can be categorized by building material as follows:

* Concrete: 7 (1 in Pentagon 9-11 event)
* Structural steel: 6 (4 in 9-11 WTC events)
* Brick/Masonry: 5
* Wood: 2
* Unknown: 2

Three of the these events were from the 1970s, another three from the 1980s, four from the 1990s, and 12 in 2000 and beyond. This temporal distribution is skewed towards more recent occurrences, as expected, both due to the magnitude of the WTC (counted as four events) and Pentagon (one event) disasters of 9-11 and the news media searches.

The collapse distribution by building story height was as follows:

* 4-8 stories: 13
* 9-20: 3
* 21 or more: 6

Almost 60 percent of the cases are in the 4-8 stories range, with the remainder affecting much taller buildings. Six collapses occurred in buildings over 20 stories, and three of these were the WTC steel-framed buildings (1, 2, and 7).

At least four of these fire collapses had occurred during construction or renovations of some kind, when the usual expected architectural, structural, and fire protection functions were still incomplete or temporarily disrupted, and/or potential new fire sources were introduced, such as electrical and gas line repairs, welding, and the presence of other flammable supplies and/or equipment. Partial collapses (14 events) were the most frequent occurrences, and the WTC disasters (listed as four separate events, with three full collapses) dominated the full collapse event total of eight cases. Office and residential were the primary types of occupancy in these 22 buildings, as would be expected in multistory construction, with the occupancy distribution being as follows:

* Office: 9
* Residential: 8
* Commercial: 3
* Combined commercial/residential: 2

The 9-11 events are quite thoroughly documented in the FEMA 4032 and ASCE-SEI Pentagon Reports,3 with further NIST investigations on the WTC ongoing, and will not be further covered herein. Rather, some other interesting and more obscure cases of fire-induced collapses will be described.

Two large department store fires in Athens, Greece, in 1980 are documented in the paper by Kyriakos Papaioannoa, 1986.4 These fires began at 3 a.m. on Dec. 19, 1980, with arson being suspected as the cause. The Katrantzos Sport Department Store was an 8-story reinforced concrete building. Its fire started at the 7th floor and rapidly spread throughout the building, due to lack of vertical or horizontal compartmentation and the absence of sprinklers. Collected evidence indicated that the fire temperatures reached 1000°C over the 2- to 3-hour fire duration, and the firefighters concentrated on containing the fire spread to the adjacent buildings. Upon termination of these fires, it was discovered that a major part of the 5th to 8th floors had collapsed. Various other floor and column failures throughout the Katrantzos Building were also observed (see Figure 1). The cause of these failures was considered to be restraint of the differential thermal expansion of the structure that overloaded its specific elements or connections. On May 21, 1987, Sao Paulo had one of the biggest fires in Brazil, which precipitated a substantial partial collapse of the central core of the tall CESP Building 2.5 This was a 21-story office building, headquarters of the Sao Paulo Power Company (CESP), after whom the building was named. Buildings 1 and 2 of this office complex were both of reinforced concrete framing, with ribbed slab floors. These two buildings had several unique internal features and contents. Both buildings still retained their original wood forms used for pouring the concrete floor slabs, which were never removed. Low-height plywood partition walls were also used in the interiors. Approximately two hours after the beginning of the fire in CESP 2, its structural core area throughout the full building height collapsed. This collapse was attributed to the thermal expansion of the horizontal concrete T-beam frames under the elevated fire temperatures, which led to the fracture of the vertical framing elements and their connections in the middle of the building, and the consequent progressive loss of gravity load-carrying capacity (see Figure 2).

A fire-initiated full collapse of a textile factory occurred in Alexandria, Egypt, on July 19, 2000.6 This 6-story building was built of reinforced concrete, and its fire started at about 9 a.m. in the storage room at the ground floor. Fire extinguishers were nonfunctional, and the fire spread quickly before the firefighters could arrive. An electrical short-circuit accelerated the fire spread. At about 6 p.m., nine hours after the start of the fire, when the blaze seemingly was under control and subsiding, the building suddenly collapsed, killing 27 people. Figure 3 shows a photograph of this collapse.

CONCLUSIONS
Past experience and this 2002 NIST collapse survey confirm that fires, and the related damage, deaths, casualties, and any collapses, are essentially rare and random events, whose effects depend highly on the time, nature, and circumstances of the fire occurrence. Thus, fires represent a hazard to all building types, materials, and occupancies. Likewise, the added fire-fighting difficulty in all taller buildings must be recognized, given the longer times needed to escape or access the higher floors. Many of the past major fires in tall buildings fortunately occurred in the evenings or weekends, when the office buildings were almost vacant, thereby, minimizing their potential dangers to human life. Automatic sprinkler systems are a very effective means to suppress a fire, but if the system is being repaired, or is nonexistent or nonfunctional for other reasons, the threat of fire growth increases.

