9/11: Is this photo consistent with a progressive collapse?

[Mick West]

Well if loss of insulation caused the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 . . . how did WTC 7 fail . . . remember there was no explosions in WTC 7 . . . however, there was a collapse aided by heat fatigue according to NIST ??

Surely you know this already?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#9.2F11_and_collapse

The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall downward as a single unit. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.

 

[SR1419]

Seems heat fatigue lead to three highly unlikely failures in the space of just a few hours . . . something that has never to my knowledge happened before in steel reinforced high rise structures nor has it happened since . . .

I think they planned for almost the identical impact . . .

They did NOT plan for a fully loaded jet airliner traveling at approx 500mph to impact...

...and indeed never before had 2 fully loaded jet airplanes traveling at approx 500mph hit 2 buildings before...causing major structural damage and ensuing fires- causing them them to collapse and damage over 40 other buildings in the vicinity- several of which were destroyed and one collapsed.

Here is an excellent review of the damage to buildings in the vicinity of ground zero- with some very good pictures of damaged steel and collapse piles. The amount of external damage to other structures shows- to me at least- that the claim "they fell in their own footprint" really has no merit.

Interesting that this study was done by earthquake engineering specialists. Buildings certainly collapse in earthquakes. They surveyed the damage 2 weeks after the event and apparently didn't see anything that would make them suspect controlled demolition.

http://mceer.buffalo.edu/publications/wtc/02-SP02Screen.pdf

 

[Mick West]

just look at those massive flames.

Indeed.

 

[Oxymoron]

Indeed.

Yes look indeed, that was shortly after the impact but the fuel burned off quickly, as is want to do, then oxygen deprivation kicked in and we had:

and

 

[SR1419]

Sorry Oxy-

that one person was able to find a spot relatively safe from fires does not negate the official story of significant fires or their impact.

If that were the case, then how do you explain all the people who felt compelled to jump to their deaths rather than wait for rescue?

 

[Oxymoron]

Surely you know this already?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#9.2F11_and_collapse

The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall downward as a single unit. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.

Exactly... so why keep saying.... oh they didn't plan for a 747 going into them..... it's entirely different... oh you can't compare this building or that building, they are like apples and pears? But no, you are more than happy to compare demolitions of car parks with the collapse of 3 high rise buildings which were alleged to be safe and able to withstand a direct hit from an aircraft. Please!

The planes' 'impact' was not 'officially' the cause.... it was 'fire weakened steel girders and connections' in one or two places.

Sounds believable?

 

[George B]

Surely you know this already?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#9.2F11_and_collapse

The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall downward as a single unit. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.

So . . . fire insulation which was in place in WTC 7 didn't do its job but if it was in place in 1&2 . . . NIST thinks they would still be standing . . . Hmmmmm . . . interesting!

 

[Oxymoron]

Sorry Oxy-

that one person was able to find a spot relatively safe from fires does not negate the official story of significant fires or their impact.

If that were the case, then how do you explain all the people who felt compelled to jump to their deaths rather than wait for rescue?

But it wasn't 'just some place'... it was the impact point... the point that Mick showed as a blazing inferno in his pics... but that was short lived... the fires died out quickly as the fuel burned off and oxygen deficiency snuffed out the flames leaving a smouldering black, 'oxygen starved' pall of smoke, which even then diminished to virtually nothing... such that edna was in that spot for about 40 minutes.

Yes there wre office fires and people were trapped and were forced to jump to escape heat or smoke but the amount of heat necessary to force someone to jump from another part of the building does not denote a sufficiency to weaken steel, especially the great steel core.

Also there were many people who did not jump and who were alive up to the point of collapse.

 

[George B]

They did NOT plan for a fully loaded jet airliner traveling at approx 500mph to impact...

Where did you get that idea . . . they most certainly did . . . read 748 and links above . . .

 

[Mick West]

Yes look indeed, that was shortly after the impact but the fuel burned off quickly, as is want to do, then oxygen deprivation kicked in and we had:

and

How do you know it was shortly after the impact? You photos don't even show the areas that were burning, which were mostly towards the other side of the building, where the fuel and debris ended up.

And judging where the large photos above are in the sequence of photos (taken from a helicopter), I'd say it was shortly before collapse. The next photo in the sequence shows collapse. Also compare the amount of smoke coming out directly before collapse with this photo. Seems pretty much the same.

And how long do you think it takes for a fire to weaken a steel beam to the point of failure?

