Wednesday, November 01, 2006

The Fourth Steel-Framed Building To Collapse from Fire



Won't get as much attention from the 9-11 Deniers as the other three:

About 50 firefighters tackled the blaze at the ESP plant in the Enigma Business Park, near Malvern, which started on Wednesday morning.

The roof collapsed inside the building and flames leapt 45ft (14m) into the sky in a strong wind, Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue Service said.

A spokesman for the fire service said the blaze had resulted in a black smoke cloud which could be seen for miles.

He added: "Intense heat buckled the steel girders holding the roof."


As our buddy Rob, who pointed this story out to us in an email, notes, it looks more like nanothermite; notice the distinctive orange glow. :)

(Yes, I know other steel-framed buildings have collapsed due to fire, but the post name was too good).

32 Comments:

At 01 November, 2006 15:17, Blogger CHF said...

Speaking of fire, watch this video:

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-5370762387415552903

New video of that "oxygen starved" fire on 9/11 which seems to spread for some reason.

 
At 01 November, 2006 15:27, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

I have heard of people who can make fire dance OBVIOUSLY the Bush Administration planed remote controlled fire on 9-11!!

 
At 01 November, 2006 15:38, Blogger Simon Lazarus said...

I hate to tell you, but that fire looks like a controlled demolition.

Alright! Bush, to avoid talking about Iraq, went to Malvern, set up explosives, and used invisible planes to make this building fall down!

Yeah! That's the ticket!

 
At 01 November, 2006 15:40, Blogger Richard said...

Another important thing to note in that film is that when the second tower collapses through the cloud of dust and debris you can clearly see a large portion of the (south side?) still standing for a few seconds. It totally blows away that "free fall myth" and it shows how long the collapse time really was.

 
At 01 November, 2006 15:59, Blogger Manny said...

This is obviously a false-flag fire operation, as there were both flames jumping 45 feet AND black smoke which is indicative of an oxygen-starved fire. This was deliberately set as part of a disinfo campaign because they know the twoof movement is getting close.

 
At 01 November, 2006 16:30, Blogger James B. said...

I didn't realize paper burned at 2800F, the melting temperature of steel. Someone alert Steven Jones!

 
At 01 November, 2006 20:26, Blogger default.xbe said...

this is actually the 5th, WTC1, 2 and 7 were 2nd, 3rd and 4th, lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kader_Toy_Factory

 
At 01 November, 2006 23:58, Blogger The Girl in Grey said...

I love it when people who aren't structural engineers write as if they were.
It's so funny.

 
At 02 November, 2006 10:10, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

I'm sure glad it was paper and not diesel fuel or it would have collapsed completely and totally!

 
At 02 November, 2006 13:00, Blogger Alex said...

Another swing, and another miss!

You may notice a bit of a height difference between this building and WTC7, swinger boy.

 
At 02 November, 2006 23:24, Blogger insidejob said...

You may notice a bit of a height difference between this building and WTC7

LMAO! xD

that's hilarious. just a little height difference. so with the history of many huge skysrcapers that have been engulfed in flames for 15 to 24 hours and not collapsed, this one-story building, which just maybe (understatement?) isn't built quite like WTC 1, 2, or 7, is your evidence that the WTC "collapses" could have been due to fire, despite laws of physics to the contrary?

*laughs ass off*

http://belowgroundsurface.org

 
At 03 November, 2006 01:42, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

This may shock and amaze you, Inside job, but not all buildings are built the same way. As someone who worked in construction for engineering consulting firms, I can personally attest to the fact that buildings are actually built with different materials and configurations!! That's why they don't all look the same.

 
At 03 November, 2006 05:51, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

You may notice a bit of a height difference between this building and WTC7, swinger boy.

Dang Alex don't you get my sarcasm? ;)

Your right though about the buildings. The paper factory fell in a rather asymetrical pattern while WTC 7 fell in a symetrical pattern. To be honest I think the folks at CDI and other building demolishers should start using Kerosene and jet fuel to bring down buildings.

1. It would be much quicker to bring the building down. Instead of taking weeks and months to wire a building to be demolished, you just light a fire and let it burn for 7 hours or so and whaallaah!

2. It would be a lot safer to deal with kerosene because you can still put that fire out, but if C-4 and det cord is touched off, ouchy!

3. Success rate! 3 incidents 3 successful collapses!
Ya can't beat 100%! I don't believe the industry has a 100% success rate using explosives.

