Only in USA do skyscrapers collapse from fire ?
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
Hi folks,
there was a tremendous fire which engulfed the whole of the Abcco Tower at AL Nahda (UAE) yesterday evening. The tower burned completely from a fire that started low and eventually caught the whole tower.
Strangely, as with any other such high tower in the world outside the USA, this tower as well did NOT collapse even though the fire was "total" and left "a black tower ruin" after the fire that subsided.
Seems like only in the USA do towers collapse and fall right into their footprint from fires in some office rooms and a few floors (cp. the towers in NYC and what happened in September 2001 ....)
Comments
-
First, this is a disgusting post.
Second, the Towers on 9/11 did not collapse from fire alone so this is not the same thing.
-
@Wolfgang posted:
Strangely, as with any other such high tower in the world outside the USA, this tower as well did NOT collapse even though the fire was "total" and left "a black tower ruin" after the fire that subsided.
Seems like only in the USA do towers collapse and fall right into their footprint from fires in some office rooms and a few floors (cp. the towers in NYC and what happened in September 2001 ....)
You seem to compare the outcome of the fire in the Abcco Tower to the outcome of the fires at the Twin Towers in 2001, Wolfgang. So that readers of your post can most accurately assess how comparable the outcomes are, could you please tell us where in the Abcco Tower the commercial jet(s) struck? Or if it wasn't jet aircraft that caused the fire at the Abcco Tower, could you tell us what external impact(s) did? Or if impacts from external objects or sources didn't contribute to the fire at the Abcco Tower, could you tell us what did cause it, and in what way(s) you believe that fire was comparable to the fires caused by jet aircraft impacts on the Twin Towers?
FWIW, the brief survey I conducted of media coverage of the Abcco Tower fire suggests that what burned most quickly was the building's siding, made with what's called "aluminium composite panel cladding." While fire-resistant materials ARE available for such applications, many of the hi rises in the UAE which have caught fire in recent years did not (the nation has suffered a spate of hi-rise fires in recent years). Preliminary indications are that the Abcco Tower had the less fire-resistant composite material on its exterior. IF that's the case, then it seems to me that the Abcco Tower was a VERY different fire from the Twin Towers fires, in that it burned most intensely on the building's exterior coating, rather than on the building's compromised internal structure, such as was the case in the Twin Towers fires.
-
Wolfgang,
Thanks for your reflection on NYC Twin Towers 9/11, 2001, incident brought to mind by the "Abcco Tower at AL Nahda (UAE) yesterday evening."
I don't think your post is "disgusting," as Mr. Reformed stated. Such remarks coming from a "man-boy," similar to the U. S President Trump, are not to be taken seriously. The miasma of their unkindness neutralized by knowing what is real and one's self. Both "boy-men, seem to be stuck in a vortex of infantile-behavior and name-calling.
However, Wolfgang, there are things you need to factor in before drawing the hard conclusion as purported in the OP. For example:
- The structural design of Abcco Tower at AL Nahda (UAE) (floor plan)?
- What is the height of the Abcco Tower at AL Nahda (UAE)?
- Who built the Abcco Tower at AL Nahda (UAE)?
- What building code used in the construction of the Abcco Tower at AL Nahda (UAE)?
- The materials within and outside the tower?
- What have efforts taken to extinguish the fire?
- How long did it burn?
- Where did the fire started and its cause?
- How old was the Abcco Tower at AL Nahda (UAE)?
- Who owned the Abcco Tower at AL Nahda (UAE)? Was it under lease or paid in full?
- Were it under any terrorist threat? Was it suspected that it was the work of terrorists?
- Unlike the NYC Towers, "Abcco Tower at AL Nahda (UAE)" wasn't struck by a 747 airliner and the inside drenched with Jet-fuel.
These and other questions must be asked and answered. The controlled collapse remains in many minds to this day. Keep thinking. CM
-
Well, folks .... some are trying to find so many trees that they can no longer see the wood (forest) .....Keep looking, perhaps the tree fog will clear at some time when sufficient distance has come about
-
Speak clearly your point, Wolfgang. I am not willing to carry the U.S. water, if you have proof of a controlled collapse of the twin towers. CM
-
Speak clearly your point, Wolfgang. I am not willing to carry the U.S. water, if you have proof of a controlled collapse of the twin towers. CM
You sak for proof from me? Have a look at the publically televised pictures and videos ... you have already seen the proof for which you are asking.
