The Delft University of Technology fire

[tabea_blumenschein]

From WikiPedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delft_University#Fire_at_Faculty_of_Architecture)

In the morning of May 13, 2008 a fire started in the main building of the faculty of architecture. The fire soon engulfed several floors of the southern wing of the building. As fire fighters struggled to control the blaze, the fire spread throughout the building which had been evacuated when the first fire alarm went off.

The damage to the building proved to be extensive. Parts of the northern wing had collapsed and it was feared that the rest of the building would follow.


And here is a link to a video of the collapse referred to:

the fall of architecture, spring 2008 - YouTube


The building was not hit by a plane or large amounts of debris. There were sustained firefighting efforts. Yet part of the building collapsed anyway.

I also note with amusement that the collapse was "symmetrically into its own footprint at near-freefall speed!" (:D)


Does this not have some relevence to what happened on 9/11?

Discuss.

[ex sheep]

From WikiPedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delft_University#Fire_at_Faculty_of_Architecture)




And here is a link to a video of the collapse (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc1Lri34OmY&feature=related) referred to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc1Lri34OmY&feature=related


The building was not hit by a plane or large amounts of debris. There were sustained firefighting efforts. Yet part of the building collapsed anyway.

I also note with amusement that the collapse was "symmetrically into its own footprint at near-freefall speed!" (:D)


Does this not have some relevence to what happened on 9/11?

Discuss.

This building was badly damaged by fire and did not collapse at freefall speed, it is still standing the next again day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lxGanbE-Vg&feature=related

Does this not have some relevence to what happened on 9/11?

NO

.

[fanoftruth]

If you look to the right hand side in the 'related videos' menu you'll see a video of that University the next day. It's still standing...

[dave52]

The building was not hit by a plane or large amounts of debris. There were sustained firefighting efforts. Yet part of the building collapsed anyway.

I also note with amusement that the collapse was "symmetrically into its own footprint at near-freefall speed!" (:D)


Does this not have some relevence to what happened on 9/11?

Discuss.

Totally irrelivent. In fact, a bit of an own goal. The top collapsed, not the entire building.

[kooskoets]

Does this not have some relevence to what happened on 9/11?

Well..yes.

In both cases there were no planes.

[waypastvne]

I also note with amusement that the collapse was "symmetrically into its own footprint at near-freefall speed!"

You should also note that it initiated a pancake collapse of the lower floors.

[tabea_blumenschein]

Judging from the responses I've received, it's obvious I need to explain what I'm getting at a little more clearly.

We have a steel-framed building that's on fire. Despite the efforts of the firefighters on the scene, part of the building's steel is heat-weakened to the point of failure. The top five floors or so tear themselves away and collapse onto the structure below. The structure underneath the collapsing floors is overwhelmed by the dynamic load, and the collapse continues all the way to the ground.

That the top five floors didn't just fall onto the next floor down and stop is made abundantly clear by the "day after" video in ex sheep's post.

Finally, please note in my opening post that I said "part of the building collapsed anyway." I never said, or meant to imply, that the entire building collapsed.

~

I believe that the Delft University partial collapse is relevent to 9/11 for a number of reasons. Among them:

1. One of the core arguments of the truth movement is that an ordinary hydrocarbon fire can't heat steel to the point of failure. Yet the Delft University fire did just that.

2. The truth movement has argued that a given floor of a building can have the floors above dropped on it yet survive (i.e. in the case of the twin towers, why didn't the structure arrest the downward movement of the upper block?). In the Delft University fire, the first floor to be impacted only had the weight of about five or six floors collapse on it, yet it failed upon impact. So did each of the succeeding floors.

3. The truth movement claims that a collapse "at or near freefall speed" must have been caused by explosives (or other nefarious means), else how could the collapse happen so quickly? Yet the part of the Delft University building that collapsed did indeed reach the ground in a time comperable to freefall.