4. Cost! I could be wrong, but I think the cost of C-4 or whatever explosive is used and weeks of man hours is much higher than that of kerosene. Sorry I don't have a web site to support that cost analysis, just the local gas station. Hell they could get gas pumper Bob to pour the fuel into the building and end the need for engineers and such to plan out how to bring the building down into its own footprint.

5.One problem though, they may need a wrecking ball to put a hole somewhere on the side of the building to make sure the darn thing falls in its own footprint and not from one side or the other. But I would think that would still be much cheaper than the man hours and explosives.

6. Once collapsed, the debris removal would be much easier as most of the material will be turned to dust and evaporated!

7.Oh I thought of another problem. They would have to hang very large nets from the top of the building to catch the tons of material that is ejected horizontally into the air. That way it should minimize collateral damage to surrounding structures. Again though, cheaper than labor and explosive material.

8. They could fill the basements of said buildings with lots of water (very cheap!) before lighting the fires, that way those pesky pools of molten metal wouldn't hamper the debris removal.

This concludes my new way for Demolition Companys to bring buildings down. I hope to see enacted shortly for the sake of cost and safety to the industry.

 
At 03 November, 2006 06:37, Blogger Alex said...

Once again Swingy, why do you keep lying? You've already admitted that WTC7 didn't fall symmetrically, so why do you keep alluding that it was anything like a controlled demolition?

 
At 03 November, 2006 06:50, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

I thought I stated it did fall symmetrically? If I did, I mis-typed. It did fall symmetrically.

Hey did you like my new idea for demolishing buildings?

 
At 03 November, 2006 07:16, Blogger Alex said...

*sigh*

Do I have to start calling you a retard again?

It fell over to one side, as is clearly seen in aerial photographs of the resulting wreckage. In fact, it pretty much fell right on top of whatever building is between it and towers 1 and 2. I believe it's WTC5. A building falling on top of another building is NOT a "symmetrical collapse".

Maybe I have you confused with someone else, but I swear I already showed you the photographs, and you already admitted it wasn't symmetrical.

 
At 03 November, 2006 07:40, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Nope. Seems to me after viewing the video, pics, and reading the NIST and FEMA report that the building collapse pile radius was around 70 feet and very symmetrical.

WTC 7 rubble pile-its location - It was centered around the vertical axis of the former building.

Its size - The pile from the 47-story building was less than two stories high.

Its tidiness - The pile was almost entirely within the footprint of the former building .

 
At 03 November, 2006 07:51, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

A nice critical analysis of the first WTC 7 report...

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/
WTC_ch5.htm

 
At 03 November, 2006 07:51, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Also check out that site for great aerial view of the pile. VERY SYMMETRICAL!

 
At 03 November, 2006 14:32, Blogger Alex said...

I see you haven't actually examined the phtographs you link to, nor pictures of earlier wreckage. Look at the ammount of debris on the road as well as on top of the building across the street.

Also, look at the picture at the top of this page. IT FELL IN IT'S OWN FOOTPRINT! VERY SYMMETRICAL! CONSPIRACY!!!!

 
At 03 November, 2006 23:17, Blogger insidejob said...

JPSlovjanski said...

This may shock and amaze you, Inside job, but not all buildings are built the same way.


hey moron, that's exactly what I was saying:

insidejob said...

that's hilarious. just a little height difference. so with the history of many huge skysrcapers that have been engulfed in flames for 15 to 24 hours and not collapsed, this one-story building, which just maybe (understatement?) isn't built quite like WTC 1, 2, or 7, is your evidence that the WTC "collapses" could have been due to fire, despite laws of physics to the contrary?


let me make it more clear for you dunderheads: this is a one-story building that was not designed to withstand a Boeing 707 impact, as the WTC towers were. also, the laws of physics rule out the possibility that "progressive collapse" of such a building could happen at near freefall speed. also partially evaporated steel was found, many eyewitnesses saw large pools of molten iron at the site, and a large chunk of solidified iron was found. hmmm that takes temperatures WAY hotter than could possibly have been produced by a hydrocarbon fire.

http://belowgroundsurface.org

 
At 05 November, 2006 11:54, Blogger Alex said...

the laws of physics rule out the possibility that "progressive collapse" of such a building could happen at near freefall speed.

I don't suppose you'd like to qualify that statement for once?

I could just as easily say "the laws of physics rule out the possibility of you being right about anything", but unless I show how such a possibility would be physically impossible, the statement is useless.

also partially evaporated steel was found

That's got to be one of the stupidest talking points you clowns have come up with so far. Short of the "star wars lasers" explanation.