-
There is zero proof of it because it didn't happen.
-
@Wolfgang posted:
Well, folks .... some are trying to find so many trees that they can no longer see the wood (forest) .....Keep looking, perhaps the tree fog will clear at some time when sufficient distance has come about.
My response to your post, Wolfgang, was not about trees or forests, but what appears to be the VERY relevant detail that what burned so intensely (and visually) in the Abcco Tower fire was the building's external surface, which first reports suggest was made of a material not as fire-resistant as others that are available. If the current reporting is accurate, the Abcco Tower fire was QUITE different from Twin Towers fires. The fact that this response of yours fails even to mention, let alone engage, the substance of my fact-based post suggests strongly to me that you have no evidence to the contrary, that in effect you acknowledge the two events are NOT comparable due to the great difference between them my post noted.
-
The pics don't lie, but who's behind the controlled collapse of the twin towers is another story. CM
-
Wikipedia => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_(1973%E2%80%932001) documents World Trade Center having an open floor design where outside structure supported interior floors (so airplane crashes directly weakened floor support structure followed by jet fuel fire).
Wikipedia => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Interstate_Tower_fire describes one US skyscraper that remained standing after five floors were destroyed by fire with $ 50 million of damage (caused change of building code so all skyscrapers needed fire sprinkler systems in 1974, which were not designed to suppress a massive fire bomb having lots of jet fuel for cross country travel).
Keep Smiling 😊
-
Exactly. No conspiracy here.
-
@Bill_Coley posted
My response to your post, Wolfgang, was not about trees or forests, but what appears to be the VERY relevant detail that what burned so intensely (and visually) in the Abcco Tower fire was the building's external surface,
was it just about the trees ? WCT7 had certainly NO intense fire, outside or inside ... and no matter what its structure was, it collapsed for no apparent immediate reason right into its footprint ... something only USA towers seem to be doing when a fire breaks out ... all other such high buildings which have experienced far worse and more intense fires in other countries somehow remain standing.
HMN ..... hmn .... how can that be???
-
HMN ..... hmn .... how can that be???
Wolfgang,
That sound like pre-wired or controlled demolition. CM
-
@Wolfgang posted:
was it just about the trees ? WCT7 had certainly NO intense fire, outside or inside ... and no matter what its structure was, it collapsed for no apparent immediate reason right into its footprint ... something only USA towers seem to be doing when a fire breaks out ... all other such high buildings which have experienced far worse and more intense fires in other countries somehow remain standing.
HMN ..... hmn .... how can that be???
Your interest in explanations for the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings that have either been debunked or, at best, for which there is NO factual basis, far surpasses my desire to engage the subject with you in these forums, Wolfgang. Hence, in this current exchange my point has been ONLY that the origin and visual intensity of the fire to which YOU called our attention in this thread's OP - the one in the Abcco Tower in the UAE - were VERY different from the origin and visual intensity of the fires at the WTC buildings.
In this latest response, you seem to imply that the Abcco Tower fire was one of the "far worse and more intense fires in other countries [that] somehow remain standing." For the reasons I explained in my previous posts, the Abcco Tower fire LOOKED intense, but its fury was concentrated on the building's exterior surface, which limited the fire's capacity to inflict structural damage. WHATEVER the number and nature of the fires that erupted in the WTC buildings, they clearly were not concentrated on the buildings' exterior surfaces. Hence, my point - my ONLY point in our current exchange - remains: The Abcco Tower and WTC fires are NOT comparable. I hope that you will finally directly engage my point, now that I have expressed it in three posts.
One final question: Your post seems also to suggest that what happened at the WTC buildings - i.e. tall structures brought down by fire and other internal structural damage - has happened in other "USA towers." Please name for me other "towers" in the U.S. that have collapsed allegedly due to damage/fires created by impacts comparable to those caused by jet aircraft.
-
One final question: Your post seems also to suggest that what happened at the WTC buildings - i.e. tall structures brought down by fire and other internal structural damage - has happened in other "USA towers."
No "seeming to suggest" ... just a little emphasis on those famous NYC towers which had that happen to them .... Actually, any other USA towers where fires did not cause a collapse would simply add to the suspicions and show even more that the WTC towers did not come down because of fire ...
-
@C Mc posted (in a reply to a comment of mine about WTC7)
That sound like pre-wired or controlled demolition. CM
It is the obvious conclusion upon consideration of known facts and the visual evidence publicly available.