Rather than bring up too many topics, I'll stop with those three main points: hydrocarbon fire causes failure of steel in steel-framed building, structure unable to stop collapse, collapse reaches the ground at "near freefall speed". Those are the points I wanted readers to discuss on this thread. I'd be especially interested in whether you agree with my assessments of the truth movement's positions in the points above (by all means, correct me if I'm wrong :)), and whether the Delft Univerisity case has prompted you to reconsider your prior beliefs about steel-framed buildings, fires, and the possibility of fire-induced collapse.

~

Before anyone else brushes this off as "just a partial collapse", let me say that we don't need a global collapse to prove any of the points I made above; a partial collapse will do just fine. While there are examples of global collapses of steel-framed structures I could have discussed, I picked this one largely because we have a video showing clearly what happened.

[dave52]

The top five floors or so tear themselves away and collapse onto the structure below. The structure underneath the collapsing floors is overwhelmed by the dynamic load, and the collapse continues all the way to the ground.

That's not quite true. The front of the building collapses away from the rest of the building, leaving a large chunk of the building in place the next day. Unlike Building 7 that just completely imploded into it's own foot print.

Just out of interest, why do you think the first WTC Tower started to fall away initially, then turned into a complete collapse...?

http://www15.ocn.ne.jp/~oyakodon/newversion/pic11/wtc-collapse-01.jpg

[tabea_blumenschein]

That's not quite true. The front of the building collapses away from the rest of the building, leaving a large chunk of the building in place the next day. Unlike Building 7 that just completely imploded into it's own foot print.

First of all, do you understand that the upper, six floor section that tore away fell onto the lower section of six floors, resulting in a progressive, floor by floor collapse of that section of the building? I just want to be sure that you do.

The fact that only part of the building collapsed does not affect the validity of my points. Here they are again.

The partial collapse of the Delft Univerisity building happened because steel was heat-weakened in an ordinary hydrocarbon fire. This is enough to definitively refute any truth movement claims that fires in steel-framed buildings cannot cause that steel to fail.

And it should be obvious that more intense and/or longer burning fires -- or even the absence of firefighting efforts -- would damn well have caused the rest of the building to collapse along with the wing that did.

The structure was not able to stop the collapsing mass. I've had truthers tell me that you should be able to hoist the upper section of a building into the air and drop it on the lower structure, without the lower structure collapsing. The Delft University case shows this assumption to be incorrect.

Finally, the collapse reached the ground at "near freefall speed" to use the truther term. Truthers think rapid collapses require explosives. The Delft University case proves that the truth movement's notions are wrong.

Just because only part of the building collapsed to the ground, that doesn't change the fact that the partial collapse deep-sixes three of the core arguments of the 9/11 truth movement.

Just out of interest, why do you think the first WTC Tower started to fall away initially, then turned into a complete collapse...?

http://www15.ocn.ne.jp/~oyakodon/newversion/pic11/wtc-collapse-01.jpg


Let's try a simple experiment.

Do you have a small box, say a shoe box or something?

Stand your box vertically on a table and lean it a few degrees to the side with your hand. You can feel that the box wants to rotate back towards vertical should you let go, right?

If you lean the box more and more, eventually you'll reach a point where the box wants to rotate over onto its side. This happens when the box's center of gravity is outside the original "footprint" of the box on the table.

What was happening with WTC2 was obviously more complicated, but it's the same principle at work. Even though the upper block had "tipped" about 7 or 8 degrees, the upper block's center of gravity was still far within the "footprint" of the building.

The reason the upper block was able to start tipping in the first place was because the structure's initial failure was primarily on one side. The other side of the structure was acting as a "hinge" that the upper block began to rotate around. The building obviously wasn't designed for that sort of stress, so the "hinge" failed after the upper block rotated through an angle of 7 or 8 degrees.