(you can download the GJS photos here: 153 Photographs, 11 September 2001, by Detective Greg Semendinger, New York City Police Aviation (Helicopter) Unit:http://cryptome.org/0001/wtc-nist-gjs/wtc-nist-gjs.zip (64MB))

 

[George B]

Indeed.

But, Mick . . . the beams were insulated . . .

 

[Mick West]

But, Mick . . . the beams were insulated . . .

Which beams are you referring to?

 

[Oxymoron]

Of course Nicholas Rockefeller allegedly telling Aaron Russo that 'an event is going to take place which will mean the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and hunting in caves of Bora Bora,' nine months before 9/11 doesn't really aid the 'official theory'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oygBg6ETYIM

 

[Mick West]

But it wasn't 'just some place'... it was the impact point... the point that Mick showed as a blazing inferno in his pics... but that was short lived... the fires died out quickly as the fuel burned off and oxygen deficiency snuffed out the flames leaving a smouldering black, 'oxygen starved' pall of smoke, which even then diminished to virtually nothing... such that edna was in that spot for about 40 minutes.

Yes there wre office fires and people were trapped and were forced to jump to escape heat or smoke but the amount of heat necessary to force someone to jump from another part of the building does not denote a sufficiency to weaken steel, especially the great steel core.

Oxy, if it could be demonstrated that the photos I posted of raging fires were taken shortly before collapse, would your opinion change at all?

 

[SR1419]

They did NOT plan for a fully loaded jet airliner traveling at approx 500mph to impact...

Where did you get that idea . . . they most certainly did . . . read 748 and links above . . .

Not according to the person who designed the building:

Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_707_impact.html

 

[Oxymoron]

Oxy, if it could be demonstrated that the photos I posted of raging fires were taken shortly before collapse, would your opinion change at all?

Much against some misconceptions held by some forum members here, I am not an unreasonable or unscientific person.

Like I stated previously... I would love it if it could be shown I have it wrong and my perceptions are erroneous.

If you can show that those pictures which you exhibited are 'in an appropriate timeframe' to constitute reasonable cause for the giving way of the structural steel beams leading to a collapse, that would undoubtedly somewhat aid your rationale in your belief that the official theory has legs.

However, as is well known and documented by many scientists and experts, there are very many 'unlikely, very strange' events which give a lot of intelligent people cause to doubt the validity of those claims. However, I would be interested in assessing your argument in this regard.

I would also like to make it clear that I fully understand why people are so vehement in opposing the alternative conspiracy theories, apart from some do not appear to have any basis i.e the hologram people jumping from the towers. I think the key reason is as stated 'cognitive dissonance' and I suffered from that myself for some time. I simply did not wish to acknowledge the possibility that the authorities could be capable of being involved in such an atrocity but as time went on and I saw the evidence against their theories... the repeated attempts to lie and cover up, the huge sums of money they were raking in directly as a result of their policy decisions, the muzzling and oppression of people who dissented... I knew they were well capable of such a thing and much much more.

Can you honestly say to me they have earned the trust of the people?

 

[Mick West]

Much against some misconceptions held by some forum members here, I am not an unreasonable or unscientific person.

Like I stated previously... I would love it if it could be shown I have it wrong and my perceptions are erroneous.

If you can show that those pictures which you exhibited are 'in an appropriate timeframe' to constitute reasonable cause for the giving way of the structural steel beams leading to a collapse, that would undoubtedly somewhat aid your rationale in your belief that the official theory has legs.

Alright, then note that the photos are of the North Tower. The South Tower has already collapsed. Hence at that point the fires have been burning from at least 8:46 to 9:59. Well over an hour.

The following shot is from earlier in the same sequence, and shows WTC2 (South Tower) has collapsed.

Again, you can download the entire image sequence here:
http://cryptome.org/0001/wtc-nist-gjs/wtc-nist-gjs.zip

Now given this shows that intense fires were burning for at least an hour in WTC1 (North Tower), does that not mean it's possible those fires contributed to eventual collapse?

 

[George B]

Not according to the person who designed the building:

Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_707_impact.html

Robertson was not the lead engineer Skilling was . . .

When interviewed in 1993, Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times:
Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling was rightfully confident that neither the impact of a large passenger jet nor the ensuing office fires was capable of bringing down the Twin Towers
"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there."
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-s...d-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html

 

[Met Watch]

Oh that's way too technical for the likes of my ignorant mind... but I'll take your word for it cos you obviously understand these things much better than me or the whole plethora of scientists, architects, firemen, pilots, high ranking military and intelligence personnel who say otherwise.

