@Cory Hill sorry I didn't know you were a kid. I apologize for my comment and deleted it. They are heroes because their actions were heroic. They risked their lives to save others. They were so brave in the face of danger to face such an overwhelmingly terrifying blaze. They died doing a job that most are not brave enough to even sign up for. They knew that there was a possibility that they wouldn't return home to their families and they still ran toward the danger. That is what makes them heroes.
😩 " INDEED!.... Yet , unless they renovate. countless (U.S.) municipal ordinances allow older buildings exemptions through ' grandfather ' clauses. I shudder to think how much deadlier this highrise inferno could have been, had more occupants were trapped inside. "
@@3618499 Where I live, a fire like this in a commercial building that took a very long time to extinguish spurred a law requiring retrofitting sprinklers - but ONLY for commercial highrises and not residential ones. So, not surprisingly, several years ago a massive fire damaged hundreds of apartments and killed 4 people in a condo. And as usual, the residents of the 300+ buildings that lack sprinklers continue to bitch and moan and whine about how unfair it is to make them pay for installing them. These people are convinced that this could not possibly ever happen to THEM.
The building did have some fire sprinklers, but the nearest ones were on the 30th floor and the building was built before the revised fire sprinkler code
The building was designed and built around the same time as the original WTC towers. Design didn't have much to do with which would collapse in a fire. It's just this building wasn't full of burning Jet-A, and didn't have a significant portion of its load bearing columns broken by the impact of an airplane.
WOW....brings backs memories...I was 18 yrs old and just started my very first maintenance technician helper (changing bulbs,cleaning a/c units,unclogging sinks,blah blah blah).....my boss calls me up and tells me don't bother coming to work tomorrow ,we have a building fire....I put on the tv stations and there it was burning away...I couldn't believe...first thing that came to mind is,shit my job!......long story short,basically outside contractors came in the building to clean up computer equipment...they stored their combustible rags in the electrical rooms,must have been quite a bit rags/cloths......sure enough a fire broke out fast and out of control. The big problem was that there was about 15-20 floors not protected because that sprinkler system zone was in the middle of a repair, sure enough it spread quick....the building actually was burning for two days, not 19 hours.....after it was out the building was devastated so they took it down floor-by-floor,piece -by-piece.....after I lost my job I found myself homeless sleeping at city hall(kidding).. RIP to the firefighters who put in the effort,and condolence to their family
There was an article in Fire Engineering magazine on this fire. Part of the issue was flow reducers on the building standpipes that reduced the flow to the low 80 something PSI. The fire fighters had nozzles that needed 92 PSI minimum to work correctly. The fire fighters were simply without anything to work with. I seem to remember it was 8 floors burnt to nothingness. It was a two day fire. Wanna know what it is like? Watch on of the helmet cam videos. Once you are in the smoke, you can't see the front of your face mask. Been there!
In Australia its so bad buildings are now deemed to dangerous to live in, many buildings have had fires, a special gov body is funding the removal of the cladding, there several thousand buildings which the gov are keeping secret ....the Dubai Towers and many others around the world have this cladding brought in illegally because its cheap and installed without proper certification because officers get kickbacks to turn a blind eye...shocking
I was a kid on a boy scout trip at Camp Hart just west of the city when this happened. The scout leaders played news about it on the radio as we were breaking camp and loading up gear on Sunday morning. I remember looking over at center city from Rt. 76 on the drive back to New Jersey, and seeing dark smoke smoldering from the building way off in the distance. It was a ominous scene and a haunting memory.
This was a tragedy. I feel badly for the firefighters that were lost. The reporting segment is excellent. We in the US miss matter of fact reporting. While this was a tragedy, today there would be heavily dramatized music leading in to the report taking detracting from the media conveying what happened.
I remember this fire/disaster. I drove to the main post office to get a letter postmarked by the 02.22.91. On my way back after midnight, I could see that fire from 30th & Market Sts. When I got to 16th & Market, traffic was being detoured but the upper floor were totally engulfed. ghm on the 3 men who scarified their lives so others could move up the command post. Why is it that people have to lose their lives for change to occur?
Firefighters are trained not to hurry if not needed. Look at it this way the turnout gear is around sixty pounds, the SCBA, is around forty pounds. Add another sixty pounds of hose and you hundred and forty pounds of gear you got to move, and try not to use all your air climbing up twenty floors. If you're breathing heavy, and all tired when you get to the fire floor, your becoming part of the problem. A fire that big can't be put out with just water, so you just save who and what you can.
I'm a first year union Carpenter and my forman and I were talking about this. A lot of work we get is in direct result of codes that were put in place because of this fire. Most of it is to stop the spreading of smoke and fire into adjacent rooms and floors above. Very sad to hear about the 3 firefighters.
I was only 8 when this happened. We had to go to City Hall the week after so my mom could file some paperwork and it was so ominous and scary to see the charred building
It didn't collapse because it was a normal huge fire. It was destructively unsound after the fire and they had to demolish it and replace it with a much safer building just like with the WTC after 9/11 when they had to clear out all the rubble of the twin towers and the small buildings around them including the deustche bank building or whatever it's called and replace it with the much stronger WTC, in which the main building 1WTC has steel reinforced concrete inside so it won't collapse during a plane crash. What about 7? Well too much debris hit it and it was made out of blowing windows. The Empire State Building had a plane crash situation back in 1945 and was intact because it was reinforced possibly with concrete. I rest my case here.
The inevitable WTC comparisons always come out. I've talked to a number of experts who feel buildings like this would never have taken the aircraft impact as well... i.e. This building could've been structurally destroyed immediately. LA's 1st Interstate Bank (now Aon) was saved partly because of the immediate fire suppression efforts of a myriad of fire companies. Experts there feared the building would be a total loss if they allowed it to extend past floor 16; there would've been no way to stop it from going right through the 62nd story roof... if it didn't collapse. I always thought 9/11 was odd in that they had little idea the towers could collapse since LAFD had a structural engineer on site fearing just that at 1st Interstate... and there were no planes...
Your conspiracy theories have been disproven. It is a proven fact that the towers were taken out by planes. Shove your conspiracy theories up your ass, and stop disrespecting the dead.
@@mikkovuorinen2884 those diagrams miss out on the fact that their were 20 story gashes throughout the southern and eastern face from the north tower collapse. Plush the building was totally engulfed after several hours after being that damaged too. Sprinklers did not work at all so there was no fire suppression. wtc 7 was built in the late 80s and infact used a tube structural support like the twin towers did which meant the interior floors offered no support once the exterior structural collumns failed
Leroy Allen i thumbed up not because they died but for the knowledge of this happening. My heart goes out to those lost. If it wasnt for this video the world would most likely never heard of these brave men.
ine.uaf.edu/wtc7 This is about the demolition of WTC7 that was not hit by aeroplane.The symmetrical fall with gravitational acceleration i.e. free fall speed (2,25 secs) occured by cuttin ALL several columns off the WTC7 virtually at the same time. This will happen in controlled demolitions only. Fires could not have done it. Read the study and learn: ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
@@mikkovuorinen2884 controlled demolition 😂😂😂 try a collapsing larger skyscraper more than twice it's size striking it with debris basically firebombing it. Which is why the entire penthouse apartment fell into the building. When does this ever happen in demolitions
@@melvynsngltn27 Hi Gov Chill, it did NOT happen in this WTC7 controlled demolition case either. Your God , gov.'s own liar party NIST also noted (sic) that debris from other WTC towers did NOT (loop that: did NOT) have any meaningful part in WTC7 destruction.
@@mikkovuorinen2884 i guess you never saw what happened to building 3 the Marriott Hotel after the South Tower collapse onto it. Maybe you should actually research before you talk
It's weird hearing what I would consider a local broadcaster cuz his voice sounds incredibly familiar on TH-cam, probably because I watched it live when it happened.
This reminds me of the Cook County Illinois office building fire over a decade ago..same thing..what year was this? And was this building finally torn down?
VTOL aircraft with a hose attached would enable access to high rise and the ability to fire water directly into the building rather than from the street 20 storeys below.
Because I am still searching for truth and thought maybe this was it and the official explanation was true, I just watched a fairly new video of WTC 7 with evidence of the "gaping hole" on the south side. Then I searched for high rises on fire. Bldg 7 was not hit by a plane so jet fuel was not a factor. If 7 had a structurally compromising hole in one side, what caused the entire building to fall at free-fall speed all at once, and not collapse at the site of the damage? This video of the Meridian Bldg which burned much longer than WTC, as well as numerous other videos of high rise fires, is definitive proof to me that there are still unanswered questions. If the heat from the fires in this video did not cause structural beams to twist and fail, what made the 3 WTC buildings collapse and fall in a straight line at free-fall speed? The biggest question I have always had was why the buildings did not collapse and crumble at the point of impact. The explanation offered of "pancaking" defies logic.
"I just watched a fairly new video of WTC 7 with evidence of the "gaping hole" on the south side" The damage suffered from falling debris was not the main factor in WTC7's collapse. Fire caused the collapse, along with the 'build it quick and cheaply' design of the building. It had a fatal vulnerability in that if a small number of columns started to weaken, the entire building was in danger of collapse. "Then I searched for high rises on fire." Searching for other buildings is not really that useful, since no other building had the same design as WTC7. It is like saying nobody can be killed by being hit by a car, because searching on TH-cam reveals people being hit by cars and surviving. "Bldg 7 was not hit by a plane so jet fuel was not a factor." Have you read the NIST report? It states that fire was the primary cause. Nobody ever pinpointed jet fuel. "If 7 had a structurally compromising hole in one side, what caused the entire building to fall at free-fall speed all at once, and not collapse at the site of the damage?" Again, read the NIST report. WTC7 fell at free fall speed for SOME of its collapse, not all. Also, bear in mind that it started to collapse internally (notice the penthouse collapse 5-10 seconds before the rest collapses) before the main collapse commenced. "This video of the Meridian Bldg which burned much longer than WTC, as well as numerous other videos of high rise fires, is definitive proof to me that there are still unanswered questions." The Meridian Building is a completely different building, with a different design. It is not proof at all. Your argument is a logical fallacy. "If the heat from the fires in this video did not cause structural beams to twist and fail, what made the 3 WTC buildings collapse and fall in a straight line at free-fall speed?" WTC1 and WTC2 did NOT fall at free fall speed. You can easily check it by watching the collapse on a YT video, and seeing steel columns break away and hit the ground well before the pancaking central portion. Also, they fell in a straight line because the only force acting upon it was gravity, which pushes downwards. Simple physics. As for the steel twisting and failing, again, it was a different building with a different design, that was not hit by an incredible amount of kinetic energy (an airplane). "The biggest question I have always had was why the buildings did not collapse and crumble at the point of impact. The explanation offered of "pancaking" defies logic." They did collapse at the point of impact. Haven't you seen the footage? The structure around the impact zone was weakened so that it could not sustain the incredible load above it. Gravity did the rest. The pancaking theory makes perfect sense in the light of this, unless you are suggesting gravity doesn't exist.
Thank you, Aiken, for your reply. Allow me to answer in like fashion: If fire was the main reason 7 collapsed, why did it not collapse at the point of the fire which from photos did not encompass the entire building. Why did the building not buckle where the "southside gaping hole" was? The entire building fell at the same time at free fall, as evidence by an excellent video "WTC7 in Freefall: No Longer Controversial." You asked if I read the NIST report. First of all, using the report from a govt agency to prove the govt wasn't complicit in 9/11 is like asking the Mafia for an analysis of their revenue activities. NIST had to manipulate the data to come to their conclusion of fire and pancaking causing the collapse of the towers. I watched other videos of steel structure buildings to form my conclusion that WTC falling (purportedly) by fire is a unique event. Comparing steel structures to steel structures is relative. The Meridian Building was a different design, yes. However, WTC 1 and 2 were built specifically to withstand being hit by a commercial airliner. You and I must be watching different videos of the collapse of 7. The penthouse did not take 5-10 second to collapse before the rest of the building. It was ONE second, at a push. The entire 47 stories took 9.5 seconds to fall. Every single one of the video I've seen of 7 falling corroborates this. The steel columns "breaking away" from WTC 1 and 2 appear to be shot out and some have even pierced neighboring buildings. I find it difficult to believe that these beams merely broke away and fell. If an incredible amount of kinetic energy caused the failure of those buildings, why didn't they buckle inwards at the point of impact, or at least begin the collapse immediately? And if fire so hot it can melt steel caused the collapse, why was there a woman standing in the hole left by the plane? I disagree with your assertion that 1 and 2 began to collapse at the point of impact. Simple physics tells me that if I have a stack of blocks and remove a middle piece, the stack is not going to fall straight down, but will topple toward the missing piece. I have spent hours watching video after video of 1 and 2 falling, from every angle available, and not one of them shows a building toppling in any direction, but only a straight, fast 15-second fall directly into the buildings' footprints in a cloud of dust...not huge chunks of debris. There is evidence of ignited explosive material found from the scene. How did it get there? Why was the physical evidence whisked away before accurate studies could be completed? Why did so many witnesses testify to hearing explosions? Why are there still so many unanswered questions?