 
At 06 November, 2006 13:43, Blogger The Reverend Schmitt., FCD. said...

1. It would be much quicker to bring the building down. Instead of taking weeks and months to wire a building to be demolished, you just light a fire and let it burn for 7 hours or so and whaallaah!

One of the aims of a controlled demolition is that the collapse should be controlled, ie., not cause damage to nearby buildings. This is why it takes months to set up, unless you actually believe the globe's demolition industries are part of a giant conspiracy. God knows what you folks are willing to assume is an aspect of reality these days.

Why do half of the CTers bang on about the kink in the WTC collapse and the other half claim the collapse was symmetrical? Is prescriptivist linguistics entirely ignored by CTers in their mad scramble to confuse themselves with words and phrases they don't understand? I'm just asking questions.

 
At 06 November, 2006 20:59, Blogger insidejob said...

The Reverend Schmitt., FCD. said...

This is why it takes months to set up, unless you actually believe the globe's demolition industries are part of a giant conspiracy.


Securicom was the company that "secured" the WTC. Bush's cousin was CEO. Marvin Bush was a principal. In the years before the attacks, Securicom was installing a new "security system." I think that gave them ample time. demolition companies are not the only ones who know about controlled demolition. Like the Patriot Act, invasion of Iraq, and invasion of Afghanistan, they've been planning this for years. Alex Jones predicted it an upcoming flase-flag terror attack on July 25th, 2001.

http://belowgroundsurface.org

 
At 06 November, 2006 21:28, Blogger The Reverend Schmitt., FCD. said...

Securicom was the company that "secured" the WTC.

Actually only electrical security

Bush's cousin was CEO.

Bush's cousin was on the board of directors, not CEO, and left in June 2000. He was therefore also was not ever a 'principal'.

In the years before the attacks, Securicom was installing a new "security system." I think that gave them ample time.

Yes, if you ignore all the other security teams, including bomb sniffer dogs, and the fact that their contract ended in 1998, that gave them plenty of time

demolition companies are not the only ones who know about controlled demolition.

Yes I mean fire departments do too everyone knows that

There should be a list of insanely stupid arguments that CTers shouldn't use, like answersingenesis has for young earth creationists

Alex Jones predicted it an upcoming flase-flag terror attack on July 25th, 2001.

Yeah I'm entertained how many people claim that without watching the video. What he actually says is:

'If there is any terrorism, you know who to blame'.

'If there is any terrorism'. Guy clearly has inside information.

He doesn't mention American targets. He doesn't mention planes being flown into buildings (though he does mention airliners being blown up, ala Lockerbie; if that's his prediction, it was wrong). He mentions the WTC attacks in the context of the older attacks, but doesn't mention them being in danger of future attack. He doesn't predict any upcoming terrorist attacks, though, like, totally if they happen, like, you should call the White House.

An idiot constantly rants about terrorist attacks. He blames every single terrorist attack in recent memory (including one on a plane leaving Britain affecting mainly Britons) on the American government. He rants about terrorist attacks and months later one happens. This somehow constitutes foreknowledge rather than an obvious and unbelievably huge prejudice which should forever prevent him from being called objective, intelligent or open minded. God I find you guys amusing.

 
At 19 May, 2007 21:32, Blogger Mr. Holipsism said...

WOW! Just look at how the structure has been completely pulverized into dust with no huge pieces of concrete to be found! This should be the nail in the coffin for those 9/11 truthers! BRAVO!

 
At 24 September, 2007 21:27, Blogger Dave said...

I agree with you on this one, that Bush and the rest of his muppet pals didnt do it to this building,its not going off like mount st Helens.
sorry mate I think you should get a job

Dave, UK.

 
At 28 May, 2009 14:51, Blogger Unknown said...

This building is only a few stories high and does not add any weight to the subject or arguement - this is a sad attempt for anyone comparing this building to the WTC's this is not a skyscraper and does not even count. If you think it does you are a moron.....