After that, the angular momentum of the upper block will depend on how the building resists the downward motion of the upper block. It could have been gaining or losing angular momentum at any given moment. It's probable that the tilt of the upper block was largely "self-regulating" for the rest of the collapse, as Ryan Mackey likes to put it. Even if the upper block rotated a few extra degrees, that wouldn't put the global collapse in doubt.

I'm not going to bother you with the math, but I once worked out an estimate of how far the upper block would have needed to tip in order to put its center of gravity outside the footprint of the building. If memory serves, it was an angle of about 34 degrees, which would have had the roof of the upper block jutting out over 180 feet.

[ex sheep]

Lets get this straight re-enforced concrete pillars cannot disintegrate due to fire, as was in WTC

Show me the proof that there were same in your un collapsed building.

[bryan]

The partial collapse of the Delft Univerisity building happened because steel was heat-weakened in an ordinary hydrocarbon fire. This is enough to definitively refute any truth movement claims that fires in steel-framed buildings cannot cause that steel to fail.

Finally, the collapse reached the ground at "near freefall speed" to use the truther term. Truthers think rapid collapses require explosives. The Delft University case proves that the truth movement's notions are wrong.


Can anybody see a steel frame in the 'day after' video?

The day after 13 05 2008 - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lxGanbE-Vg



Let's try a simple experiment.

Do you have a small box, say a shoe box or something?

Stand your box vertically on a table and lean it a few degrees to the side with your hand. You can feel that the box wants to rotate back towards vertical should you let go, right?

If you lean the box more and more, eventually you'll reach a point where the box wants to rotate over onto its side. This happens when the box's center of gravity is outside the original "footprint" of the box on the table.


1. The tilting upper block had more momentum than an empty shoebox.

2. The bottom of the shoebox and the top of the table are not breaking apart at the same time as the shoebox is falling over.

Try leaning the shoebox over the edge of the table.

[ronisron]

:rolleyes:

Before anyone else brushes this off as "just a partial collapse", let me say that we don't need a global collapse to prove any of the points I made above; a partial collapse will do just fine. While there are examples of global collapses of steel-framed structures I could have discussed, I picked this one largely because we have a video showing clearly what happened.

Nope, you'd need a comparison with a total collapse of a building at free fall speed, because that's how it went down on 9/11, three times... nice try though. What happened at the WTC that day is a first on all accounts -- IF you believe the official story, that is.

The North Tower already withstood a fire that burned for over 6 hours, covering six floors. It burned at over 600 degrees C, and blew windows out. The tower sustained no structural damage whatsoever. Feb of 1975.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pictures/Apr05/100405WTC.jpg

WTC 7 was "pulled" at the request of it's leasee, according to the leasee. To "pull" means to bring it down. They had absolutely no time to set up for this "pull" unless it was planned in advance. Why was it prewired for "pulling"?

WTC 7 - Pull It By Larry Silverstein - YouTube

This has been very badly explained away as not meaning what he says, etc... but "The decision was made to pull, and we watched the building collapse" is self explanatory. Larry screwed up, plain and simple. Not to mention the BBC reporter rehearsing the story of the collapse of WTC 7 23 minutes before it came down -- that video is in a sticky at the top of this forum. Here is a dandly little side by side of two controlled demolitions; one is WTC 7! :D

WTC7 controlled demolition, side-by-side video - YouTube

Both in the same way, both at free fall, both "pulled".....

All 3 WTC buildings that dropped that day fell at the same speed, into their own footprints, after multiple explosions. The fires in the North and South tower were going out, and even if they fires weakened the steel in the areas that were burned (not likely considering the severity of the Feb 1975 fire), they may have collapsed unto themselves, about 4 or 5 floors, but they wouldn't have cause the core beams to be cut at lengths of no longer than 30 ft, and caused those buildings to fall straight down at free fall speed without any resistance. The pancake theory is bunk;

Debunking Novas Pancake Theory of WTC using common sense - YouTube

and

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

If they did pancake, a total collapse would have taken a LOT longer than 10 seconds, and would have probably caused large sections to topple over and crash into the streets. Pancaking does not explain away multiple explosions or squibs prior to collapse either...