"If fire was the main reason 7 collapsed, why did it not collapse at the point of the fire which from photos did not encompass the entire building." The fire was large - it wasn't in one exclusive place. But why suggest the collapse did not originate where the fire was? You know the exact column that failed because of fire. You know the rest of the building was vulnerable if individual columns were compromised. "Why did the building not buckle where the "southside gaping hole" was?" Why should it? NIST didn't claim the "gaping hole" was a significant factor. It pinpointed fire, the column that failed, triggering other collapses. Remember, it was a cheap-and-quick build job, designed in such a way that if one column was compromised, the entire building was vulnerable - like a house of cards. "The entire building fell at the same time at free fall" There were internal collapses before the building collapsed, and you can see in videos where the penthouse collapses well before the main collapse. To be accurate, the building fell at free fall for SOME of its descent. This is not a problem for those who study building collapses and engineering. As the critical column failed, columns around it failed, and that forced columns and masonry outwards and inwards, meaning there was NOTHING to stop it from free falling. "You asked if I read the NIST report. First of all, using the report from a govt agency to prove the govt wasn't complicit in 9/11 is like asking the Mafia for an analysis of their revenue activities" That is a standard conspirloon tactic of hand-waving. You can't actually counter the NIST report, so you belittle it by suggesting "they are also in on it", even though the actual evidence and science backs them up. Meanwhile, conspirloons have come up with counter-theories that don't stand up to evidence and science. "NIST had to manipulate the data to come to their conclusion of fire and pancaking causing the collapse of the towers." You have no evidence to make that statement. "I watched other videos of steel structure buildings to form my conclusion that WTC falling (purportedly) by fire is a unique event." Every single fire is a unique event, and every single building is of a different design. "Comparing steel structures to steel structures is relative." Only up to a point. Steel structures can be vastly different to one another. "The Meridian Building was a different design, yes. However, WTC 1 and 2 were built specifically to withstand being hit by a commercial airliner." They were not designed to withstand modern airline impacts, full of jetfuel, deliberately targeted at the centre of the buildings. I'd love to know how you would expect 1960s architects to design such infallible structures. Also, remember you were talking about WTC7, and not WTC1 and 2. The penthouse did not take 5-10 second to collapse before the rest of the building. No. It collapsed 5-10 BEFORE the start of the collapse of the rest of the building. This is important, because it shows that it was starting to collapse internally before the visible collapse you keep watching on LOW-RES YT videos. "The entire 47 stories took 9.5 seconds to fall." YT videos don't show the base of the building, so when do you "end" your countdown? Basing conclusions by looking and low-res YT videos is not scientific, and not of a high-enough standard to challenge the evidence and the science. "The steel columns "breaking away" from WTC 1 and 2 appear to be shot out and some have even pierced neighboring buildings." "Shot out" is simply a subjective statement, and is dismissed as irrelevant, esp. as thousands of tons will easily move a steel column. Columns hit neighbouring buildings because the towers DID NOT collapse into "their own footprints", which is what a lot of troofers contend. "I find it difficult to believe that these beams merely broke away and fell." What you find difficult to believe is irrelevant. "If an incredible amount of kinetic energy caused the failure of those buildings, why didn't they buckle inwards at the point of impact, or at least begin the collapse immediately?" Why would it collapse straight away? It collapses because of the damage of the impact AND fire. Also, it DID buckle inwards, and several YT videos demonstrate this (I know you are with YT videos). Once the buckling started, nothing could stop the fall of tens of thousands of tons being pushed down by gravity from above. "And if fire so hot it can melt steel" It didn't "melt" the steel. It warmed the steel to a temperature where its strength was compromised. "caused the collapse, why was there a woman standing in the hole left by the plane?" There were several people around the area of the impact, who were not killed by the impact. Why is that a problem? "I disagree with your assertion that 1 and 2 began to collapse at the point of impact." Even low-res YT videos show this to be the case. "Simple physics tells me that if I have a stack of blocks and remove a middle piece, the stack is not going to fall straight down, but will topple toward the missing piece." What magical force would be pulling or pushing the stack over? The major force at play was gravity, which pushes DOWNWARDS. "Simple physics" argues the opposite of what you state. "I have spent hours watching video after video of 1 and 2 falling, from every angle available, and not one of them shows a building toppling in any direction, but only a straight, fast 15-second fall directly into the buildings' footprints in a cloud of dust...not huge chunks of debris." It was a "straight, fast 15-second fall" because gravity was pushing thousands of tons downwards. Also, what do you mean by "footprints"? Debris was found a considerable distance away from the towers, including striking many surrounding buildings. "There is evidence of ignited explosive material found from the scene." That is one claim from one person who refuses to release his data and how his tests were performed. If you want to trust such a person, that is up to you. Also, remember that the WTC was full of "ignited, explosive materials", and then of course, there was the widespread use of acetylene torches. "How did it get there?" You would expect it to be there. "Why was the physical evidence whisked away before accurate studies could be completed?" Erm, just how long did you want the wreckage lying around? How many years so some crank can perform meaningless tests? "Why did so many witnesses testify to hearing explosions?" Because there were loads of explosions. You are aware that fire causes lots of things to explode, including all kinds of electrical equipment etc. You are aware that floors were collapsing internally, aren't you? "Why are there still so many unanswered questions?" Because you are anomaly hunting, and you ignore the answers that have evidence and science backing them, in favour of subscribing to troofer theories.
I am more interested in truth and where it leads. I don't care who the guilty party is at the end of road. Come on....if the top 1/3 of the tower started to buckle to the side, would the top part fall "over" instead of straight down? And the penthouse did not sink 5-10 second before the rest of the building. And I guess the firefighters who witnessed "molten steel" (NOT aluminum) are lying? Enough of the debris for study and analysis could have been housed in an aircraft hangar like when there is the reconstruction of a wrecked airplane. The debris that was found had traces of nano-explosives...unless those scientists are lying (and losing their jobs as a result) too. I've seen the microscopic images of the particles of explosives on video...unless that's all made up too. How sad that this particular researcher had to give up his profession just to perform what seem to be saying is a hoax. How did the buildings become pulverized to dust particles small enough to be inhaled? My evidence of NIST manipulation comes from Kevin Ryan..who also lost his job as an analyst at Underwriters Lab. You say the steel was "warmed" enough to warp...but not hot enough to injure people inside the building where the fire did the most damage, as evidenced by the woman standing in the hole. It doesn't make any sense. The black smoke starting pouring out of the building not long after impact...which means the fires were burning out. but the fires were still hot enough to sink a 100 story steel building ... which took 3 years and 11 months to build, so I wouldn't qualify that as "quick." I'm sorry, but your arguments remain unconvincing. Have you watched any of the AE911 videos? These are experts in building design who have come together to say there is something wrong with the official story. Listen to the other side and then make up your mind. And don't forget to always follow the money (such as the 3 trillion missing dollars from the defense budget that Rumsfeld announced the DAY BEFORE the Pentagon was hit and the document paper trail was conveniently destroyed in that attack.) There are so many other strange things...like the only document to survive WTC intact was the ID of one the terrorists. That some of the terrorists were found alive and well after the attack. And a mysterious jetliner that poked a hole the size of a 2 car garage door into the pentagon and the only remains were a few pieces of fuselage that could be hand-carried. I"m not looking for anomalies. I'm looking for real common sense answers.
ConspiracyFreakGrannie "I am more interested in truth and where it leads." To decide what is truth, one needs evidence and reason to believe a particular description is truthful. Troofer theories all fail, in this respect. "Come on....if the top 1/3 of the tower started to buckle to the side, would the top part fall "over" instead of straight down?" The "come on" exclamation suggests you are relying on your own personal incredulity, rather than physics and evidence. "And the penthouse did not sink 5-10 second before the rest of the building." Yes, it did. And I guess the firefighters who witnessed "molten steel" (NOT aluminum) are lying? Or mistaken. I would ask a number of questions. How many firefigters have said this compared to the number of firefighters at the scene, and how a firefighter would be able to decide this. Also, explain why all of the evidence points towards molten aluminum, and the fact there is no evidence whatsoever of molten steel. "Enough of the debris for study and analysis could have been housed in an aircraft hangar like when there is the reconstruction of a wrecked airplane." Begging the question. "The debris that was found had traces of nano-explosives...unless those scientists are lying (and losing their jobs as a result) too." Nope. What was found was what you would expect to find in the debris of a large building, packed with electrical equipment, paint, upholstery, plastics, etc. The "scientists" making these claims have failed to corroborate their results, and in most cases, won't even declare their chain of custody, their method for testing, and the supposed "evidence" they have for independent analysis. "I've seen the microscopic images of the particles of explosives on video...unless that's all made up too." You saw 'something' on a video. I am not at all impressed by that. "How sad that this particular researcher had to give up his profession just to perform what seem to be saying is a hoax." Which professor was that? "How did the buildings become pulverized to dust particles small enough to be inhaled?" You mean the parts of the buildings that you would expect to be pulverized in such an incident - such as concrete, etc. Simple physics, old boy. "My evidence of NIST manipulation comes from Kevin Ryan..who also lost his job as an analyst at Underwriters Lab." Kevin Ryan is a known troofer, and has books to sell. He also sounds incompetent. He does not have the evidence to back his spurious claims, and all the evidence points against him. "You say the steel was "warmed" enough to warp...but not hot enough to injure people inside the building where the fire did the most damage, as evidenced by the woman standing in the hole." I never said it was not hot enough to injure people. For the most part, the woman was not standing directly near the fire, and the wind was blowing in the opposite direction, taking away much of the heat and all of the smoke. Note that the woman is standing on the outer rim of the building, not on the inside where most of the fire was raging. "It doesn't make any sense." It makes perfect sense if you know a little bit about simple physics, and fire. "The black smoke starting pouring out of the building not long after impact...which means the fires were burning out." The colour of the smoke does NOT indicate a fire is going out. You would know this if you had basic knowledge of combustion. "but the fires were still hot enough to sink a 100 story steel building...which took 3 years and 11 months to build, so I wouldn't qualify that as "quick." Erm, I said the build of WTC7 was quick. Further, it was not simply fire that caused WTC1 and WTC2 to collapse. Many support columns were ripped away from the impact zones, meaning far fewer columns and support structures were supporting the considerable (tens of thousands of tons) weight above the impact zones. That's why the South Tower collapsed before the North Tower - its remaining columns were left supported much more weight. "I'm sorry, but your arguments remain unconvincing." Your opinion is irrelevant. My arguments are backed by the evidence, backed by the experts, backed by peer review, and backed by an understanding of logic and physics. "Have you watched any of the AE911 videos? These are experts in building design who have come together to say there is something wrong with the official story." I've seen them, and they are flawed or simply incompetant. The vast majority of AE911 do not have any credentials, do not have any evidence, and can't ever get anything published in a credible peer review journal. That's because they fail the most basic scientific standards. "Listen to the other side and then make up your mind." I have listened and have rejected the claims of troofers. "And don't forget to always follow the money (such as the 3 trillion missing dollars from the defense budget that Rumsfeld announced the DAY BEFORE the Pentagon was hit and the document paper trail was conveniently destroyed in that attack.)" That has nothing to do with all the evidence that points against your theory, does it? "There are so many other strange things...like the only document to survive WTC intact was the ID of one the terrorists." Wrong. Belongings of passengers were found amongst the wreckage, as is the case in most airline disasters (on land). Objects such as wallets, credit cards, ID's can often be found in airplane wreckage. "That some of the terrorists were found alive and well after the attack." None of the terrorists on the four planes were found alive. What an idiotic statement you just made. "And a mysterious jetliner that poked a hole the size of a 2 car garage door into the pentagon and the only remains were a few pieces of fuselage that could be hand-carried." The jetliner was not mysterious enough for hundreds of eyewitnesses noticing it fly into the Pentagon. Also, you have watched to many Roadrunner cartoons, where Wile E Coyote would run into a wall and leave a cartoon imprint behind. Plus, there was a lot of debris outside and inside the Pentagon, including the landing gear and the engines. Trust me, those CAN NOT be "hand-carried". "I"m not looking for anomalies. I'm looking for real common sense answers." You are anomaly hunting, and your responses suggest common sense is not something you incorporate.
Remember going home on the el looking out the back window of the el it was a Friday night I says...we have a nice skyline....next night boom this happens
WTC 7 and Meridian Building are not even close to the same thing........ It is like crashing a car into a truck and than asking why the truck did better, did you think the car would do better than the truck?