You are aware those engineers, scientists, firemen, pilots - all those people you mentioned - are in the minority of their community when it comes to believing the conspiracy theory, right? And not by a small margin either - we're talking less than 15%.

 

[George B]

Which beams are you referring to?

All of them . . .

 

[SR1419]

I simply did not wish to acknowledge the possibility that the authorities could be capable of being involved in such an atrocity but as time went on and I saw the evidence against their theories... the repeated attempts to lie and cover up, the huge sums of money they were raking in directly as a result of their policy decisions, the muzzling and oppression of people who dissented... I knew they were well capable of such a thing and much much more.

I believe it is cognitive dissonance that allows one to believe that "the authorities" could actually pull off such a complex, multi-faceted operation without even the slightest verifiable, conclusive evidence being brought to light after a decade of intense scrutiny- no stone unturned- by said "twoofers" as well as more unbiased analysis.

 

[George B]

You are aware those engineers, scientists, firemen, pilots - all those people you mentioned - are in the minority of their community when it comes to believing the conspiracy theory, right? And not by a small margin either - we're talking less than 15%.

When something is controversial . . . people are reluctant to join in . . . I would bet there are a few more out there who don't think things add up!!

 

[Mick West]

All of them . . .

Okay, so given that the impact likely broke and/or damaged several columns, and stripped the insulation off others, and (just looking at the North Tower now), we have direct evidence of intense fires burning for over an hour. Then is it not plausible that the North Tower collapsed from the effects of the impact followed by the fire?

 

[SR1419]

Robertson was not the lead engineer Skilling was . . .

When interviewed in 1993, Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times:
Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling was rightfully confident that neither the impact of a large passenger jet nor the ensuing office fires was capable of bringing down the Twin Towers
"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there."
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-s...d-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html

Indeed- and the Titanic wasn't supposed to sink.


Robertson was the titular head of the design team- and almost every source has him as the lead engineer:

http://www.nae.edu/File.aspx?id=7345

http://coe.berkeley.edu/forefront/fall2003/alumnews.html

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&st=11325

The fact that your biased sources say this "In 2001, Leslie Robertson, a WTC structural engineer who worked as a subordinate to Skilling" seems to be completely false...and thus puts their other conclusions into equally suspect light.

but thats beside the point.

Your Skilling quote does not speak to what the speed of the plane was that they modeled and thus does not further your point.

They worked on the assumption of a 707 lost in the fog looking for JFK and traveling at a much slower speed than what actually happened.

 

[George B]

Okay, so given that the impact likely broke and/or damaged several columns, and stripped the insulation off others, and (just looking at the North Tower now), we have direct evidence of intense fires burning for over an hour. Then is it not plausible that the North Tower collapsed from the effects of the impact followed by the fire?

I am not talking about the North Tower . . . NIST thinks in 1&2 Towers the insulation was blown off . . . I am talking about Building 7 . . . no explosions . . . no stripped insulation . . .

 

[George B]

Indeed- and the Titanic wasn't supposed to sink.


Robertson was the titular head of the design team- and almost every source has him as the lead engineer:

http://www.nae.edu/File.aspx?id=7345

http://coe.berkeley.edu/forefront/fall2003/alumnews.html

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&st=11325

The fact that your biased sources say this "In 2001, Leslie Robertson, a WTC structural engineer who worked as a subordinate to Skilling" seems to be completely false...and thus puts their other conclusions into equally suspect light.

but thats beside the point.

Your Skilling quote does not speak to what the speed of the plane was that they modeled and thus does not further your point.

They worked on the assumption of a 707 lost in the fog looking for JFK and traveling at a much slower speed than what actually happened.

Please read the attached white paper from Skilling the document image is shown on this link . . . take note of the parts underlined in red . . . . http://pilotsfor911truth.org/WTC.html

 

[Oxymoron]

Indeed- and the Titanic wasn't supposed to sink.


Robertson was the titular head of the design team- and almost every source has him as the lead engineer:

http://www.nae.edu/File.aspx?id=7345

http://coe.berkeley.edu/forefront/fall2003/alumnews.html

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&st=11325

The fact that your biased sources say this "In 2001, Leslie Robertson, a WTC structural engineer who worked as a subordinate to Skilling" seems to be completely false...and thus puts their other conclusions into equally suspect light.

but thats beside the point.

Your Skilling quote does not speak to what the speed of the plane was that they modeled and thus does not further your point.

They worked on the assumption of a 707 lost in the fog looking for JFK and traveling at a much slower speed than what actually happened.

biased sources

?