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Multiple explosions, squibs, pyroclastic dust flow = Controlled Demolition.

You have to use a lot of maybe's and even more incredulity to support the lie that is the official story. And you're doing a fine job of both.;)

(BTW, Controlled Demolition Inc out of Phoenix, Maryland did the bulk of the cleanup there......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Demolition,_Inc.

Nice huh? )

[supersmell]

In the 1975 there the fireproofing hadn't been destroyed by an airplane/explosion.

[ronisron]

In the 1975 there the fireproofing hadn't been destroyed by an airplane/explosion.

It wasn't on 9/11 either. Those jets were absorbed by the buildings just as architect Frank De Martini described they would be. As for the fireball caused by the exploding airliners, that WAS the jet fuel burning off in one big fire. The amount of smoke pouring out of the towers indicates "smolder", not "burning" -- the fires were going out. The temperatures were low enough in the areas where the planes hit that people were observed standing in the openings prior to the collapse. There is nothing in there to sustain a fire for very long, outside of carpeting and office furniture -- gyproc, steel, aluminum, and concrete don't burn under the temperatures that an open air fire burns at, especially a fire that was going out.

The planes hit, then a fireball/explosion occurred in the top 3rd of each building. The WTC's are in 3 big sections, with 2 extra support structures between the first and second sections, and the second and third sections. They were also built to withstand winds in excess of 150 mph. The planes were absorbed as they were described to do, the jet fuel burned off in the initial explosion..... then after multiple explosions heard in the basements, the buildings began to drop at free fall speed, top to bottom, with squib explosions going off on every second floor all the way down to the footprint of each building. All 3, including one that wasn't hit by an airplane -- 10 seconds, top to bottom after multiple explosions. That's called controlled demolition by any other explanation.

[white horse]

Well..yes.

In both cases there were no planes.

Ha ha haarr! :p

[white horse]

:rolleyes:



Nope, you'd need a comparison with a total collapse of a building at free fall speed, because that's how it went down on 9/11, [I]three times... nice try though. What happened at the WTC that day is a first on all accounts -- IF you believe the official story, that is.


Yes.

[flip side]

From WikiPedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delft_University#Fire_at_Faculty_of_Architecture)




And here is a link to a video of the collapse (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc1Lri34OmY&feature=related) referred to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc1Lri34OmY&feature=related


The building was not hit by a plane or large amounts of debris. There were sustained firefighting efforts. Yet part of the building collapsed anyway.

I also note with amusement that the collapse was "symmetrically into its own footprint at near-freefall speed!" (:D)


Does this not have some relevence to what happened on 9/11?

Discuss.

Poor example once again. See you're still rollin out Mackay too. Mate, he works for NASA...he is not independant, he is a shill, one of your own I would hazard a guess at. Round and round we go, we have the proof and you providing examples that dont even bare slight similarities to 9/11 exposes you for who you are. Yes you're trying hard but that's all you are... TRYING

[tabea_blumenschein]

Lets get this straight re-enforced concrete pillars cannot disintegrate due to fire, as was in WTC

Show me the proof that there were same in your un collapsed building.

Re-enforced concrete pillars? What are you talking about?

[tabea_blumenschein]

Can anybody see a steel frame in the 'day after' video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lxGanbE-Vg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lxGanbE-Vg

Yes, bryan, the building was steel framed.


1. The tilting upper block had more momentum than an empty shoebox.

2. The bottom of the shoebox and the top of the table are not breaking apart at the same time as the shoebox is falling over.

Try leaning the shoebox over the edge of the table.

1. The upper block isn't just rotating freely in space. Depending on how it is impacting the structure, it's rotational momentum could be increasing, decreasing, or remaining constant. Overall, those changes in rotational momentum tend to cancel one another out.