***** "Under extreme fire exposure the beams and girders sagged and twisted and cracks appeared in the concrete floors. However, the overall structure was stable and able to support the weight of the building. Thermal expansion of the steel frame caused some of the granite panels to be dislodged from the building's facade." So, despite being made of steel and concrete building, the girders were damaged just as what happened to the WTC7 and the Two Towers.... So I think it's safe to say that a Glass Box (Aluminum, steel, Glass) such as the Two Towers and WTC7 could have easily collapsed by fire alone. However we know that that's not the only reason these buildings collapsed. The Two towers collapsed because they had huge jetfuel'ed planes crashing not only through the aluminum exterior which was structural, but also through the center core of the building. Then on top of that, had ignited fires that weakened what ever steel that remained until it finally collapsed... Then you have WTC7 which, it too is a Glass Box get hit by falling debris from the collapsing two towers, causing severe damage to the building, igniting fires inside of the building which burned for several hours before the building finally collapsed. I think if the planes had crashed into a building like the Empire State Building, we wouldn't be having this argument because that building would have lasted much longer and quite possibly might have survived the fire but still would have been compromised to the point of needing to be torn down.
Concrete and steel hold up the building. You keep glossing over the fact that the concrete encrusted steel beams in the Meridian Building buckled and twisted from the fire despite being covered in concrete. Concrete is a good fire barrier but a hot long lasting fire will destroy concrete and steel which is why this building was torn down. WTC had no chance of survival due to a much weaker design. (Glass Box)
***** I don't see why we have to be so mean, the langue you have used is not to nice, at the end of the day we can have a nice talk about why WTC 7 fell. I believe the fires weakened the steel in WTC 7 and caused the upper floors to come down .
Because it was not blown down by explosives like the twin towers WTC7 also was destroyed: ine.uaf.edu/wtc7 Even Trump knew what happened and what did not happen to twin towers already the very day in his interview 11. September 2001: th-cam.com/video/Rt-ldMj9y9w/w-d-xo.html
@@Ronin.Samurai please tell this idiot. Even the firefighters said that they feared Building 7 would collapse. Considering two larger Skyscrapers had already fallen it made since to let Building 7 burn
It's not there now so yes, it came down. However, it was demolished. Natural fires don't bring down skyscrapers. It takes tons of jet fuel to bring one down along with a jet severing support columns.
to 1f5sda1991 Well, the vibration from the collapse of towers 1 and 2 were so intense that the beams holding tower 7 gave way and that's what caused it to collapse. Then why didn't any or all of the surrounding buildings collapse from vibration???
Several other buildings did collapse at the WTC complex, but it was not because of "vibration". Fire caused WTC7 to collapse, as detailed in the NIST report. Other buildings, such as the Hilton Hotel, collapsed because of debris fell onto it.
I sincerely appreciate your mostly civil willingness to debate this subject. You seem to be fairly intelligent so please don’t feel the need to use terms like “troofer.” Honest conversation between two people with mutual respect and open minds, coupled with the readiness to learn, will take everyone on an exciting and fruitful journey. We may not reach the same conclusion, but hopefully we will discover things we didn’t know before along the way. If you could direct me to one video showing the penthouse taking 5-10 seconds to cave in before the rest of Bldg 7 began its descent I would be happy to watch it. Molten Steel or Molten Aluminum? There are plenty of photos of a red-orange fiery substance that was pouring from the WTC. The fireman who witnessed it said it looked like molten steel from a foundry. Also, satellite images showed that Ground Zero was “hot” for weeks after the collapse. Aluminum is silvery when it is melted. Asking how many firefighters witnessed the molten steel compared to the number of firefighters working on scene and using that percentage to prove or disprove an event is like saying a car accident didn’t happen because only 2 of the 50 drivers in the vicinity actually witnessed the collision. The firefighters publicly said they saw molten “steel.” I consider them credible witnesses. Microscopic Evidence of Thermite: The discovery of unexploded super-thermite in the WTC dust augments a large body of evidence pointing to the use of aluminothermic materials in the destruction of the skyscrapers. The present review looks only at the evidence of explosives found in the dust and debris expelled from the Twin Towers. Even before WTC dust was subjected to the kind of microscopic scrutiny described in Active Thermitic Material Discovered, several features of the dust analysis published by the USGS pointed to the use of aluminothermics. For example, the USGS data shows high levels of barium -- a fact that is difficult to explain, barring pyrotechnics. The high levels of iron and aluminum in the dust -- each ranging from 1.3 to 4.1 percent of the dust samples by weight -- also appears anomalous, although prosaic sources of the metals can be imagined. Aluminothermic Residues: Iron-Rich Spheroids Micro-spheroidal particles in WTC dust consisting mostly of iron were documented in at least two scientific reports by 2005: a compilation of data by the USGS and a report for the owners of a skyscraper adjacent to the World Trade Center complex that sustained heavy damage in the attack Source: 911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html I disagree with your assertion that the microscopic evidence is typical for office building residue, especially based on this scientific evidence: “Analysis of the chemical composition of dust samples provides further evidence of aluminothermic arson. For example, dust samples contained particles with high levels of manganese, zinc, and barium. Barium is a toxic metal used in a number of industrial processes, but unlikely to be present in significant quantities in an office building. It is, however, useful as a catalyst and accelerant of aluminothermic reactions. Zinc, barium and sulfur are all common in military thermites. (911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/residues.html#incendiary_residues)
It would be to your benefit to investigate the work done by Professor Steven Jones, one of the gentlemen I referred to who lost his job. I was a young girl in California and experienced some horrendous earthquakes, including the one that demolished Olive View Hospital. The grounds of that hospital reached the end of the street my grandparents lived on. I could look through the fence and see the remains of that building. There were chunks and blocks of concrete and twisted metal, but very little pulverized dust. Even deliberate building demolition doesn’t produce clouds of fine dust particles that billow down streets, driving people to race for their lives into a place of shelter. Think of buildings destroyed by the most violent of earthquakes, or buildings in cities that have been bombed during wartime. These buildings, hit with missiles or exploded with bombs, do not fall straight down into pulverized dust. Newtonian physics says gravity will force an object to fall into the path of least resistance. The top of the tower tilted sideways because the hole left by the plane created the path of least resistance. In other words…there was nothing in the hole to stop the top of the tower from falling in that direction. Keeping that in mind, the only way for the tower to continue to fall straight down would be for all support columns to fail at exactly the same time in exactly the same manner. Knowing the construction of the tower, the inner core columns were comprised of 4” thick steel…the outer “mesh” was made of aluminum, if I remember correctly. Something caused all columns, no matter their composition, to fail at the same time in order to remove that resistance so that the floors would collapse uniformly. I don’t think a hole in one corner 1/3 the way from the top of the tower, along with subsequent fires leaving different degrees of destruction throughout the floor, would cause uniform collapse. The buildings should have buckled and crumpled and fell in pieces and chunks. I apologize for misunderstanding you about the construction of Bldg. 7. Funny though, don’t you think, that the building made cheap and quick was the last to fall … from fire weakening the steel columns? To be an architect or an engineer means that you have a degree and accreditation. To discredit 1500 experts in a specific field with decades of experience must mean you know more than all of them. Underwriters Lab thought highly enough of Kevin Ryan to make him a Site Manager. He was fired for asking questions about 9/11. He is another expert with valuable information, but you discredit him because he sells books? He “sounds incompetent?” Maybe you should take that up with the peer-reviewed journals who published his works. You are missing my point about the woman in the hole in the tower. You claim the support columns were so weakened by fire that they gave way…and yet the woman was able to make her way through the damage and debris…and melting steel columns… to stand at that hole and wave. If a 4” thick steel column could warp from the heat of a fire…what would that heat do to a fragile human body? The jet fuel would have burned out within minutes and the only fire left would have been from office combustibles. I was involved in a house fire as a child and the entire house was gutted from the fire…but the house did not collapse. I have no “theory” of what happened on 9/11….except that the “official story” makes no sense to me. I was just now looking for evidence that personal belongings of flight victims were found at Ground Zero. I came upon an article describing a man receiving four credit cards belonging to his son (an airline passenger on 9/11) years after the tragedy. The cards were in pristine condition. They had always been carried in the son’s wallet…so they somehow came out of his wallet, out of his pocket, out of the seat belt and out of the plane…went through an explosion and fire...and emerged just like nothing happened. Remember my house fire? NOTHING in my house was undamaged…every single item smelled like smoke and every piece of plastic was melted. Even the huge glass bowl my mom kept some souvenirs in was melted. But in reading that article (which I had assumed was an “official story friendly” article) had this to say: “…Four of the alleged passengers on American Airlines Flight 11 with the last names of Ward, Weems, Roux and Jalbert also mysteriously and unexplainable were also listed as passengers on Flight 175 that struck the South Tower.” I’m not “looking” for these things…I just keep stumbling upon them and they all add up to more unanswered questions. I just spent 30 more minutes looking at images of the debris field in front of the Pentagon after 9/11. I don’t know what caused the damage that day…but it physically could not have been a jetliner. The hole was too small…period. The biggest piece of debris I have seen in any photo was definitely small enough to be hand-carried. If you know of a site with photos of easily recognizable debris as seen in other airplane crashes, I would be interested to see it. And if the entire plane (except for possibly one landing wheel) disintegrated upon impact…how did the plane possibly punch a nice round hole in the C ring? Yes, hundreds of eye witnesses saw a plane fly toward the Pentagon and then saw an explosion. There are also witnesses who saw a plane fly away from the Pentagon immediately after the explosion. Perhaps the witnesses you accept are telling the truth and the rest of the witnesses are all liars? I suggest you watch the emotional interview with the cab driver Mr. England who says his cab was hit by one of the light poles. By the end of the interview his story doesn’t sound convincing at all. If I am finding “anomalies” it’s because they exist. And this is why I remain skeptical.
ConspiracyFreakGrannie This video shows the penthouse collapsing. https : / / www . youtube . com/ watch? v=bjyzl-LeJ0g (remove spaces) "Molten Steel or Molten Aluminum? There are plenty of photos of a red-orange fiery substance that was pouring from the WTC." They look the same. "The fireman who witnessed it said it looked like molten steel from a foundry." That is not firemen saying it "was" molten steel. They were witnessing molten aluminium. "The firefighters publicly said they saw molten “steel.” I consider them credible witnesses." The vast majority of firefighters do not claim to have seen "molten steel", or flat out deny it. They are credible witnesses. "Also, satellite images showed that Ground Zero was “hot” for weeks after the collapse." There were fires raging for week. Nothing to do with molten steel, molten aluminium, or molten anything. "The discovery of unexploded super-thermite" SUPER thermite? Is that something you have made up or found in a comic book? Anyway, your source for the "thermite" conspiracy is from a well-known troofer site. There is no evidence of thermite, nanothermite, or "super thermite". The people claiming to have discovered it in the dust are either mistaken, liars, or unable to validate their findings in the scientific community. "Analysis of the chemical composition of dust samples provides further evidence of aluminothermic arson." No, it doesn't. Again, you are reading a known troofer site. There was nothing in the dust that challenges the established facts. "It would be to your benefit to investigate the work done by Professor Steven Jones, one of the gentlemen I referred to who lost his job." I know all about Steven Jones, and I consider him a crank and an incompetent amateur. His theories do not match the evidence. "These buildings, hit with missiles or exploded with bombs, do not fall straight down into pulverized dust." Irrelevant comparisons, again. Physics shows that you EXPECT the concrete to be pulverized into dust considering the weight that was being forced downwards by gravity. This is not a hard fact to get your head around. "Keeping that in mind, the only way for the tower to continue to fall straight down would be for all support columns to fail at exactly the same time in exactly the same manner." It continued to fall straight down because gravity was pushing down a tremendous amount of weight. This fits the laws of physics perfectly. It has nothing to do with support columns. "Something caused all columns, no matter their composition, to fail at the same time in order to remove that resistance so that the floors would collapse uniformly." They all failed at the same time because the tremendous weight from above hit them at the same time. Have you actually watched any of the videos? "The buildings should have buckled and crumpled and fell in pieces and chunks." Why should it? Why should the laws of physics suspend themselves to fit your silly theory. The tower gave way at the impact site - meaning suddenly all the colossal weight above was being forced downwards by gravity. "Funny though, don’t you think, that the building made cheap and quick was the last to fall …" Not at all - it was not hit by a huge jetplane. Herp derp. "To be an architect or an engineer means that you have a degree and accreditation. Many of the AE1700 don't have the appropriate credentials, and they certainly do not have any credible evidence. Their science fails the most basic qualifiers for peer review. "He “sounds incompetent?” Maybe you should take that up with the peer-reviewed journals who published his works." He is incompetent, because his theories do not fit with the evidence. Also, which CREDIBLE peer review journals? Who has replicated his findings? "If a 4” thick steel column could warp from the heat of a fire…what would that heat do to a fragile human body?" You still don't get it. The fires not were raging and warming the steel where she was standing. Also, the wind was moving most of the heat and smoke away from her. "The jet fuel would have burned out within minutes and the only fire left would have been from office combustibles. I was involved in a house fire as a child and the entire house was gutted from the fire…but the house did not collapse." [chuckles] Was your house also hit by a jetplane? "I have no “theory” of what happened on 9/11….except that the “official story” makes no sense to me." That's because you have no knowledge of basic physics, are unable to evaluate evidence, suffer from cognitive bias, and are far too gullible in accepting crank rubbish from troofer sites. "I came upon an article describing a man receiving four credit cards..." Did you read what I said about airplane wreckage, and the fact that items such as these are often found. Now, this is a perfect case of you anomaly hunting, when there is no anomaly. "Remember my house fire? NOTHING in my house was undamaged…every single item smelled like smoke and every piece of plastic was melted." [chuckes] Are you going to continue to compare 9/11 to your house fire. Remember, the jetplane was doing 500mph, so wreckage was scattered well away from the towers, and a lot of the fire. Simples. "Four of the alleged passengers on American Airlines Flight 11 with the last names of Ward, Weems, Roux and Jalbert also mysteriously and unexplainable were also listed as passengers on Flight 175 that struck the South Tower.” Erm, are you saying they were clones, or just that some people share surnames? [chuckles, again] "I just spent 30 more minutes looking at images of the debris field in front of the Pentagon after 9/11. I don’t know what caused the damage that day" You could ask any of the hundreds of eywitnesses who saw a JETPLANE hit the Pentagon. I consider them credible witnesses. "but it physically could not have been a jetliner. The hole was too small…period." Wrong. "The biggest piece of debris I have seen in any photo was definitely small enough to be hand-carried." There grass outside was littered with debris. You would need hundreds of people to be "laying out the debris" (chuckles) in the aftermath of the event, just as hundreds of eyewitnesses had their eyes transfixed on that area. Do you realise just how laughable that sounds? You also can't hand carry the landing gear and the engines. "There are also witnesses who saw a plane fly away from the Pentagon immediately after the explosion." Does the Pentagon have a runway on the roof? [chuckles] "I suggest you watch the emotional interview with the cab driver Mr. England who says his cab was hit by one of the light poles. By the end of the interview his story doesn’t sound convincing at all." [chuckles] What exactly was unconvincing, or is that just your subjective, personal POV about a man under duress trying to explain an extraordinary event. "If I am finding “anomalies” it’s because they exist. And this is why I remain skeptical." Nope. You're finding things that appear anomalies to you, and then interpreting them to fit your erroneous view of the events. You are not a skeptic, in terms of accurately evaluating evidence.