And the government are not biased?

And NIST is not biased?

And all the evidence from all the 'government scientists' are not biased?

Where's my tinfoil gone, I need protection from this (thats a rolleyes)

 

[Mick West]

I am not talking about the North Tower . . . NIST thinks in 1&2 Towers the insulation was blown off . . . I am talking about Building 7 . . . no explosions . . . no stripped insulation . . .

I just wanted to establish first if you think it's plausible that WTC1 collapsed due to impact and fire.

(And the same question for Oxy)

 

[SR1419]

Please read the attached white paper from Skilling the document image is shown on this link . . . take note of the parts underlined in red . . . . http://pilotsfor911truth.org/WTC.html

that looks legit...I guess their analysis was wrong.

 

[George B]

I just wanted to establish first if you think it's plausible that WTC1 collapsed due to impact and fire.

(And the same question for Oxy)

I would say plausible . . . the fact that all three succumbed to the same fate either supports that theory or makes it questionable . . . as in NISTs conclusion about the insulation in 1&2 was the proximate cause of the collapse while logic indicates WTC 7 fell by some other mechanism . . . IMO highly unlikely . . .

 

[SR1419]

?

And the government are not biased?

And NIST is not biased?

And all the evidence from all the 'government scientists' are not biased?

Where's my tinfoil gone, I need protection from this (thats a rolleyes)

indeed- everyone is "biased"- including you...

 

[George B]

that looks legit...I guess their analysis was wrong.

Correct . . . or there are other factors involved . . .

 

[Mick West]

I would say plausible . . . the fact that all three succumbed to the same fate either supports that theory or makes it questionable . . . as in NISTs conclusion about the insulation in 1&2 was the proximate cause of the collapse while logic indicates WTC 7 fell by some other mechanism . . . IMO highly unlikely . . .

So WTC1 is "plausible". Then given that pretty much the same thing happened to WTC2, why is that not plausible?

WTC7, I'm not sure what you think is unlikely, given that it's different. Unlikely the same thing happened, or unlikely something different happened?

What exactly seems so improbable about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall downward as a single unit. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.

You can't picture uncontrolled fires burning for nearly seven hours (10:28 am to 5:20 pm) to eventually leading to this type of collapse?

 

[George B]

So WTC1 is "plausible". Then given that pretty much the same thing happened to WTC2, why is that not plausible?

WTC7, I'm not sure what you think is unlikely, given that it's different. Unlikely the same thing happened, or unlikely something different happened?

What exactly seems so improbable about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall downward as a single unit. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.

You can't picture uncontrolled fires burning for nearly seven hours (10:28 am to 5:20 pm) to eventually leading to this type of collapse?

Simple . . . the insulation was still intact in building 7 . . . since it was stripped in 1&2 and that was the cause of the collapse . . . what happened in #7 . . . there is no assertion to my knowledge the insulation was not in place . . .

 

[Mick West]

Simple . . . the insulation was still intact in building 7 . . . since it was stripped in 1&2 and that was the cause of the collapse . . . what happened in #7 . . . there is no assertion to my knowledge the insulation was not in place . . .

How many hours was the insulation rated for?

 

[George B]

Don't know . . . do you?

 

[Mick West]

From the NIST building 7 report, regarding insulation:

According to the 1968 version of the NYCBC and Local Law 16 (1984), a fully sprinklered high-rise
building could follow the fire resistance requirements for Type 1C construction. For this construction
category, columns were required to have a 2 h rating as established by the Standard Fire Test (ASTM E
119); beams were required to have a 1½ h rating. The instructions to the bidders for the WTC 7 job were
to bid on a 3 h rating for the columns and a 2 h rating for the metal deck and floor support steel, which
corresponded to the more stringent fire resistance requirements for Type 1B (unsprinklered) construction.
These ratings were to be achieved by application of Monokote MK-5, a gypsum-based SFRM that
contained a vermiculite aggregate. According to the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Fire Resistance
Directory (1983), these ratings required a thickness of 22 mm (7/8 in.) of Monokote MK-5 to be applied
to the heavy columns, 48 mm (1 7/8 in.) to be applied to the lighter columns, 13 mm (1/2 in.) to be
applied to the beams, and 10 mm (3/8 in.) to be applied to the bottom of the metal deck. Private
inspectors found that the applied SFRM thicknesses were consistent with these values.

4.5.3 SFRM Requirements and Application
• It is likely that the Monokote MK-5 SFRM, applied to the steel framing and metal decks, was
undamaged by the impact of the debris from the collapse of WTC 1, except in the area where
direct structural damage to WTC 7 occurred.

