Buildings more "Collapse" resistant when they aren't capable of swaying world support

Discussion in 'Conspiracy Theories' started by creativedreams, Jan 30, 2010.

  1. creativedreams
    Offline

    creativedreams Weaver

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,165
    Thanks Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Ratings:
    +30
    Somehow Buildings that aren't capable of gaining world support to go where the oil is are far more "collapse" resistant...

    Look how the firefighters didn't give up on this building that was burning 100's of times worse than building 7

    The firefighters worked through the night battling this fire.



    Live News Footage BBC:

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th2bnG_7UyY"]YouTube- Windsor Building Fire BBC Report[/ame]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Christophera
    Offline

    Christophera Evidence & Reason Rule

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,298
    Thanks Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Santa Barbara CA
    Ratings:
    +74
    WTC 7 was rebuilt with a concrete core.

    Rebuilding 7 World Trade Center

    So is the freedom tower. Over a certain height and they are subject to torsion oscillation in the high winds if they have only a steel core. It can take a tower down faster than fire.

    The steel reinforced cast concrete rectangular tube has tremendous resistance to torsion.
     
  3. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    apples and oranges....two different stuctural systems....two different fire supression systems....
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Christophera
    Offline

    Christophera Evidence & Reason Rule

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,298
    Thanks Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Santa Barbara CA
    Ratings:
    +74
    If fire was the issue, that might mean something.

    No core columns visible, looks like rebar.

    [​IMG]

    Looks like concrete.

    [​IMG]

    Got photo from 9-11 showing steel core columns in the core area?
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2010
  5. Fizz
    Offline

    Fizz BANNED

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    4,391
    Thanks Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +349
    no rebar in your photo. you cant see something 3 inches wide from over a mile away.:cuckoo:

    you show steel core columns on 9/11 all the time,. you fucking moron. :lol:

    there's two pictures of the steel core in the post i just quoted.
     
  6. Fizz
    Offline

    Fizz BANNED

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    4,391
    Thanks Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +349
    looks like concrete columns so its not of the same construction as the WTC towers.

    how many other tall buildings were burning that night? did the fire department have 343 firefighters killed earlier the same day? :cuckoo:

    we wont even go into the lack of water pressure and how much of the fire equipment was already destroyed earlier in the day.

    you really are a moron.
     
  7. Christophera
    Offline

    Christophera Evidence & Reason Rule

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,298
    Thanks Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Santa Barbara CA
    Ratings:
    +74
    Not true, a 3 inch silhouetted bar will just show and there are 50 or more of them in perhaps the wet and north wall lines. You certainly have provided no reasonable alternative. I state there was high tensile steel 3 Inch rebar and that material is capable of standing exactly as we see,

    You never did post images of steel core columns in the core area.

    You and gumjob at one time posted an image that showed one that came from the first row inside the core wall that was falling out with interior box columns. The tapered bottom portion shows a pice of the concrete core wall still fastened to it.

    [​IMG]

    You lie, you have never posted an image of steel core columns in the core area, no one has. They did not exist.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2010
  8. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,576
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,993
    No water pressure and the building was in danger, they had already lost over 300 fire fighters they were not interested in losing more to save a building that did not need to be saved.
     
  9. Wicked Jester
    Offline

    Wicked Jester Libsmackin'chef

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    11,924
    Thanks Received:
    1,859
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    So. Cal, Malibu!
    Ratings:
    +1,859
    Did that building have a fully loaded, fully fueled JUMBO jet travelling at more than 600 mph ram into it and rock it's foundation?

    Why of course not!

    :cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo:
     
  10. Fizz
    Offline

    Fizz BANNED

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    4,391
    Thanks Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +349
    you cant see something 3 inches from over a mile away. take a look at your picture and tell me where you can see even on person, which is much thicker than 3 inches, on the other side of the river!!!

    where is your proof that there are "50 or more of them"? once again you are just making shit up as you go along. what you have a picture of is what remains of the steel core.

    this picture that you just posted is a pciture of the steel core on 9/11, you fucking idiot!!! its STEEEEEEL!!!!!! there is no concrete in your picture.
    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page