There are none so blind as those who will not see. I'm sorry you think this is a humorous subject. Perhaps some day when you have matured a little more you will realize the seriousness of this event and the questions surrounding it. I sincerely wish you good fortune in your life.
"There are none so blind as those who will not see." That reminds me of psychics. When they get challenged on the failure rate of their ability, they blame the skeptic, saying they are "closed minded", blah, blah, blah. I will lump you in with them. "I'm sorry you think this is a humorous subject." I find troofers and their bullshit humorous. "Perhaps some day when you have matured a little more you will realize the seriousness of this event and the questions surrounding it." Are we back in the school playground, or what?
At 1:10 into the video look at the flashes of light above the roof of the building. I wish there were videos taken from anyone other than the media. I am born and raised in Philly so being my home and due to the recent events I am just looking back at historical events attempting to critically think because we are living in unprecedented times that I refuse to trust anything being pushed by the mainstream media. Alot of things went wrong in this building that either caused or were caused to occur as this fire continued to move floor to floor and very hot. My heart goes out to the 3 men that lost their lives in this blaze and I hope all is well with their families. I think about these 3 men often and remember this fire when watching the tv at 11 yrs of age. The media was the go to place for information at that time while DARPA was putting the finishing touches on the future World Wide Web or Internet. We all took the media for their word and gave them our trust. As I grew older, I remember moments when watching tv that turned to cable and eventually to what the world has today. I was the kid that asked questions to the point I was a pain to adults around in a room. Looking back they were completely unguarded and comfortable with all news reports as if in a trance or stupor. Later on I was lucky to attend a prestigious local high school outside of Philadelphia and I remember a moment when I asked a question in a class of just 25 young men. My physics professor at that time listened to my question that was immediately followed with laughter from most of my classmates and it was time to move on to the next class of the day. There were no bells in this school, while the schedule rotated daily so it was quite unique in a way. He asked me to see him before moving to my next class. I remember like yesterday what he said..."I was going to ask you to repeat the question regardless of what it was because I was distracted by something I saw outside the window from the corner of my eye with the construction going on, and for that I apologize. I do not want to know what your question was, just promise me that you will never stop questioning everything in your life, always ask questions. Also, in your life whenever you ask a question in front or among others and any or all of them burst out into laughter, that sir, is a topic that must be critically analyzed in the future due to the arrogance in that type of laughter. In some cases being laughed at will set you on a coarse of questioning many or all things in life including your own thoughts and actions. It is ok to be wrong so long as you use it to make it right. Life is not supposed to be easy or simple in any way. You do not need a degree to be a scientist if you pay attention to your surroundings as we are all supposed to do. This planet depends on that and all of us but we are and will continue to do harm to one another and to the nature if we remain arrogant and complacent in what we are presented to be fact while ignorantly omitting to ask questions so those presenting information are held accountable." I get it now. I am also grateful for having a small voice recorder at the time so I could here that exchange with a physics teacher that I am certain was laughed at when growing up because kids are cruel to one another. I was hockey player and was never bullied and my parents raised me properly. I was the jock that sat at the lunch table with the guys that didnt fit in with the crowd to stick up for them as my dad said to. Those guys still contact me like the old days via phone call unlike all others that exclude you if you do not participate in social media or text. Today, I am still asking questions and I am even being pushed away by my elderly parents but I will never stop being a critical thinker nor will I ever stop questioning what we are all told to simple accept or do according to what those in power want all to simply accept as fact because they said so. I will gladly suffer all the way to my grave doing so in honor of my professor and the lives of many that I am certain were lost and the true stories were not told 100% of the time.
That building was heavy construction with all structural members encased in concrete. That building met construction and fire codes. That fire may have been intense, but water was being introduced to the fire area for most of the time it was burning. That building did not receive the cometic energy of a 767 slamming into it at 500 MPH. Use your brain before you use your mouth. The incident report is publicly available from PFD substantiating all of the above. WTC1,2 and 7 were light construction and met neither fire or building codes as they were owned by the port authority which paid lip service to codes while exempting itself from many and self certifying it met others. Structural members were not encased on concrete but coated in light protective foam that was never tested before application. It has since been tested by NIST and found to be totally inadequate. At no point was water applied to WTC 1, or 2, nor to most of WTC 7. A very small amount of water converting to steam will greatly cool combustion areas regardless of visible evidence of flame. Temperature in fire rooms is measured by pyrometers not the naked eye. To those who are mentally ill and have a belief system they use to slant reality, there is no hope for you nor is it a good thing that you exist. To those actually seeking truth. Good building, no impact, water applied shortly after ignition equals a building still standing. Bad building, huge structure compromising impact, no water applied for duration of fire equals collapse.
Pyro philia Remember one thing Pyro...You are trying to explain this to a guy who has a pile of teeth under his pillow, still waiting for the Tooth Fairy. Nice post! Cheers and best regards from Texas.
With the name poppyblue which sounds like an inbred hick, I don't think you have room to talk on the whole teeth thing. You and your family combined probably have 12 total and 9 of them are in your pockets
Micheal Adamson It's "Poppa" not Poppy. And I have been a firefighter for 28 paid years. I did, however, lose 4 front teeth when a roof collapsed on me. Got a nice burn scar too. You should see the new teeth...they are much nicer than the originals. And they don't come out.
Our SCBAs DO contain oxygen in our cylinders. 18 to 20 % oxygen, a majority of Nitrogen and the rest of atmospheric gases we inhale naturally. How would we breathe and stay alive if our SCBAs didn’t contain oxygen ?
Because it was a simple natural fire, not fueled by tons of jet fuel which would cause a hotter, more destructive fire. Because a plane didn't go through it's middle and sever support columns.
Difference in Construction. World Trade Center was built with Lightweight Steel Truss System. Historically Easily Susceptible to failure in fire. This is an older heavy construction design. Will take the heat.
1) WTC 1 & 2 were hit by fully laden jets flying at full speed 2) WTC 3-7 had buildings fall on them 3) WTC was built primarily of steel, including steel cores. Most highrises and skyscrapers have concrete cores. 4) WTC 1 & 2's open floor design worked against them due to the damage sustained in crashes and the fires. Mind you they did survive two plane impacts and stood for a remarkably long time considering the circumstances with is a credit to their designers. 5) WTC 7's unique design also worked against it. It also burned for several hours unchecked and had suffered severe damage from the collapse of WTC 1 6) WTC 3-6 were crushed and then burned, leading to their collapses. In all 7 buildings collapsed/were destroyed on 9/11, with an eighth later having to be demolished due to severe structural damage.
WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives: Rapid onset of collapseSounds of explosionsSymmetrical structural failureFree-fall acceleration through the path of what was greatest resistanceImploded, collapsing completely, landing almost in its own footprintMassive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds Expert corroboration from the top European controlled demolition professionalForeknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY
A tower fell on it and took out the entire back half of the building. Isn't it something how a building loses the ability to withstand gravity when part of another building falls on it. Physics is fascinating.
ScrotumSqueezer You're comparing a glass box (9/11) vs a Concrete and Steel structure. This structure suffered much less damage compared with 9/11 yet it was still demolished.
Rest In Peace to those 3 firefighters who risked their lives to stop the fire
You guys are gone but not forgotten....
It's heartbreaking that these 3 brave, wonderful men lost their lives. They are heroes to my city Philadelphia!
@Cory Hill sorry I didn't know you were a kid. I apologize for my comment and deleted it. They are heroes because their actions were heroic. They risked their lives to save others. They were so brave in the face of danger to face such an overwhelmingly terrifying blaze. They died doing a job that most are not brave enough to even sign up for. They knew that there was a possibility that they wouldn't return home to their families and they still ran toward the danger. That is what makes them heroes.
This building was demolished in 1999 eight years after the fire
Yes.
This is devastating. I never even heard of the fire until today. Those poor brave firefighters. What a terrible loss.
Fire sprinklers are a good idea, aren't they? And this is why they're needed.
😩 " INDEED!.... Yet , unless they renovate. countless (U.S.) municipal ordinances allow older buildings exemptions through ' grandfather ' clauses. I shudder to think how much deadlier this highrise inferno could have been, had more occupants were trapped inside. "
@@3618499 Where I live, a fire like this in a commercial building that took a very long time to extinguish spurred a law requiring retrofitting sprinklers - but ONLY for commercial highrises and not residential ones. So, not surprisingly, several years ago a massive fire damaged hundreds of apartments and killed 4 people in a condo. And as usual, the residents of the 300+ buildings that lack sprinklers continue to bitch and moan and whine about how unfair it is to make them pay for installing them. These people are convinced that this could not possibly ever happen to THEM.
The building did have some fire sprinklers, but the nearest ones were on the 30th floor and the building was built before the revised fire sprinkler code
The men that died . Love there job and died doing it . Hero's .
Firefighters are true heroes.
The building was designed and built around the same time as the original WTC towers. Design didn't have much to do with which would collapse in a fire. It's just this building wasn't full of burning Jet-A, and didn't have a significant portion of its load bearing columns broken by the impact of an airplane.
This building was built in the late 1960s and the wtc tower were built in the 70s
@@smithandsuperdeadeyeofthew823 Right. About the same time...less than 10 years apart.
I lived a few blocks from there---I remember like it was yesterday.
I did, too, this was just awful to witness.
Its always sad when a firefighter dies. Just goes to show that most of the fire codes that we have today were written in blood.
WOW....brings backs memories...I was 18 yrs old and just started my very first maintenance technician helper (changing bulbs,cleaning a/c units,unclogging sinks,blah blah blah).....my boss calls me up and tells me don't bother coming to work tomorrow ,we have a building fire....I put on the tv stations and there it was burning away...I couldn't believe...first thing that came to mind is,shit my job!......long story short,basically outside contractors came in the building to clean up computer equipment...they stored their combustible rags in the electrical rooms,must have been quite a bit rags/cloths......sure enough a fire broke out fast and out of control. The big problem was that there was about 15-20 floors not protected because that sprinkler system zone was in the middle of a repair, sure enough it spread quick....the building actually was burning for two days, not 19 hours.....after it was out the building was devastated so they took it down floor-by-floor,piece -by-piece.....after I lost my job I found myself homeless sleeping at city hall(kidding).. RIP to the firefighters who put in the effort,and condolence to their family
so your 43 today
l went to the 3 firefighters funerals, well one of them anyway. Went to local 22 afterwards.
Can’t tell if ur joking about the first part or not.