Another important finding of this study was the lack of readily available, and well-documented, information on partial or total structural collapse due to fire. Unless the fire event was significant for other reasons, e.g., loss of life, very little information was available. It is recommended that a centralized database be developed, whereby structural damage and collapse can be investigated and systematically reported in the future. The current lack of systematic information on fire-induced collapses seriously limits the profession's understanding of the scope and nature of the real structural fire protection problem.

Jesse Beitel and Nestor Iwankiw are with Hughes Associates, Inc.

REFERENCES

1. Iwankiw, N., and Beitel, J., "Analysis of Needs and Existing Capabilities for Full-Scale Fire Resistance Testing," Hughes Associates, Report NIST GCR 02-843, December 2002.
2. 2 FEMA 403, World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, May 2002.
3. ASCE-SEI, The Pentagon Building Performance Report, ASCE, Reston, VA, January 2003.
4. Papaioannoa, K., "The Conflagration of Two Large Department Stores in the Centre of Athens," Fire and Materials, Vol. 10, 1986, pp. 171-177, John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
5. Berto, A.F., and Tomina, J.C., "Lessons From the Fire in the CESP Administration Headquarters," IPT Building Technologies, 1988, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
6. BBC News, "Factory Fire Kills 15 in Egypt," World: Asia-Pacific, July 20, 2000.



Just for your reference....

 

[Christopher7]

Where does it say that a steel frame bldg collapsed?

Reinforced con. is quite diffrent. (and they didn't totally collapse)

I'll change that to global (total) collapse for clarity.

Thank you for the correction.

The point is still the same

No modern high rise steel frame building has ever totally collapsed due to fire.

 

[T.A.M.]

Where does it say reinforced concrete. It lists "Structural steel" and then in brackets references WTC 1,2,7 as three of the six.

Time for you to bring your evidence (besides the NIST or FEMA, since as a CTer you believe them to be false) demonstrating, like your quote, that there has never been a STEEL FRAMED HIGHRISE STRUCTURE to EVER COLLAPSE.

 

[T.A.M.]

and since it lists the Pentagon, a steel reinforced concrete structure, under the "Concrete" section, I would suggest that section is for the "reinforced concrete" buildings.

From 911review.org:

The Pentagon is constructed with 42,000 40 cm. (15") square steel reinforced concrete pillars.

 

[Pardalis]

Reinforced con.

This seems about right.

http://www.wordreference.com/fren/con

 

[Christopher7]

The core of the Madrid tower was reinforced concrete, but the upper 16 stories of perimeter columns(which failed completely) were nothing but steel.

On the subject of the Madrid Winsdor fire, can anyone guess as to what was actually fuelling that fire? Since it was in the middle of a renovation programme I wouldn't expect any combustibles that you would find in an office or hotel to be present.

It raged out of controll for something like 24 hrs.

Refrence for the steel beam failure please.

Please accept my apology for the negative remark. It was my understanding that it was a reinforced concrete construction.

BTW The building did NOT collapse.

 

[Mancman]

It raged out of controll for something like 24 hrs.

Refrence for the steel beam failure please.

Please accept my apology for the negative remark. It was my understanding that it was a reinforced concrete construction.

BTW The building did NOT collapse.

http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

"Despite a complete burn-out, the strength provided by a technical concrete floor, plus the passive fire resistance of the building's concrete core and frame, prevented the building from collapse.
The only part of the building to collapse was the network of steel perimeter columns supporting the slab on the upper floors."

"This case study is an example of the excellent performance of a concrete frame designed using traditional methods and subjected to an intense fire. It also highlights the risks when active fire protection measures fail or are not included in steel frame construction."

The building did not suffer global collapse (nobody claims this), but all the steel perimeter columns did, which is the cruicial point.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

It raged out of controll for something like 24 hrs.

as manc stated the building was undergoing renovations so there liekly was not a great deal of fuel available for the fire, meaning it would have been less intense than WTC fires

Refrence for the steel beam failure please.

i dont have a picture handy, but its pretty lcear the steel framework around the core suffered a complete collapse

BTW The building did NOT collapse.

the steel portion DID collapse

BTW the building was NOT hit by a plane