• NIST simulations showed that, for the heaviest columns in WTC 7, when properly insulated,
it would have taken an exposure of about 7 h at post-flashover upper layer gas temperatures
to raise the steel temperature to 600 ºC (1100 ºF), the point at which the steel strength would
have been reduced by half. A similar calculation indicated it would have taken about 4 h to
reach this temperature for an insulated lighter column. These times are both far longer than
the time over which post-flashover gas temperatures were sustained in the computed WTC 7
fires. For comparison, this steel temperature would have been reached in under one-half hour
if the insulation were not applied.

• It is unlikely that the collapse of WTC 7 would have been prevented had the insulation
thickness on the floor beams been increased by 50 percent, from 13 mm (1/2 in.) to 19 mm
(3/4 in.). NIST calculations indicated that the time to reach the steel temperature of 649 °C
(1200 °F) would have increased by about 10 min to 20 min.

• The ASTM E119 test does not capture critical behavior of structural systems, e.g., the effect
of thermal expansion or sagging of floor beams on girders, connections, and/or columns. The
thermal expansion of the WTC 7 floor beams that initiated the probable collapse sequence
occurred primarily at temperatures below approximately 400 °C (750 ºF). Thus, to the extent
that thermal expansion, rather than loss of structural strength, precipitates an unsafe
condition, thermal expansion effects need to be evaluated. The current fire resistance rating
system, which does not include thermal expansion effects, is not conservative.

Note especially the last paragraph - it was the thermal expansion that initiated the collapse.

 

[George B]

How many hours was the insulation rated for?

Sounds like the perfect storm . . . everything went absolutely perfectly to collapse three buildings of their construction for the first time in human history . . . how plausible is that . . . three for three . . .

According to the report, a key factor leading to the eventual collapse of WTC 7 was thermal expansion of long-span floor systems at temperatures "hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings." WTC 7 used a structural system design in widespread use.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc-082108.cfm

 

[Mick West]

Sounds like the perfect storm . . . everything went absolutely perfectly to collapse three buildings of their construction for the first time in human history . . . how plausible is that . . . three for three . . .

According to the report, a key factor leading to the eventual collapse of WTC 7 was thermal expansion of long-span floor systems at temperatures "hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings." WTC 7 used a structural system design in widespread use.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc-082108.cfm

Three for three? They were just planning to fly planes into two building, and there was some hope they would collapse. The other buildings were just collateral damage.

What "went perfectly"? Are you suggesting this is EXACTLY what was planned? Or just what happened?

You look at the end result, and yes, it looks quite unlikely that someone could execute a plane to do exactly that. But they didn't. They had a plane to fly planes into the WTC 1&2, the Pentagon, and the White House. They got three of those.

Look at it another way. Consider exactly what would need to go right if this was all planned from the start? DO you really think that this entire sequence of events being the result of a carefully executed plan where nothing went wrong, is more likely than simply what happened after some planes were flowing into buildings?

Really? They planned to fly the planes into the buildings? Had them pre-rigged with explosives that were not affected by the planes. Initiated a controlled demolition on the same floor as where fire had been raging for an hour without disrupting the explosives, and then set fires in building 7, which was also filled with explosives, let that burn for seven hours, then set off the explosives. You think that's more likely than the buildings simply collapsing from the effects of uncontrolled fires?

 

[Oxymoron]

How many hours was the insulation rated for?

I don't know how long the insulation was rated for at this building either.... but it didn't have problems with straws bending or knees buckling so at least some people know how to construct high rises... perhaps it is only the WTC lot that suffer from that and everyone else is safe from collapse.

That would be a strange coincidence. But then again incomparable buildings etc... much like apples and pears

Fire has gutted sections of a 34-storey luxury apartment complex in Dubai. FULL STORY
Photo by 7News Nov 19, 2012

http://au.news.yahoo.com/video/quee...13326/high-rise-inferno-in-dubai/?cmp=twitter

http://worldduh.com/2012/11/18/towering-inferno-flames-engulf-34-story-luxury-high-rise-in-dubai/

Rescue crews on Sunday in Dubai have evacuated a 34-story residential tower after a fire gutted portions of the building. The blaze on Sunday charred the outside of the structure and send gray smoke drifting over a major development known as Jumeirah Lakes Towers, a cluster of high-rise apartment buildings and shops on the southern edge of Dubai.

Or
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/album/album_detail.asp?id=60

They don't seem to be prone to falling down like 9/11