There was an article in Fire Engineering magazine on this fire. Part of the issue was flow reducers on the building standpipes that reduced the flow to the low 80 something PSI. The fire fighters had nozzles that needed 92 PSI minimum to work correctly. The fire fighters were simply without anything to work with. I seem to remember it was 8 floors burnt to nothingness. It was a two day fire. Wanna know what it is like? Watch on of the helmet cam videos. Once you are in the smoke, you can't see the front of your face mask. Been there!
Funny, the building didn’t collapse from the fires
No collapse
I notice in a lot of high rise fires all over the world all seem to have the same pieces of facade falling off as the Grenfell Tower did.
In Australia its so bad buildings are now deemed to dangerous to live in, many buildings have had fires, a special gov body is funding the removal of the cladding, there several thousand buildings which the gov are keeping secret ....the Dubai Towers and many others around the world have this cladding brought in illegally because its cheap and installed without proper certification because officers get kickbacks to turn a blind eye...shocking
Rest in peace.
I remember this job my buddy & i drove up from Pittsburgh the next morning to see it RIP BROTHERS🙏🙏🙏🚒🚒🚒
I was a kid on a boy scout trip at Camp Hart just west of the city when this happened. The scout leaders played news about it on the radio as we were breaking camp and loading up gear on Sunday morning. I remember looking over at center city from Rt. 76 on the drive back to New Jersey, and seeing dark smoke smoldering from the building way off in the distance. It was a ominous scene and a haunting memory.
This was a tragedy. I feel badly for the firefighters that were lost. The reporting segment is excellent. We in the US miss matter of fact reporting. While this was a tragedy, today there would be heavily dramatized music leading in to the report taking detracting from the media conveying what happened.
V sorry for their loss. Heroes ❤️
RIP the three firefighters
God bless these guys.
Wait... Why didn't that building collapse like the world trade centers?
Not the same
@@supermarioplushes2517 Speak up with proof.
@@realness1997 there’s a difference between a regular building fire and a giant 767 smashing through
Wasn't hit by 203 tons of metal going 500 mph and full of jet fuel.
I remember this fire/disaster. I drove to the main post office to get a letter postmarked by the 02.22.91. On my way back after midnight, I could see that fire from 30th & Market Sts. When I got to 16th & Market, traffic was being detoured but the upper floor were totally engulfed. ghm on the 3 men who scarified their lives so others could move up the command post. Why is it that people have to lose their lives for change to occur?
I remember this. Very sad….:(
my next-door neighbor david holcombe died fighting that fire. r.i.p. to him. r.i.p. to the other two firiefighters as-well. condolences.
thank God it didnt fell like WTC 7 😂🤣
and THE worst Fire in Philadelphia History was the Osage Avenue Bombing and subsequent Firestorm
Exactly.
This is a skyscraper, this building is way bigger
@@Guns_and_Grunge yes, but the entire block of Osage went up..not just one house..62nd to 63rd.
Sad that they care about their offices more instead of the firefighters
I'm sure he didn't know about the firefighters at the time he made the comment.
I have no idea how the fuck this building didnt implode into itself from office fires.
Firefighters are trained not to hurry if not needed. Look at it this way the turnout gear is around sixty pounds, the SCBA, is around forty pounds. Add another sixty pounds of hose and you hundred and forty pounds of gear you got to move, and try not to use all your air climbing up twenty floors. If you're breathing heavy, and all tired when you get to the fire floor, your becoming part of the problem. A fire that big can't be put out with just water, so you just save who and what you can.
I'm a first year union Carpenter and my forman and I were talking about this. A lot of work we get is in direct result of codes that were put in place because of this fire. Most of it is to stop the spreading of smoke and fire into adjacent rooms and floors above. Very sad to hear about the 3 firefighters.
Kinda reminds me of the movie "The Towering Inferno"!
25 years ago wow!
Almost 26 now since it's 2017.
@@1f5sda almost 30 years 2020
@@gavriloprincip9634 try 31 yrs 2023 now
RIP one meridian plaza 1972 1999
I was only 8 when this happened. We had to go to City Hall the week after so my mom could file some paperwork and it was so ominous and scary to see the charred building
The anchor at 0:50 sounds like a surfer dude.
It didn't collapse because it was a normal huge fire. It was destructively unsound after the fire and they had to demolish it and replace it with a much safer building just like with the WTC after 9/11 when they had to clear out all the rubble of the twin towers and the small buildings around them including the deustche bank building or whatever it's called and replace it with the much stronger WTC, in which the main building 1WTC has steel reinforced concrete inside so it won't collapse during a plane crash. What about 7? Well too much debris hit it and it was made out of blowing windows. The Empire State Building had a plane crash situation back in 1945 and was intact because it was reinforced possibly with concrete. I rest my case here.
BLESS THE PEOPLE IN THE BUILDING!
so did the demolish this building after this fire? Cause now there's the Ritz Carlton condos in that lot.
Drowsy_ Mouse Yes, they did.
In 1999
Requiescat In Pace, you Brave Souls...
The inevitable WTC comparisons always come out. I've talked to a number of experts who feel buildings like this would never have taken the aircraft impact as well... i.e. This building could've been structurally destroyed immediately. LA's 1st Interstate Bank (now Aon) was saved partly because of the immediate fire suppression efforts of a myriad of fire companies. Experts there feared the building would be a total loss if they allowed it to extend past floor 16; there would've been no way to stop it from going right through the 62nd story roof... if it didn't collapse. I always thought 9/11 was odd in that they had little idea the towers could collapse since LAFD had a structural engineer on site fearing just that at 1st Interstate... and there were no planes...
Dana Danarosana wtc 7
Your conspiracy theories have been disproven. It is a proven fact that the towers were taken out by planes. Shove your conspiracy theories up your ass, and stop disrespecting the dead.
@@Ronin.Samurai ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
@@mikkovuorinen2884 those diagrams miss out on the fact that their were 20 story gashes throughout the southern and eastern face from the north tower collapse. Plush the building was totally engulfed after several hours after being that damaged too. Sprinklers did not work at all so there was no fire suppression. wtc 7 was built in the late 80s and infact used a tube structural support like the twin towers did which meant the interior floors offered no support once the exterior structural collumns failed
@desertvalleyfilms9136 If you are still on youtube I wouldn't mind destroying your bs theories.
Bro as soon as i clicked i got a 9/11 ad
This one didn't fall tho.
30 Years Ago in Philadelphia Pa Offices Building Was On Fire
I do not want to thumbs up this one three firemen died😔😔😔
Leroy Allen i thumbed up not because they died but for the knowledge of this happening. My heart goes out to those lost. If it wasnt for this video the world would most likely never heard of these brave men.
My question is...... is there a video of the demolition
ine.uaf.edu/wtc7 This is about the demolition of WTC7 that was not hit by aeroplane.The symmetrical fall with gravitational acceleration i.e. free fall speed (2,25 secs) occured by cuttin ALL several columns off the WTC7 virtually at the same time. This will happen in controlled demolitions only. Fires could not have done it. Read the study and learn: ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
@@mikkovuorinen2884 controlled demolition 😂😂😂 try a collapsing larger skyscraper more than twice it's size striking it with debris basically firebombing it. Which is why the entire penthouse apartment fell into the building. When does this ever happen in demolitions
@@melvynsngltn27 Hi Gov Chill, it did NOT happen in this WTC7 controlled demolition case either. Your God , gov.'s own liar party NIST also noted (sic) that debris from other WTC towers did NOT (loop that: did NOT) have any meaningful part in WTC7 destruction.
@@mikkovuorinen2884 i guess you never saw what happened to building 3 the Marriott Hotel after the South Tower collapse onto it. Maybe you should actually research before you talk
ah yes only the internet can provide answers to a general interest question with conspiracy theories about 9/11. @mikko is a nutcase lmao
It's weird hearing what I would consider a local broadcaster cuz his voice sounds incredibly familiar on TH-cam, probably because I watched it live when it happened.
This reminds me of the Cook County Illinois office building fire over a decade ago..same thing..what year was this? And was this building finally torn down?
It was torn down and happened around 93
The fire occurred on February 23, 1991 and the building was demolished in 1999.
Was this the result of cladding similarly to London’s Grenfell tragedy?
WTC 7 had fuel pipes along 3 main columns so the fires were very hot on the steel beams. This is year 9 for me.
And what's your point?
3 firefighters die, and that one man was worried about his business. Priorities are mess up in this country.
He probably didn't know that anyone died at that point.
@@annabellelee4535 good point
God! People were stupid in the 90s
I didnt know that it was a fire disaster in philly until just now
If the generator broke down how come it wasn't fixed before all this happened?
Costs money and landlords are cheap
Cheapness
I remember that just
Like yesterday
VTOL aircraft with a hose attached would enable access to high rise and the ability to fire water directly into the building rather than from the street 20 storeys below.
It’s modern now. There are stand pipes.
I remember it well.
Because I am still searching for truth and thought maybe this was it and the official explanation was true, I just watched a fairly new video of WTC 7 with evidence of the "gaping hole" on the south side. Then I searched for high rises on fire. Bldg 7 was not hit by a plane so jet fuel was not a factor. If 7 had a structurally compromising hole in one side, what caused the entire building to fall at free-fall speed all at once, and not collapse at the site of the damage? This video of the Meridian Bldg which burned much longer than WTC, as well as numerous other videos of high rise fires, is definitive proof to me that there are still unanswered questions. If the heat from the fires in this video did not cause structural beams to twist and fail, what made the 3 WTC buildings collapse and fall in a straight line at free-fall speed? The biggest question I have always had was why the buildings did not collapse and crumble at the point of impact. The explanation offered of "pancaking" defies logic.
"I just watched a fairly new video of WTC 7 with evidence of the "gaping hole" on the south side"
The damage suffered from falling debris was not the main factor in WTC7's collapse. Fire caused the collapse, along with the 'build it quick and cheaply' design of the building. It had a fatal vulnerability in that if a small number of columns started to weaken, the entire building was in danger of collapse.
"Then I searched for high rises on fire."
Searching for other buildings is not really that useful, since no other building had the same design as WTC7. It is like saying nobody can be killed by being hit by a car, because searching on TH-cam reveals people being hit by cars and surviving.
"Bldg 7 was not hit by a plane so jet fuel was not a factor."
Have you read the NIST report? It states that fire was the primary cause. Nobody ever pinpointed jet fuel.
"If 7 had a structurally compromising hole in one side, what caused the entire building to fall at free-fall speed all at once, and not collapse at the site of the damage?"
Again, read the NIST report. WTC7 fell at free fall speed for SOME of its collapse, not all. Also, bear in mind that it started to collapse internally (notice the penthouse collapse 5-10 seconds before the rest collapses) before the main collapse commenced.
"This video of the Meridian Bldg which burned much longer than WTC, as well as numerous other videos of high rise fires, is definitive proof to me that there are still unanswered questions."
The Meridian Building is a completely different building, with a different design. It is not proof at all. Your argument is a logical fallacy.
"If the heat from the fires in this video did not cause structural beams to twist and fail, what made the 3 WTC buildings collapse and fall in a straight line at free-fall speed?"
WTC1 and WTC2 did NOT fall at free fall speed. You can easily check it by watching the collapse on a YT video, and seeing steel columns break away and hit the ground well before the pancaking central portion. Also, they fell in a straight line because the only force acting upon it was gravity, which pushes downwards. Simple physics. As for the steel twisting and failing, again, it was a different building with a different design, that was not hit by an incredible amount of kinetic energy (an airplane).
"The biggest question I have always had was why the buildings did not collapse and crumble at the point of impact. The explanation offered of "pancaking" defies logic."
They did collapse at the point of impact. Haven't you seen the footage? The structure around the impact zone was weakened so that it could not sustain the incredible load above it. Gravity did the rest. The pancaking theory makes perfect sense in the light of this, unless you are suggesting gravity doesn't exist.
Thank you, Aiken, for your reply. Allow me to answer in like fashion:
If fire was the main reason 7 collapsed, why did it not collapse at the point of the fire which from photos did not encompass the entire building. Why did the building not buckle where the "southside gaping hole" was? The entire building fell at the same time at free fall, as evidence by an excellent video "WTC7 in Freefall: No Longer Controversial."
You asked if I read the NIST report. First of all, using the report from a govt agency to prove the govt wasn't complicit in 9/11 is like asking the Mafia for an analysis of their revenue activities. NIST had to manipulate the data to come to their conclusion of fire and pancaking causing the collapse of the towers.
I watched other videos of steel structure buildings to form my conclusion that WTC falling (purportedly) by fire is a unique event. Comparing steel structures to steel structures is relative. The Meridian Building was a different design, yes. However, WTC 1 and 2 were built specifically to withstand being hit by a commercial airliner.
You and I must be watching different videos of the collapse of 7. The penthouse did not take 5-10 second to collapse before the rest of the building. It was ONE second, at a push. The entire 47 stories took 9.5 seconds to fall. Every single one of the video I've seen of 7 falling corroborates this.
