Laurence Doering wrote in
:

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 04:08:30 GMT, Wake Up! wrote:
Laurence Doering wrote in news:47oh1kFgko4kU1
@individual.net:

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 08:50:53 GMT, Wake Up! wrote:
"Wake Up!" wrote in news:Xns978626A6D8B0Atruth@

Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel
framed building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire,
you are definitely not qualified. A qualified engineer would know
that steel framed buildings do not completely collapse from fire.
Never. Sorry.

Which, I guess, means all those engineers who spend so much time
devising fireproofing materials for steel structural members
in buildings have been wasting their time all these years.

There's a lot more evidence than what I put above.

I think the fact that qualified engineers spend a lot of time
and effort figuring out how to protect steel frame members from
fire is extremely strong evidence that they think fires could
cause a steel framed building to collapse, and that they want to
keep that from happening for some reason.

If you have "a lot more evidence" that qualified engineers
are blithely unconcerned about the deleterious effects of
fires on building structures, by all means feel free to post
it.

Imagine the money that could have been saved in the WTC towers
alone -- all that fireproofing material sprayed on the buildings'
steel structure could have been eliminated, and the costly and
inconvenient effort to update the fire protection that was
still not completed when the WTC towers collapsed was a
colossal waste of time.

If only they'd known what you apparently know -- that fire can't
possibly reduce the yield strength of steel and cause structural
failure.

I never said that. The chance of all the abnormalities being pure
coincidence is totally absurd.

You said:

"A qualified engineer would know that steel framed
buildings do not completely collapse from fire. Never."

Unless you're willing to postulate some mysterious magic force
that holds steel-framed buildings up after a fire has weakened
them, you are claiming that fire can't damage steel structures.

Anyone who's ever done any welding knows that's ludicrously
absurd.

I guess all those web sites with pictures of what happened to
the steel structure of Madrid's Windsor Building during a fire
on February 2005 are fakes too, right?

The Madrid Tower was not steel framed. The Twin Towers and WTC 7
were.

The Windsor Tower in Madrid had a reinforced concrete core surrounded
by a steel-framed structure.

The Madrid Tower did not completely colllapse. The Twin Towers and
WTC 7 did.

The steel-framed portions of the Windsor Tower on and above the levels
affected by the fire did completely collapse. Google for pictures of
the building after the fire, and notice how the concrete core was all
that remained standing of the entire upper half of the building.

Google will also tell you that the Windsor Tower was described
as having been "destroyed" by the fire, that Madrid officials
believed there was a very good chance the entire building would
collapse after the fire was out, and that the remains of
the tower have since been demolished.

The Madrid Tower was a raging inferno for over 12 hours. The Twin
Towers and WTC 7 were had a few fires for a very short period of
time.

WTC 1 and 2 burned about as intensely as you might want from the
time the fires began until the towers collapsed, and fires continued
burning in the rubble pile for weeks.

WTC 7 burned out of control for at least 7 hours before collapsing.

The Windsor Tower fire began about midnight, and photos of the
fire show the steel frame failed completely while it was still
dark. This means that, even though it took almost 24 hours for
Madrid firefighters to extinguish the fire, the steel frame
collapsed much sooner, before daybreak on the night the fire
began.

The fire in the North Tower was **very small**.

Says you. If it was "very small", why does all the available video
of the north tower during the time between impact and collapse show
a massive smoke plume that could only come from a large fire? What
about all the video that shows visible fire on multiple floors?

More to the point, why did hundreds of people jump to certain death
from the north tower if there was only a "very small" fire? Why
didn't they stay put and wait to be rescued?



They did not jump. Many were shaken out of the Towers from the
explosions, and can be horribly viewed in the video 9/11 Eyewitness.




If not, why did firefighters say it wasn't much and that all they
needed was a couple of lines?

Because you're quoting them out of context. Feel free to provide
proof that the FDNY believed there was only a "very small" fire
burning in WTC 1.


ljd



This is regarding WTC 2, not 1:


excerpt from http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/audiotape.html


Seven minutes before the collapse, battalion chief Palmer is heard to say
"Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to
knock it down with two lines." The widow of Chief Palmer was allowed to
hear the tape before excerpts were released by the Times. She said:
I didn't hear fear, I didn't hear panic. When the tape is made public to
the world, people will hear that they all went about their jobs without
fear, and selflessly.

Palmer called for a pair of engine companies to fight the fires. The fact
that veteran firefighters showed no sign of fear or panic, and had a
coherent plan for fighting the fire, contradicts the official explanation
of the collapses that the fires were so hot and extensive that they
weakened the steel structure