2. Once the "hinge" the upper block is rotating around fails, that starts happening on the opposite side of the building as well. This would act to tilt the upper block back towards vertical, or else help to slow/stop it's rotation.

3. If the shoebox's center of gravity isn't over the edge of the table, it tilts back to an upright position; it doesn't slide off.

I think you're reading too much into my shoebox analogy anyway. I was using it to help explain that the upper block's center of gravity is inside the footprint of the building, which means it cannot topple over to the side.

~

You know, you guys should really think about how the observed rotation of the upper block fits into your version of what happened on 9/11.

Let's say the upper block rotates briefly, after which the structure beneath is destroyed floor by floor by some nefarious means or other.

In THIS case, there's nothing to slow the upper block's rotation. It would have flipped over far more than it was actually seen to do in the collapse videos.

[bryan]

Yes, bryan, the building was steel framed.


Is it possible that the section that collapsed was an extension to the building and wasn't part of the steel structure? In the 'day after' video, the remaining structure looks like an ordinary block of flats after a gas explosion.



1. The upper block isn't just rotating freely in space. Depending on how it is impacting the structure, it's rotational momentum could be increasing, decreasing, or remaining constant. Overall, those changes in rotational momentum tend to cancel one another out.

2. Once the "hinge" the upper block is rotating around fails, that starts happening on the opposite side of the building as well. This would act to tilt the upper block back towards vertical, or else help to slow/stop it's rotation.


You've argued many times yourself that the upper block was a "huge mass". If that huge mass suddenly tilts over towards one corner, then the mass and the velocity combine to create an equally huge momentum. According to the law of inertia, that momentum will continue unless it comes up against an object with enough strength to resist the force.

In the crush-down model, the top part of the lower block was so flimsy that the floors collapsed at a rate of at least five or six floors per second. So where did the resistance come from to stop the tilting, and why didn't the same resistance stop the crush-down or at least slow it down?



3. If the shoebox's center of gravity isn't over the edge of the table, it tilts back to an upright position; it doesn't slide off.

I think you're reading too much into my shoebox analogy anyway. I was using it to help explain that the upper block's center of gravity is inside the footprint of the building, which means it cannot topple over to the side.


If you tip a shoebox over the edge of a table, the 'hinge' is the edge of the table. The hinge of the tilting upper block is a line passing through the core and cutting the footprint of the building in half. If the upper block's centre of gravity is over that line, there's no stopping it from toppling over the side, unless the structure of both blocks is rigid enough to withstand the impact.



You know, you guys should really think about how the observed rotation of the upper block fits into your version of what happened on 9/11.

Let's say the upper block rotates briefly, after which the structure beneath is destroyed floor by floor by some nefarious means or other.

In THIS case, there's nothing to slow the upper block's rotation. It would have flipped over far more than it was actually seen to do in the collapse videos.

The upper block was blown apart before the lower block was destroyed.

[ronisron]

You know, you guys should really think about how the observed rotation of the upper block fits into your version of what happened on 9/11.

Let's say the upper block rotates briefly, after which the structure beneath is destroyed floor by floor by some nefarious means or other.

In THIS case, there's nothing to slow the upper block's rotation. It would have flipped over far more than it was actually seen to do in the collapse videos.

Your context no longer even has a context.....

Here's an example that doesn't fit, so don't read too deeply into it..... let's say the upper block was rotating..... let's say we stick to the facts at hand instead.

Dummy planes hit, huge fireballs erupt that cover a couple of floors in the top levels. Fire is going OUT as evidenced by all the smoke. The heat is not very intense as people were standing in the openings. After explosions at the base of each, both towers fall at free fall speed into their own footprints with squibs observed going off all the way down as they fell. Both towers fell after fires that weren't burning hot enough to deter people were going OUT, and only after multiple explosions. Not to mention WTC 7 which was not hit by a plane, also fell with the exact same MO as the towers. Controlled demolition.