The steel columns "breaking away" from WTC 1 and 2 appear to be shot out and some have even pierced neighboring buildings. I find it difficult to believe that these beams merely broke away and fell.
If an incredible amount of kinetic energy caused the failure of those buildings, why didn't they buckle inwards at the point of impact, or at least begin the collapse immediately? And if fire so hot it can melt steel caused the collapse, why was there a woman standing in the hole left by the plane?
I disagree with your assertion that 1 and 2 began to collapse at the point of impact. Simple physics tells me that if I have a stack of blocks and remove a middle piece, the stack is not going to fall straight down, but will topple toward the missing piece. I have spent hours watching video after video of 1 and 2 falling, from every angle available, and not one of them shows a building toppling in any direction, but only a straight, fast 15-second fall directly into the buildings' footprints in a cloud of dust...not huge chunks of debris.
There is evidence of ignited explosive material found from the scene. How did it get there? Why was the physical evidence whisked away before accurate studies could be completed? Why did so many witnesses testify to hearing explosions? Why are there still so many unanswered questions?
"If fire was the main reason 7 collapsed, why did it not collapse at the point of the fire which from photos did not encompass the entire building."
The fire was large - it wasn't in one exclusive place. But why suggest the collapse did not originate where the fire was? You know the exact column that failed because of fire. You know the rest of the building was vulnerable if individual columns were compromised.
"Why did the building not buckle where the "southside gaping hole" was?"
Why should it? NIST didn't claim the "gaping hole" was a significant factor. It pinpointed fire, the column that failed, triggering other collapses. Remember, it was a cheap-and-quick build job, designed in such a way that if one column was compromised, the entire building was vulnerable - like a house of cards.
"The entire building fell at the same time at free fall"
There were internal collapses before the building collapsed, and you can see in videos where the penthouse collapses well before the main collapse. To be accurate, the building fell at free fall for SOME of its descent. This is not a problem for those who study building collapses and engineering. As the critical column failed, columns around it failed, and that forced columns and masonry outwards and inwards, meaning there was NOTHING to stop it from free falling.
"You asked if I read the NIST report. First of all, using the report from a govt agency to prove the govt wasn't complicit in 9/11 is like asking the Mafia for an analysis of their revenue activities"
That is a standard conspirloon tactic of hand-waving. You can't actually counter the NIST report, so you belittle it by suggesting "they are also in on it", even though the actual evidence and science backs them up. Meanwhile, conspirloons have come up with counter-theories that don't stand up to evidence and science.
"NIST had to manipulate the data to come to their conclusion of fire and pancaking causing the collapse of the towers."
You have no evidence to make that statement.
"I watched other videos of steel structure buildings to form my conclusion that WTC falling (purportedly) by fire is a unique event."
Every single fire is a unique event, and every single building is of a different design.
"Comparing steel structures to steel structures is relative."
Only up to a point. Steel structures can be vastly different to one another.
"The Meridian Building was a different design, yes. However, WTC 1 and 2 were built specifically to withstand being hit by a commercial airliner."
They were not designed to withstand modern airline impacts, full of jetfuel, deliberately targeted at the centre of the buildings. I'd love to know how you would expect 1960s architects to design such infallible structures. Also, remember you were talking about WTC7, and not WTC1 and 2.
The penthouse did not take 5-10 second to collapse before the rest of the building.
No. It collapsed 5-10 BEFORE the start of the collapse of the rest of the building. This is important, because it shows that it was starting to collapse internally before the visible collapse you keep watching on LOW-RES YT videos.
"The entire 47 stories took 9.5 seconds to fall."
YT videos don't show the base of the building, so when do you "end" your countdown? Basing conclusions by looking and low-res YT videos is not scientific, and not of a high-enough standard to challenge the evidence and the science.
"The steel columns "breaking away" from WTC 1 and 2 appear to be shot out and some have even pierced neighboring buildings."
"Shot out" is simply a subjective statement, and is dismissed as irrelevant, esp. as thousands of tons will easily move a steel column. Columns hit neighbouring buildings because the towers DID NOT collapse into "their own footprints", which is what a lot of troofers contend.
"I find it difficult to believe that these beams merely broke away and fell."
What you find difficult to believe is irrelevant.
"If an incredible amount of kinetic energy caused the failure of those buildings, why didn't they buckle inwards at the point of impact, or at least begin the collapse immediately?"
Why would it collapse straight away? It collapses because of the damage of the impact AND fire. Also, it DID buckle inwards, and several YT videos demonstrate this (I know you are with YT videos). Once the buckling started, nothing could stop the fall of tens of thousands of tons being pushed down by gravity from above.
"And if fire so hot it can melt steel"
It didn't "melt" the steel. It warmed the steel to a temperature where its strength was compromised.
"caused the collapse, why was there a woman standing in the hole left by the plane?"
There were several people around the area of the impact, who were not killed by the impact. Why is that a problem?
"I disagree with your assertion that 1 and 2 began to collapse at the point of impact."
Even low-res YT videos show this to be the case.
"Simple physics tells me that if I have a stack of blocks and remove a middle piece, the stack is not going to fall straight down, but will topple toward the missing piece."
What magical force would be pulling or pushing the stack over? The major force at play was gravity, which pushes DOWNWARDS. "Simple physics" argues the opposite of what you state.
"I have spent hours watching video after video of 1 and 2 falling, from every angle available, and not one of them shows a building toppling in any direction, but only a straight, fast 15-second fall directly into the buildings' footprints in a cloud of dust...not huge chunks of debris."
It was a "straight, fast 15-second fall" because gravity was pushing thousands of tons downwards. Also, what do you mean by "footprints"? Debris was found a considerable distance away from the towers, including striking many surrounding buildings.
"There is evidence of ignited explosive material found from the scene."
That is one claim from one person who refuses to release his data and how his tests were performed. If you want to trust such a person, that is up to you. Also, remember that the WTC was full of "ignited, explosive materials", and then of course, there was the widespread use of acetylene torches.
"How did it get there?"
You would expect it to be there.
"Why was the physical evidence whisked away before accurate studies could be completed?"
Erm, just how long did you want the wreckage lying around? How many years so some crank can perform meaningless tests?
"Why did so many witnesses testify to hearing explosions?"
Because there were loads of explosions. You are aware that fire causes lots of things to explode, including all kinds of electrical equipment etc. You are aware that floors were collapsing internally, aren't you?
"Why are there still so many unanswered questions?"
Because you are anomaly hunting, and you ignore the answers that have evidence and science backing them, in favour of subscribing to troofer theories.
I am more interested in truth and where it leads. I don't care who the guilty party is at the end of road.
Come on....if the top 1/3 of the tower started to buckle to the side, would the top part fall "over" instead of straight down? And the penthouse did not sink 5-10 second before the rest of the building. And I guess the firefighters who witnessed "molten steel" (NOT aluminum) are lying? Enough of the debris for study and analysis could have been housed in an aircraft hangar like when there is the reconstruction of a wrecked airplane. The debris that was found had traces of nano-explosives...unless those scientists are lying (and losing their jobs as a result) too. I've seen the microscopic images of the particles of explosives on video...unless that's all made up too. How sad that this particular researcher had to give up his profession just to perform what seem to be saying is a hoax. How did the buildings become pulverized to dust particles small enough to be inhaled? My evidence of NIST manipulation comes from Kevin Ryan..who also lost his job as an analyst at Underwriters Lab.
You say the steel was "warmed" enough to warp...but not hot enough to injure people inside the building where the fire did the most damage, as evidenced by the woman standing in the hole. It doesn't make any sense. The black smoke starting pouring out of the building not long after impact...which means the fires were burning out. but the fires were still hot enough to sink a 100 story steel building ... which took 3 years and 11 months to build, so I wouldn't qualify that as "quick."
I'm sorry, but your arguments remain unconvincing. Have you watched any of the AE911 videos? These are experts in building design who have come together to say there is something wrong with the official story. Listen to the other side and then make up your mind. And don't forget to always follow the money (such as the 3 trillion missing dollars from the defense budget that Rumsfeld announced the DAY BEFORE the Pentagon was hit and the document paper trail was conveniently destroyed in that attack.)
There are so many other strange things...like the only document to survive WTC intact was the ID of one the terrorists. That some of the terrorists were found alive and well after the attack. And a mysterious jetliner that poked a hole the size of a 2 car garage door into the pentagon and the only remains were a few pieces of fuselage that could be hand-carried. I"m not looking for anomalies. I'm looking for real common sense answers.
ConspiracyFreakGrannie
"I am more interested in truth and where it leads."
To decide what is truth, one needs evidence and reason to believe a particular description is truthful. Troofer theories all fail, in this respect.
"Come on....if the top 1/3 of the tower started to buckle to the side, would the top part fall "over" instead of straight down?"
The "come on" exclamation suggests you are relying on your own personal incredulity, rather than physics and evidence.
"And the penthouse did not sink 5-10 second before the rest of the building."
Yes, it did.
And I guess the firefighters who witnessed "molten steel" (NOT aluminum) are lying?
Or mistaken. I would ask a number of questions. How many firefigters have said this compared to the number of firefighters at the scene, and how a firefighter would be able to decide this. Also, explain why all of the evidence points towards molten aluminum, and the fact there is no evidence whatsoever of molten steel.
"Enough of the debris for study and analysis could have been housed in an aircraft hangar like when there is the reconstruction of a wrecked airplane."
Begging the question.
"The debris that was found had traces of nano-explosives...unless those scientists are lying (and losing their jobs as a result) too."
Nope. What was found was what you would expect to find in the debris of a large building, packed with electrical equipment, paint, upholstery, plastics, etc. The "scientists" making these claims have failed to corroborate their results, and in most cases, won't even declare their chain of custody, their method for testing, and the supposed "evidence" they have for independent analysis.
"I've seen the microscopic images of the particles of explosives on video...unless that's all made up too."
You saw 'something' on a video. I am not at all impressed by that.
"How sad that this particular researcher had to give up his profession just to perform what seem to be saying is a hoax."
Which professor was that?
"How did the buildings become pulverized to dust particles small enough to be inhaled?"
You mean the parts of the buildings that you would expect to be pulverized in such an incident - such as concrete, etc. Simple physics, old boy.
"My evidence of NIST manipulation comes from Kevin Ryan..who also lost his job as an analyst at Underwriters Lab."
Kevin Ryan is a known troofer, and has books to sell. He also sounds incompetent. He does not have the evidence to back his spurious claims, and all the evidence points against him.
"You say the steel was "warmed" enough to warp...but not hot enough to injure people inside the building where the fire did the most damage, as evidenced by the woman standing in the hole."
I never said it was not hot enough to injure people. For the most part, the woman was not standing directly near the fire, and the wind was blowing in the opposite direction, taking away much of the heat and all of the smoke. Note that the woman is standing on the outer rim of the building, not on the inside where most of the fire was raging.
"It doesn't make any sense."
It makes perfect sense if you know a little bit about simple physics, and fire.
"The black smoke starting pouring out of the building not long after impact...which means the fires were burning out."
The colour of the smoke does NOT indicate a fire is going out. You would know this if you had basic knowledge of combustion.
"but the fires were still hot enough to sink a 100 story steel building...which took 3 years and 11 months to build, so I wouldn't qualify that as "quick."
Erm, I said the build of WTC7 was quick. Further, it was not simply fire that caused WTC1 and WTC2 to collapse. Many support columns were ripped away from the impact zones, meaning far fewer columns and support structures were supporting the considerable (tens of thousands of tons) weight above the impact zones. That's why the South Tower collapsed before the North Tower - its remaining columns were left supported much more weight.
"I'm sorry, but your arguments remain unconvincing."
Your opinion is irrelevant. My arguments are backed by the evidence, backed by the experts, backed by peer review, and backed by an understanding of logic and physics.
"Have you watched any of the AE911 videos? These are experts in building design who have come together to say there is something wrong with the official story."
I've seen them, and they are flawed or simply incompetant. The vast majority of AE911 do not have any credentials, do not have any evidence, and can't ever get anything published in a credible peer review journal. That's because they fail the most basic scientific standards.
"Listen to the other side and then make up your mind."
I have listened and have rejected the claims of troofers.
"And don't forget to always follow the money (such as the 3 trillion missing dollars from the defense budget that Rumsfeld announced the DAY BEFORE the Pentagon was hit and the document paper trail was conveniently destroyed in that attack.)"
That has nothing to do with all the evidence that points against your theory, does it?
"There are so many other strange things...like the only document to survive WTC intact was the ID of one the terrorists."
Wrong. Belongings of passengers were found amongst the wreckage, as is the case in most airline disasters (on land). Objects such as wallets, credit cards, ID's can often be found in airplane wreckage.
"That some of the terrorists were found alive and well after the attack."
None of the terrorists on the four planes were found alive. What an idiotic statement you just made.