So then, why do so many call these plain facts "conspiracy theories" ???
-
@Wolfgang posted:
No "seeming to suggest" ... just a little emphasis on those famous NYC towers which had that happen to them .... Actually, any other USA towers where fires did not cause a collapse would simply add to the suspicions and show even more that the WTC towers did not come down because of fire ...
Once again you fail to mention, let alone engage, the core assertion of my posts in our exchange: that the Abcco Tower fire to which you called our attention in this thread's OP was not comparable in any relevant way to the fires that erupted in the WTC buildings.
With due respect, Wolfgang, you've taken this disappointing approach to my responses to you many times in the past. I still marvel at the discussion we had about rising sea level years ago. Again and again and again and again I asked you to engage the content of my first response to your claim, and you simply would not do so. TO THIS DAY you have yet to mention, let alone engage, any of the assertions of fact I included in my part of that discussion. It seems clear that our exchange in this thread is another example of your practice of completely ignoring content that disputes, undermines, or disproves your contentions. (Another example: THIS POST OF MINE whose question and core assertions of fact you chose not to mention, let alone engage.) I still find that practice - and you're NOT the only one in these forums who engages in it! - astonishing and disappointing.
My new approach is to limit to three the number of times I will raise a question/issue to a fellow CD poster. From now on I will assume that if a poster doesn't engage a question/issue on the first three times I raise it, the reason is a truthful response to what I've raised would amount to an acknowledgement of a weakness in that poster's argument, an outcome the poster is not willing to endure. Such is now the fate of my claim about the Abcco Tower fire. I won't ask again.
-
For the reasons I explained in my previous posts, the Abcco Tower fire LOOKED intense, but its fury was concentrated on the building's exterior surface, which limited the fire's capacity to inflict structural damage. WHATEVER the number and nature of the fires that erupted in the WTC buildings, they clearly were not concentrated on the buildings' exterior surfaces.
The fires in the recent fire at the tower in UAE was certainly not just on the exterior ... and the intensity also reached interior areas as basically the tower is now a burned out ruin.
As for the "number and nature of fires" in the WTC towers, they were by far not as severe and intense ... not on the exterior (as the videos of the towers show rather clearly) and also not on the interior (which in part can be seen in videos showing areas where planes hit and people were standing on the inside even rather close to fires, and also can be gathered from firefighter and survivor testimony about the evacuation) It is plian and clear from the video evidence available that the two WTC towers did NOT collapse into their footprint because of those fires.
As for WTC7, the fires were minimal and certainly could never have caused the collapse of that building either.
I saw no need to point this out as I expected it would be all too obvious and needed no reiteration
-
@Wolfgang posted:
I saw no need to point this out as I expected it would be all too obvious and needed no reiteration
Long ago I decided not to engage you on the subject of the collapse of the WTC buildings, Wolfgang, because in my view many/most of the claims you make about their collapse are utterly and demonstrably false. Many of your claims that are not demonstrably false have no basis in fact, but are the result of your and/or others' conjecture and speculation seemingly driven by your partisan political agenda. Hence, your claims are in no way "too obvious" to me. What they need is not "reiteration," but factual support. Since no such support exists, however, reiteration might be your best option.
FWIW, I found this superb summary of the most widely accepted understanding of what happened to the WTC buildings. The page covers many of the questions and issues skeptics raise.
Post edited by Bill_Coley on -
Wolfgang, because in my view many/most of the claims you make about their collapse are utterly and demonstrably false. Many of your claims that are not demonstrably false have no basis in fact, but are the result of your and/or others' conjecture and speculation seemingly driven by your partisan political agenda.
Well ... my "political agenda" as a non-USA citizen has been to point out how the USA (and all of its "allies") have been turned into more or less severe police state dictatorships .... in essence, I've pointed out how in the name of an all too obvious false flag operation, the USA citizens were robbed of numerous of their constitutional rights and liberties.
Strangely, it has been mostly folks from the "liberal" spectrum who have opposed my simple straight forward information and what I pointed out ... they seem to be quite happy with losing their rights in favor of regime dictatorship (where "regime" is really independent of the "elephant" or "donkey" affiliation).
Now, many folks seem to have been conditioned over the years into "fear faith" to the point of even asking for more shutdown and even oppose those who would like to keep the economy alive. Good night, America !
