Madrid fire burns more than 12 hrs 12Feb2005

[Darren Dirt]

 hour upon hour of intense fire, and yet no bending, no melting, no pools of isanely-hot liquid at the base of the rubble? Golly, must be some kind of newfangled steel... oh wait the building went up in 1979.

Amazing pictures tell the story - http://www.elmundo.es/documentos/2005/02/windsor/

( Some find http://babelfish.altavista.com/ works better than Google )

Google news actually has some articles - surprising since it didn't happen in America [/cynical voice]

- - -

ABC sez "The blazing tower evoked memories for many Spaniards of the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center in New York." Funny, now that you mention it, 911 does, indeed, come to mind.

[Thorin]

 The theory that these two fires are alike is flawed:

- The Madrid fire was in a much smaller building (32 stories, not 100+)
- There is no mention of what accelerant was used, but I assume there wasn't large quantities of jet fuel
- Office furniture and carpeting burns hot enough to kill, but a lot cooler than jet fuel
- There are no large holes in the building in Madrid; said holes contributed to the instability of the Twin Towers

[Ustauk]

 Here's a good explanation of the difference between the fire in the Towers and an ordinary fire.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse2.html

The key was the uniformity of the spread of the accelerant, in this case jet fuel, and the incredible heat at which it burned.  If the the fire had been isolated, the buckling wouldn't have been great enough to collapse the building.  As it was, the fire caused all the clips that held the floor to the central core and outer wall to fail at once.  This caused all the floors above the impact to drop there full weight on the floor below the impact, and it couldn't take that kind of wait.  From there, the window collapsed like and accordian.

[Darren Dirt]

 In a few well-known highly publicized media, experts "Explain[ed] the Collapses" - but there are a huge number of problems with these "expert analyses" - ranging from flaws, omissions, or outright disingenous untruths.

Most significant is that the majority ignore the fact that the WTC towers each had a vertical steel lattice core that was incomparably solid, and since the blueprints have been deemed "National Security" hence unavailable, the average researcher can at most look at photos of when the towers were being constructed. Here's a lengthy interview transcript that goes into detail, but sums it up right off the bat "The primary deception in FEMA's report is to make you think that the core columns didn't even exist..." http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/radio/youreyesdontlie/ - how could this core dissolve like dust? Why didn't it stay up, even for 5 extra seconds, if the floors were pancaking (with nearly 0 resistance, to boot!)


But if the above it too wordy for ya, consider this BRIEF summary why "progressive collapse" (i.e. "pancake theory") is completely contrary to basic phyics and the video footage hundreds of millions saw time and again - http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collap...rogressive.html
(which is why there are many attempts to explain the unexplainable, thus triggering this COLLAPSE CHALLENGE! )

The steel structure was not damaged significantly at all (and the aforementioned core was certainly intact!)... Plus what about the alleged "intense fires" and other 911 myths?




And the one red flag that can't be explained by the above "objections" is WTC 7 - the building that was across the street from the North Tower, with ANOTHER building standing in the way between them. WTC 7 did not have any kind of significant fires, and in fact the only small ones visible were in the southwest corner, on a few lower floors, and of course there was no "structural damage" due to planes crashing into it at 400-600 mph. Suddenly it collapsed, and even FEMA couldn't explain it - at all, they didn't even try.

Follow some of the links re. WTC7 here, and discover a slip-up by WTC complex owner Larry Silverstein (during a PBC documentary) analyzed here. ( Other discussions of the PBS documentary, what "Pull It" means to demolition crews, etc. can be found with a simple Google search "Larry Silverstein" "pullit.mp3" )

- - -

After all that, is the Official Gubmint Story still the more reasonable of the various "conspiracy theories" to believe? The guy who launch ReOpen911.org no longer thinks so; he started out believing it, then ... well, watch his "Why I Put Up This Site etc." video to know what changed his mind: http://reopen911.org/video/cte_01.mov


Enjoy your red pill.
Sincerely, Darren Dirt - not telling you *what* to think, just what to *think about*, since 2000-something.

[Mr. Analog]

 1. Blueprints and constuction in the field sometimes differ significantly.

2. Video footage only shows outside damage, hundreds of girders retrieved from the site also show that the stress failure points were not due to the structural soundness of the central core or the construction of the girders themselves but a massive failure in the joint system used.

3. WTC 7s structural integrity was already comprimised by the massive vibration, it was on fire and probably was pulled.

To be fair, I think that it is a remote possibility that the buildings were pulled to reduce further damage to the city and adjascent buildings, I could also understand why the Government would want to diffuse this particular detail from the public (to protect the firemen who would have had to make a killer decision like this).

Regardless, terrorist forces did hijack several aircraft at the most opportunistic time possible and attempted a multi-point attack on the United States. These are not amateurs, they knew what would happen if they slammed aircraft into the WTC towers they knew how to do it and when to do it. The important thing is that we find a way of dealing with terrorist threats better in the future.

Here is my suggestion, and one the FAA doesen't like, make the airplane cockpit a total enclosure with no access to the passenger hold. Unless potential hijackers can bring an acetylene torch onboard they are out of luck.

[Darren Dirt]

 other major fires (plus this detailed article updated re. Madrid ; and a lengthy discussion focusing on the temperature, symmetry, etc.)