 
At 16 January, 2010 06:22, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The thing, to me, that proves that all the 9/11 conspiracy stuff is rubbish, is the fact that documentaries like Loose Change have been allowed to be made (and if you have seen one you've seen them all, because they are all the same) and that the makers are still alive. Do you really think that the organisation behind a conspiracy this far reaching, would allow someone to blow the whistle, and reveal the truth? Consider the amount of people who would need to have been in on it, and the things that they have supposed to have done, the organisation that would have been needed, do you think after doing all that they would then let someone expose it? After killing nearly 3000 people do you think they would lose any sleep over killing a few more to stop these documentaries from being made, they would do it in a heartbeat. I must admit that there are some un-answered question and some intriguing anomalies in the 9/11 mix, but I think that it was all so confused at the time, that this was bound to happen. Any major event breeds conspiracy, and I know that nothing anyone says will convince the people who believe that 9/11 was a set-up, or was know about in advance or whatever, some people just want to believe it, but I tell you what I don’t want to believe it, the implications are just too frightening. Don’t get me wrong I am not daft I realise that 9/11 was extremely convenient for George Dubya, just like the Falklands were for Thatcher, but I don’t think it is anymore than that. If he is as stupid as everyone says then how the hell did he manage to pull it off, or even conceive it in the first instance? Not that I am saying he wouldn’t be capable of something along these lines, but I don’t think that anyone would even attempt something this grand, the chances of it coming off successfully are really slim, and the stakes so massive if they got found out, the amount of people who would need to keep schtum, would go into the thousands, and the fact that after nearly 10 years no one has come forward backs this up.

 
At 01 September, 2010 15:39, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"this is actually the 5th, WTC1, 2 and 7 were 2nd, 3rd and 4th, lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kader_Toy_Factory"

Taken from that page...

"Furthermore, the building was reinforced with un-insulated steel girders which quickly weakened and collapsed."

And from the WTC Wiki page, regarding a fire in the north tower in 1975...

"Fireproofing protected the steel from melting and there was no structural damage to the tower."

That fire was put out quickly, though.

I don't know what I believe as far as the WTC goes.

 
At 07 July, 2011 03:30, Blogger Sakkuth said...

after watching nurmerous "conspiracy videos" in an attempt to sew together actual unbiased information and just randomly googling names and articles to validate their legitamacy and various speakers background and history i uncovered this site and thread and just reading half of the stuff written here is complete bullshit arguments gouing around in circles looking at the "small picture" but something rang true and thats the arguments are always 2 sided and no one really seems to keep an open mind to both arguments. now i'm not structural engineer but those buildings were designed to be malleable in the sense that to gain such heights and to withstand cyclonic winds the building needed a degree of give in it to take the force and not fatigue and topple. so in that sense if you were to weaken the structure the wind sway would place a uniform stress all over the building and to weaken a portion of it would cause it to kink and fall. now physics determines that a building or any object at that matter cannot free fall if there is an opposing force. so why did the buildings free fall? i think the conspiracy stories ring a strong element of truth but to call it a conspiracy is just stupid, no one could organise something like that so well, and the fact the govt couldnt even cover it up properly is proof of that. i think its likely that everything leading up to the trade centre collapse and including the actual event was just a complete cascade of govt bugles and fuck ups including the training missions preventing the interception of the hi-jacked passenger jets.

so consider this in short as a theory and by all means pick holes in it as i want to see the different arguments, but the govt knew it was going to happen in all probability it was no secret on a high up level. that would explain the odd stock tradings leading up to the disaster, the sudden change in insurance plans to incorporate specifically "planes hitting the world trade centres", the re-design of the pentagon to strengthen the most important part of it, AND................. quite possably the pre fitting of explosives into the towers to drop them in on them self in a controlled manner IF they did start to fall in order to minimise the damage if they managed to fall side ways. its a thought but i cant find anything on the internet where someone has voiced the same or similar thoughts. this of course is taking into mind that indeed the fires were the main cause of the collapse. but the sheer fact its covered up, or whistle blowers haven't emerged or anything surfacing about it really points against the fact it was a demolition, i mean how the hell could you cover that up? but far out you cant argue with the evidence either. maybe planes did bring it down, but the buildings could not have fallen the way they did on their own, its just defies physics and eye witness stories and news footage.

 
At 12 August, 2011 18:42, Blogger Baba said...

THIS IS NOW AUGUST 2011. HAVE YOU GUYS FINALLY UNDERSTOOD WHAT HAPPENED OR ARE YOU STILL CLAIMING THE SAME NONSENSE THAT YOU AND THE PERPETRATORS OF THE EVIL DEED KNOW THE TRUTH. YES THEY DO BECAUSE THEY DID IT. BUT YOU? HOW DO YOU KNOW? WHO ARE YOU? WHAT ARE YOU? ARE YOU EVEN AMERICANS?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home