You are either terrified by the prospect of 9/11 being an inside job as it seriously compromises a shallow belief system that you desperately cling to, or you are a shill, and you're not very good at it. The jig is up either way.

[tabea_blumenschein]

BTW, this is Tabea Blumenschein..... WTF???

Well, gosh ... when picking out a screen name, I thought I was just picking a very pretty but anonymous name from decades ago. I'll discuss this with one of the moderators via PM, because I obviously don't want any sort of confusion regarding the screen name I post under.

[ronisron]

Well, gosh ... when picking out a screen name, I thought I was just picking a very pretty but anonymous name from decades ago. I'll discuss this with one of the moderators via PM, because I obviously don't want any sort of confusion regarding the screen name I post under.

I've just heard it before, so I "Googled" it, and there she was.

It was hardly a salient point that you needed to address, IMO. You do need to address your posts in this thread though. Or, drop 'em. Either way is fine.

[helloperator]

tabae blumenscien...you're a dangerously deluded lunatic!

[kevin82]

Just out of interest, why do you think the first WTC Tower started to fall away initially, then turned into a complete collapse...?

http://www15.ocn.ne.jp/~oyakodon/newversion/pic11/wtc-collapse-01.jpg

The break up happened above the impact zone. The structure of the 30 stories of the South Tower above the impact zone was shattered before it started it's plunge. How could the steel frame of many stories above the impact zone have broken up even before it started to fall?

The proponents of gravity-driven collapse maintain that the tops of the towers crushed the floors below the impact zones as they fell. The tops functioned as pistons, according to Bazant and Zhou, crushing the stories one by one. What one actually sees in the case of the South Tower is that their piston disintegrated even before it started to fall. A gravity-driven collapse cannot account for that disintegration, nor for how a cloud of rubble could crush the intact structure below the impact zone.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/docs/st_mont.jpg

[solarwindspirit]

Lets get this straight re-enforced concrete pillars cannot disintegrate due to fire, as was in WTC

Show me the proof that there were same in your un collapsed building.
The Truth will Set You FREE really liked the video
Yes, I always look at the similarities in beliefs not the differences. Anyone who argues over over belief systems is truly in the dark.

It's called scalar weapons and dustification look up Dr. Judy Wood on the net
and other sources such as Angels don't play this HAARP and the Electric Spark of Life. Guess they don't have a worthy enemy to use it on and probably left
over from the star wars program.

Hmmm. . .man using his reptilian brain. . .psyops
The Reptilian brain is your first and oldest brain. It's called the R Complex. It evolved to serve your genes. It closely resembles the brain of a reptile. It's primary role is to make you stay alive. It carries out a certain behavioral responses when presented with certain external triggers. It doesn't learn from it's mistakes and only understands images, not language. Some of the behaviors associated with the reptilian brain are dominance, aggression, seeking a mate, obsessiveness, worship (especially ritualistic) , fear, submission and greed. Think of a wild animal defending it's territory. It governs the conscious subconsious mind and your beliefs determine what you physically see.

I applaud all in the search for truth. . .and the truth will set you free

I've always thought that technology was a reflection of the mind divine or
otherwise. But I feel in this was a play to dumb us all down too bad. . .we're not pions in this galaxy you know. . .and yes TNT is the power within you. . .ever read
the book? LOL
================================================
"Though men are not dogs, they should humbly try to remember how much they resemble dogs in their brain functions, and not boast themselves as demigods. They are gifted with religious and social apprehensions, and they are gifted with the power of reason; but all these faculties are physiologically entailed to the brain. Therefore the brain should not be abused by having forced upon it any religious or political mystique that stunts the reason, or any form of crude rationalism that stunts the religious sense." (p. 274)[3]

Pavlov’s findings to the mechanisms of brain-washing in religion and politics

[liltroofer]

looks like an upgrade