"And a mysterious jetliner that poked a hole the size of a 2 car garage door into the pentagon and the only remains were a few pieces of fuselage that could be hand-carried."
The jetliner was not mysterious enough for hundreds of eyewitnesses noticing it fly into the Pentagon. Also, you have watched to many Roadrunner cartoons, where Wile E Coyote would run into a wall and leave a cartoon imprint behind. Plus, there was a lot of debris outside and inside the Pentagon, including the landing gear and the engines. Trust me, those CAN NOT be "hand-carried".
"I"m not looking for anomalies. I'm looking for real common sense answers."
You are anomaly hunting, and your responses suggest common sense is not something you incorporate.
Remember going home on the el looking out the back window of the el it was a Friday night I says...we have a nice skyline....next night boom this happens
This building is built differently
In what way?
WTC 7 and Meridian Building are not even close to the same thing........ It is like crashing a car into a truck and than asking why the truck did better, did you think the car would do better than the truck?
***** "Under extreme fire exposure the beams and girders sagged and twisted and cracks appeared in the concrete floors. However, the overall structure was stable and able to support the weight of the building. Thermal expansion of the steel frame caused some of the granite panels to be dislodged from the building's facade."
So, despite being made of steel and concrete building, the girders were damaged just as what happened to the WTC7 and the Two Towers.... So I think it's safe to say that a Glass Box (Aluminum, steel, Glass) such as the Two Towers and WTC7 could have easily collapsed by fire alone. However we know that that's not the only reason these buildings collapsed. The Two towers collapsed because they had huge jetfuel'ed planes crashing not only through the aluminum exterior which was structural, but also through the center core of the building. Then on top of that, had ignited fires that weakened what ever steel that remained until it finally collapsed... Then you have WTC7 which, it too is a Glass Box get hit by falling debris from the collapsing two towers, causing severe damage to the building, igniting fires inside of the building which burned for several hours before the building finally collapsed.
I think if the planes had crashed into a building like the Empire State Building, we wouldn't be having this argument because that building would have lasted much longer and quite possibly might have survived the fire but still would have been compromised to the point of needing to be torn down.
Concrete and steel hold up the building. You keep glossing over the fact that the concrete encrusted steel beams in the Meridian Building buckled and twisted from the fire despite being covered in concrete. Concrete is a good fire barrier but a hot long lasting fire will destroy concrete and steel which is why this building was torn down. WTC had no chance of survival due to a much weaker design. (Glass Box)
***** WTC 7 fell because of the fires and on the 10th floor we had a very hot fire that was fed by fuel pipes.
***** and how do you think WTC 7 fell?
***** I don't see why we have to be so mean, the langue you have used is not to nice, at the end of the day we can have a nice talk about why WTC 7 fell. I believe the fires weakened the steel in WTC 7 and caused the upper floors to come down .
They don't seem to be in a hurry.
why it didnt colapse like wtc?
You know why.
Different building, different structure
Because it was not blown down by explosives like the twin towers WTC7 also was destroyed: ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
Even Trump knew what happened and what did not happen to twin towers already the very day in his interview 11. September 2001: th-cam.com/video/Rt-ldMj9y9w/w-d-xo.html
@@mikkovuorinen2884 are you done believing in lies? Do you believe everything you read on the internet? Grow up snowflake. You are wrong, accept that
@@Ronin.Samurai please tell this idiot. Even the firefighters said that they feared Building 7 would collapse. Considering two larger Skyscrapers had already fallen it made since to let Building 7 burn
A.WTC 7 had a massive gash in it from WTC 1 collapse,and B. WTC 7 had numerous floors on fire.
The building didn't Fall tho
Surely it came tumbling to the ground..
It's not there now so yes, it came down. However, it was demolished. Natural fires don't bring down skyscrapers. It takes tons of jet fuel to bring one down along with a jet severing support columns.
volume too low.
Funny, the building wasn't hit by a massive jet going 500 mph and full of jet fuel.
Did they found anything evidence of what started the fire?
It was caused by linseed oil rags.
to 1f5sda1991
Well, the vibration from the collapse of towers 1 and 2 were so intense that the beams holding tower 7 gave way and that's what caused it to collapse.
Then why didn't any or all of the surrounding buildings collapse from vibration???
Several other buildings did collapse at the WTC complex, but it was not because of "vibration". Fire caused WTC7 to collapse, as detailed in the NIST report. Other buildings, such as the Hilton Hotel, collapsed because of debris fell onto it.
I sincerely appreciate your mostly civil willingness to debate this subject. You seem to be fairly intelligent so please don’t feel the need to use terms like “troofer.” Honest conversation between two people with mutual respect and open minds, coupled with the readiness to learn, will take everyone on an exciting and fruitful journey. We may not reach the same conclusion, but hopefully we will discover things we didn’t know before along the way.
If you could direct me to one video showing the penthouse taking 5-10 seconds to cave in before the rest of Bldg 7 began its descent I would be happy to watch it.
Molten Steel or Molten Aluminum? There are plenty of photos of a red-orange fiery substance that was pouring from the WTC. The fireman who witnessed it said it looked like molten steel from a foundry. Also, satellite images showed that Ground Zero was “hot” for weeks after the collapse. Aluminum is silvery when it is melted. Asking how many firefighters witnessed the molten steel compared to the number of firefighters working on scene and using that percentage to prove or disprove an event is like saying a car accident didn’t happen because only 2 of the 50 drivers in the vicinity actually witnessed the collision. The firefighters publicly said they saw molten “steel.” I consider them credible witnesses.
Microscopic Evidence of Thermite:
The discovery of unexploded super-thermite in the WTC dust augments a large body of evidence pointing to the use of aluminothermic materials in the destruction of the skyscrapers. The present review looks only at the evidence of explosives found in the dust and debris expelled from the Twin Towers.
Even before WTC dust was subjected to the kind of microscopic scrutiny described in Active Thermitic Material Discovered, several features of the dust analysis published by the USGS pointed to the use of aluminothermics. For example, the USGS data shows high levels of barium -- a fact that is difficult to explain, barring pyrotechnics. The high levels of iron and aluminum in the dust -- each ranging from 1.3 to 4.1 percent of the dust samples by weight -- also appears anomalous, although prosaic sources of the metals can be imagined.
Aluminothermic Residues: Iron-Rich Spheroids
Micro-spheroidal particles in WTC dust consisting mostly of iron were documented in at least two scientific reports by 2005: a compilation of data by the USGS and a report for the owners of a skyscraper adjacent to the World Trade Center complex that sustained heavy damage in the attack
Source: 911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
I disagree with your assertion that the microscopic evidence is typical for office building residue, especially based on this scientific evidence: “Analysis of the chemical composition of dust samples provides further evidence of aluminothermic arson. For example, dust samples contained particles with high levels of manganese, zinc, and barium. Barium is a toxic metal used in a number of industrial processes, but unlikely to be present in significant quantities in an office building. It is, however, useful as a catalyst and accelerant of aluminothermic reactions. Zinc, barium and sulfur are all common in military thermites. (911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/residues.html#incendiary_residues)
It would be to your benefit to investigate the work done by Professor Steven Jones, one of the gentlemen I referred to who lost his job.
I was a young girl in California and experienced some horrendous earthquakes, including the one that demolished Olive View Hospital. The grounds of that hospital reached the end of the street my grandparents lived on. I could look through the fence and see the remains of that building. There were chunks and blocks of concrete and twisted metal, but very little pulverized dust. Even deliberate building demolition doesn’t produce clouds of fine dust particles that billow down streets, driving people to race for their lives into a place of shelter. Think of buildings destroyed by the most violent of earthquakes, or buildings in cities that have been bombed during wartime. These buildings, hit with missiles or exploded with bombs, do not fall straight down into pulverized dust.
Newtonian physics says gravity will force an object to fall into the path of least resistance. The top of the tower tilted sideways because the hole left by the plane created the path of least resistance. In other words…there was nothing in the hole to stop the top of the tower from falling in that direction. Keeping that in mind, the only way for the tower to continue to fall straight down would be for all support columns to fail at exactly the same time in exactly the same manner. Knowing the construction of the tower, the inner core columns were comprised of 4” thick steel…the outer “mesh” was made of aluminum, if I remember correctly. Something caused all columns, no matter their composition, to fail at the same time in order to remove that resistance so that the floors would collapse uniformly. I don’t think a hole in one corner 1/3 the way from the top of the tower, along with subsequent fires leaving different degrees of destruction throughout the floor, would cause uniform collapse. The buildings should have buckled and crumpled and fell in pieces and chunks.
I apologize for misunderstanding you about the construction of Bldg. 7. Funny though, don’t you think, that the building made cheap and quick was the last to fall … from fire weakening the steel columns?
To be an architect or an engineer means that you have a degree and accreditation. To discredit 1500 experts in a specific field with decades of experience must mean you know more than all of them. Underwriters Lab thought highly enough of Kevin Ryan to make him a Site Manager. He was fired for asking questions about 9/11. He is another expert with valuable information, but you discredit him because he sells books? He “sounds incompetent?” Maybe you should take that up with the peer-reviewed journals who published his works.
You are missing my point about the woman in the hole in the tower. You claim the support columns were so weakened by fire that they gave way…and yet the woman was able to make her way through the damage and debris…and melting steel columns… to stand at that hole and wave. If a 4” thick steel column could warp from the heat of a fire…what would that heat do to a fragile human body?
The jet fuel would have burned out within minutes and the only fire left would have been from office combustibles. I was involved in a house fire as a child and the entire house was gutted from the fire…but the house did not collapse.
I have no “theory” of what happened on 9/11….except that the “official story” makes no sense to me. I was just now looking for evidence that personal belongings of flight victims were found at Ground Zero. I came upon an article describing a man receiving four credit cards belonging to his son (an airline passenger on 9/11) years after the tragedy. The cards were in pristine condition. They had always been carried in the son’s wallet…so they somehow came out of his wallet, out of his pocket, out of the seat belt and out of the plane…went through an explosion and fire...and emerged just like nothing happened. Remember my house fire? NOTHING in my house was undamaged…every single item smelled like smoke and every piece of plastic was melted. Even the huge glass bowl my mom kept some souvenirs in was melted. But in reading that article (which I had assumed was an “official story friendly” article) had this to say: “…Four of the alleged passengers on American Airlines Flight 11 with the last names of Ward, Weems, Roux and Jalbert also mysteriously and unexplainable were also listed as passengers on Flight 175 that struck the South Tower.” I’m not “looking” for these things…I just keep stumbling upon them and they all add up to more unanswered questions.
I just spent 30 more minutes looking at images of the debris field in front of the Pentagon after 9/11. I don’t know what caused the damage that day…but it physically could not have been a jetliner. The hole was too small…period. The biggest piece of debris I have seen in any photo was definitely small enough to be hand-carried. If you know of a site with photos of easily recognizable debris as seen in other airplane crashes, I would be interested to see it. And if the entire plane (except for possibly one landing wheel) disintegrated upon impact…how did the plane possibly punch a nice round hole in the C ring? Yes, hundreds of eye witnesses saw a plane fly toward the Pentagon and then saw an explosion. There are also witnesses who saw a plane fly away from the Pentagon immediately after the explosion. Perhaps the witnesses you accept are telling the truth and the rest of the witnesses are all liars? I suggest you watch the emotional interview with the cab driver Mr. England who says his cab was hit by one of the light poles. By the end of the interview his story doesn’t sound convincing at all.
If I am finding “anomalies” it’s because they exist. And this is why I remain skeptical.
ConspiracyFreakGrannie
This video shows the penthouse collapsing. https : / / www . youtube . com/ watch? v=bjyzl-LeJ0g (remove spaces)
"Molten Steel or Molten Aluminum? There are plenty of photos of a red-orange fiery substance that was pouring from the WTC."
They look the same.
"The fireman who witnessed it said it looked like molten steel from a foundry."
That is not firemen saying it "was" molten steel. They were witnessing molten aluminium.
"The firefighters publicly said they saw molten “steel.” I consider them credible witnesses."
The vast majority of firefighters do not claim to have seen "molten steel", or flat out deny it. They are credible witnesses.
"Also, satellite images showed that Ground Zero was “hot” for weeks after the collapse."
There were fires raging for week. Nothing to do with molten steel, molten aluminium, or molten anything.
"The discovery of unexploded super-thermite"
SUPER thermite? Is that something you have made up or found in a comic book? Anyway, your source for the "thermite" conspiracy is from a well-known troofer site. There is no evidence of thermite, nanothermite, or "super thermite". The people claiming to have discovered it in the dust are either mistaken, liars, or unable to validate their findings in the scientific community.
"Analysis of the chemical composition of dust samples provides further evidence of aluminothermic arson."
No, it doesn't. Again, you are reading a known troofer site. There was nothing in the dust that challenges the established facts.
"It would be to your benefit to investigate the work done by Professor Steven Jones, one of the gentlemen I referred to who lost his job."
I know all about Steven Jones, and I consider him a crank and an incompetent amateur. His theories do not match the evidence.
"These buildings, hit with missiles or exploded with bombs, do not fall straight down into pulverized dust."
Irrelevant comparisons, again. Physics shows that you EXPECT the concrete to be pulverized into dust considering the weight that was being forced downwards by gravity. This is not a hard fact to get your head around.
"Keeping that in mind, the only way for the tower to continue to fall straight down would be for all support columns to fail at exactly the same time in exactly the same manner."
It continued to fall straight down because gravity was pushing down a tremendous amount of weight. This fits the laws of physics perfectly. It has nothing to do with support columns.
"Something caused all columns, no matter their composition, to fail at the same time in order to remove that resistance so that the floors would collapse uniformly."
They all failed at the same time because the tremendous weight from above hit them at the same time. Have you actually watched any of the videos?
"The buildings should have buckled and crumpled and fell in pieces and chunks."
Why should it? Why should the laws of physics suspend themselves to fit your silly theory. The tower gave way at the impact site - meaning suddenly all the colossal weight above was being forced downwards by gravity.
"Funny though, don’t you think, that the building made cheap and quick was the last to fall …"
Not at all - it was not hit by a huge jetplane. Herp derp.
"To be an architect or an engineer means that you have a degree and accreditation.
Many of the AE1700 don't have the appropriate credentials, and they certainly do not have any credible evidence. Their science fails the most basic qualifiers for peer review.
"He “sounds incompetent?” Maybe you should take that up with the peer-reviewed journals who published his works."
He is incompetent, because his theories do not fit with the evidence. Also, which CREDIBLE peer review journals? Who has replicated his findings?
"If a 4” thick steel column could warp from the heat of a fire…what would that heat do to a fragile human body?"
You still don't get it. The fires not were raging and warming the steel where she was standing. Also, the wind was moving most of the heat and smoke away from her.
"The jet fuel would have burned out within minutes and the only fire left would have been from office combustibles. I was involved in a house fire as a child and the entire house was gutted from the fire…but the house did not collapse."
[chuckles] Was your house also hit by a jetplane?
"I have no “theory” of what happened on 9/11….except that the “official story” makes no sense to me."
That's because you have no knowledge of basic physics, are unable to evaluate evidence, suffer from cognitive bias, and are far too gullible in accepting crank rubbish from troofer sites.
"I came upon an article describing a man receiving four credit cards..."
Did you read what I said about airplane wreckage, and the fact that items such as these are often found. Now, this is a perfect case of you anomaly hunting, when there is no anomaly.
"Remember my house fire? NOTHING in my house was undamaged…every single item smelled like smoke and every piece of plastic was melted."
[chuckes] Are you going to continue to compare 9/11 to your house fire. Remember, the jetplane was doing 500mph, so wreckage was scattered well away from the towers, and a lot of the fire. Simples.
"Four of the alleged passengers on American Airlines Flight 11 with the last names of Ward, Weems, Roux and Jalbert also mysteriously and unexplainable were also listed as passengers on Flight 175 that struck the South Tower.”
Erm, are you saying they were clones, or just that some people share surnames? [chuckles, again]
"I just spent 30 more minutes looking at images of the debris field in front of the Pentagon after 9/11. I don’t know what caused the damage that day"
You could ask any of the hundreds of eywitnesses who saw a JETPLANE hit the Pentagon. I consider them credible witnesses.
"but it physically could not have been a jetliner. The hole was too small…period."
Wrong.
"The biggest piece of debris I have seen in any photo was definitely small enough to be hand-carried."
There grass outside was littered with debris. You would need hundreds of people to be "laying out the debris" (chuckles) in the aftermath of the event, just as hundreds of eyewitnesses had their eyes transfixed on that area. Do you realise just how laughable that sounds? You also can't hand carry the landing gear and the engines.
"There are also witnesses who saw a plane fly away from the Pentagon immediately after the explosion."
Does the Pentagon have a runway on the roof? [chuckles]
"I suggest you watch the emotional interview with the cab driver Mr. England who says his cab was hit by one of the light poles. By the end of the interview his story doesn’t sound convincing at all."
[chuckles] What exactly was unconvincing, or is that just your subjective, personal POV about a man under duress trying to explain an extraordinary event.
"If I am finding “anomalies” it’s because they exist. And this is why I remain skeptical."
Nope. You're finding things that appear anomalies to you, and then interpreting them to fit your erroneous view of the events. You are not a skeptic, in terms of accurately evaluating evidence.
There are none so blind as those who will not see. I'm sorry you think this is a humorous subject. Perhaps some day when you have matured a little more you will realize the seriousness of this event and the questions surrounding it. I sincerely wish you good fortune in your life.
"There are none so blind as those who will not see."
That reminds me of psychics. When they get challenged on the failure rate of their ability, they blame the skeptic, saying they are "closed minded", blah, blah, blah. I will lump you in with them.
"I'm sorry you think this is a humorous subject."
I find troofers and their bullshit humorous.
"Perhaps some day when you have matured a little more you will realize the seriousness of this event and the questions surrounding it."
Are we back in the school playground, or what?
* Know
HEY YOU. Yes, YOU. Quit reading this comment section. It's absolute garbage.
Obviously , not a false flag.
RIP high rise
At 1:10 into the video look at the flashes of light above the roof of the building. I wish there were videos taken from anyone other than the media. I am born and raised in Philly so being my home and due to the recent events I am just looking back at historical events attempting to critically think because we are living in unprecedented times that I refuse to trust anything being pushed by the mainstream media. Alot of things went wrong in this building that either caused or were caused to occur as this fire continued to move floor to floor and very hot. My heart goes out to the 3 men that lost their lives in this blaze and I hope all is well with their families. I think about these 3 men often and remember this fire when watching the tv at 11 yrs of age. The media was the go to place for information at that time while DARPA was putting the finishing touches on the future World Wide Web or Internet. We all took the media for their word and gave them our trust. As I grew older, I remember moments when watching tv that turned to cable and eventually to what the world has today. I was the kid that asked questions to the point I was a pain to adults around in a room. Looking back they were completely unguarded and comfortable with all news reports as if in a trance or stupor. Later on I was lucky to attend a prestigious local high school outside of Philadelphia and I remember a moment when I asked a question in a class of just 25 young men. My physics professor at that time listened to my question that was immediately followed with laughter from most of my classmates and it was time to move on to the next class of the day. There were no bells in this school, while the schedule rotated daily so it was quite unique in a way. He asked me to see him before moving to my next class. I remember like yesterday what he said..."I was going to ask you to repeat the question regardless of what it was because I was distracted by something I saw outside the window from the corner of my eye with the construction going on, and for that I apologize. I do not want to know what your question was, just promise me that you will never stop questioning everything in your life, always ask questions. Also, in your life whenever you ask a question in front or among others and any or all of them burst out into laughter, that sir, is a topic that must be critically analyzed in the future due to the arrogance in that type of laughter. In some cases being laughed at will set you on a coarse of questioning many or all things in life including your own thoughts and actions. It is ok to be wrong so long as you use it to make it right. Life is not supposed to be easy or simple in any way. You do not need a degree to be a scientist if you pay attention to your surroundings as we are all supposed to do. This planet depends on that and all of us but we are and will continue to do harm to one another and to the nature if we remain arrogant and complacent in what we are presented to be fact while ignorantly omitting to ask questions so those presenting information are held accountable."
I get it now. I am also grateful for having a small voice recorder at the time so I could here that exchange with a physics teacher that I am certain was laughed at when growing up because kids are cruel to one another. I was hockey player and was never bullied and my parents raised me properly. I was the jock that sat at the lunch table with the guys that didnt fit in with the crowd to stick up for them as my dad said to. Those guys still contact me like the old days via phone call unlike all others that exclude you if you do not participate in social media or text. Today, I am still asking questions and I am even being pushed away by my elderly parents but I will never stop being a critical thinker nor will I ever stop questioning what we are all told to simple accept or do according to what those in power want all to simply accept as fact because they said so. I will gladly suffer all the way to my grave doing so in honor of my professor and the lives of many that I am certain were lost and the true stories were not told 100% of the time.
U mean that fire cant bring down a steel frame building on its own footprint !! Well il b learn something new every day
That building was heavy construction with all structural members encased in concrete.
That building met construction and fire codes.
That fire may have been intense, but water was being introduced to the fire area for most of the time it was burning.
That building did not receive the cometic energy of a 767 slamming into it at 500 MPH.
Use your brain before you use your mouth.
The incident report is publicly available from PFD substantiating all of the above.
WTC1,2 and 7 were light construction and met neither fire or building codes as they were owned by the port authority which paid lip service to codes while exempting itself from many and self certifying it met others.
Structural members were not encased on concrete but coated in light protective foam that was never tested before application. It has since been tested by NIST and found to be totally inadequate.
At no point was water applied to WTC 1, or 2, nor to most of WTC 7. A very small amount of water converting to steam will greatly cool combustion areas regardless of visible evidence of flame. Temperature in fire rooms is measured by pyrometers not the naked eye.
To those who are mentally ill and have a belief system they use to slant reality, there is no hope for you nor is it a good thing that you exist. To those actually seeking truth.
Good building, no impact, water applied shortly after ignition equals a building still standing.
Bad building, huge structure compromising impact, no water applied for duration of fire equals collapse.
Pyro philia Remember one thing Pyro...You are trying to explain this to a guy who has a pile of teeth under his pillow, still waiting for the Tooth Fairy.
Nice post!
Cheers and best regards from Texas.
With the name poppyblue which sounds like an inbred hick, I don't think you have room to talk on the whole teeth thing. You and your family combined probably have 12 total and 9 of them are in your pockets
Micheal Adamson It's "Poppa" not Poppy. And I have been a firefighter for 28 paid years. I did, however, lose 4 front teeth when a roof collapsed on me. Got a nice burn scar too. You should see the new teeth...they are much nicer than the originals. And they don't come out.
PoppaBlue59 well thank you for your service then. It was an attempt at humor anyway
Firefighters do NOT have oxygen in their self contained breathing apparatus. It’s compressed air. Oxygen is flammable.
Our SCBAs DO contain oxygen in our cylinders. 18 to 20 % oxygen, a majority of Nitrogen and the rest of atmospheric gases we inhale naturally. How would we breathe and stay alive if our SCBAs didn’t contain oxygen ?
if this collapsed,
hmm..
Omg
but, it is posible ?...are not collapsed ?...incredible !!!
Because it was a simple natural fire, not fueled by tons of jet fuel which would cause a hotter, more destructive fire. Because a plane didn't go through it's middle and sever support columns.
Difference in Construction. World Trade Center was built with Lightweight Steel Truss System. Historically Easily Susceptible to failure in fire. This is an older heavy construction design. Will take the heat.
This building burned for 19 hours and it was still standing, compare that to the twin towers.
Did this building sustain major structural damage from a jetliner going 500mph? I think not.
AccessDenied55 neither did WTC 7
will... that's your opinion buddy...have a great day to ya...take care.
1) WTC 1 & 2 were hit by fully laden jets flying at full speed
2) WTC 3-7 had buildings fall on them
3) WTC was built primarily of steel, including steel cores. Most highrises and skyscrapers have concrete cores.
4) WTC 1 & 2's open floor design worked against them due to the damage sustained in crashes and the fires. Mind you they did survive two plane impacts and stood for a remarkably long time considering the circumstances with is a credit to their designers.
5) WTC 7's unique design also worked against it. It also burned for several hours unchecked and had suffered severe damage from the collapse of WTC 1
6) WTC 3-6 were crushed and then burned, leading to their collapses.
In all 7 buildings collapsed/were destroyed on 9/11, with an eighth later having to be demolished due to severe structural damage.
+David Lander 911 denial is okay.
WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane,
exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with
explosives:
Rapid onset of collapseSounds of explosionsSymmetrical structural failureFree-fall acceleration through the path of what was greatest resistanceImploded, collapsing completely, landing almost in its own footprintMassive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds Expert corroboration from the top European controlled demolition professionalForeknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY
A tower fell on it and took out the entire back half of the building. Isn't it something how a building loses the ability to withstand gravity when part of another building falls on it. Physics is fascinating.
why buidling didnt die? i thought fire kills buildings
It did die, they tore down the building because it was uninhabitable.
+imzjustplayin but fire suppose to demolish the building to the ground after a few houses go see 9/11
ScrotumSqueezer You're comparing a glass box (9/11) vs a Concrete and Steel structure. This structure suffered much less damage compared with 9/11 yet it was still demolished.
Thx I didn't know wtf was made of glass now it make sense
if anyone knows the movie Towering inferno thats what this reminds me of
ffs dont carry oxygen pack ffs carry air packs because oxygen can explode
😂
air pack would provide significantly less time of use.
And that has what to do with this?
fake! it didn't collapse
* 10 year later