1. Miss VocalCord

    Miss VocalCord Active Member

    [Mod: Updated with Wikipedia info, above]

    It appears another rather large building has collapsed due to fire in Sao Paulo today:

    [video link collapse, timestamp embedded]

    Source: https://youtu.be/XwoBRHDLxdo?t=13
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2018
    • Informative Informative x 6
  2. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member



    A 26 story building in São Paulo, Brazil, has collapsed following a major fire. The building, formerly offices for the cities police force, had been abandoned 'some years ago', but had been taken over by at least 50 squatter families.

    The fire was reported at 4.20 Gmt, 1.20 local time and was being tackled by 150 fire fighters. The building was being evacuated when it collapsed, some 90 minutes after the first reports of the blaze. At least one fire fighter has been killed in the collapse. The number of fatalities among the residents of the building is not yet known - but reports are saying the buildings evacuaton was nearly complete when the collapse happened.

    BBC report - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-43960778

    Obviously reports are currently sketchy as the events are still unfolding, but the very fact another high rise has fallen after a devestating fire, once more lays false the 9-11 truthers claims that fire cannot destroy tall buildings, and will probably drive the more hardcore 9-11 truthers to pick this incident apart looking for 'proof' that this too was / is a case of neferious controlled demolition. :(
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2018
  3. benthamitemetric

    benthamitemetric Active Member

    Based on the below picture from the NYTimes, I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that this building had a concrete core as it appears the side walls were not bearing much weight:


    Nevertheless, whether partially concrete (which is inherently more fire resistant than steel) or not, we have yet another example of a high rise building that rapidly collapsed due to fire. Any wagers on how long it will take AE911Truth to breathlessly speculate that the collapse of this random, ramshackle skyscraper was also a controlled demolition?
  4. Miss VocalCord

    Miss VocalCord Active Member

    No, it appears like that, although it is hard to tell from just a few pictures, also the pile which is left over is rather 'small':

    I was wondering that somewhere else too; I guess it won't take long....
  5. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    I added a popular video of the collapse to the OP.

    and this segment has another angle of the collapse (note: information provided on rest of video may not be accurate. I've heard reports say collapse 90 minutes after fire started and 'several hours' after fire started)

    Source: https://youtu.be/OrrnFuoQDjA?t=4
  6. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    Sao Paulo, Brazil May 1, 2018. REUTERS/Leonardo Benassatto

    (Photo: Andre Penner / AP)

    (AP Photo/Andre Penner)
  7. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    • Useful Useful x 2
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Reports of sounds of an explosion at the start of the fire - but mixed.
  9. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Last edited: May 1, 2018
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    But Wikipedia says 1960s, so perhaps the above is in error. Looking at the cars they do look older
    Building details:
    (translated extracts)
  11. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

  12. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Appears to have an offset utility core (concrete) and four large steel columns UPDATE: Columns are steel-reinforced concrete.
    Metabunk 2018-05-01 09-43-53.
    (note the irregular shape is the base of the building, the tower in the inner more rectangular shape)
    Last edited: May 26, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Last edited: May 1, 2018
    • Like Like x 2
  14. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    • Informative Informative x 1
  15. Miss VocalCord

    Miss VocalCord Active Member

    If you see how close the church next to it is and how (relatively) lightly damaged it is, this really is close to "in its own footprint"
    • Agree Agree x 2
  16. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I'd describe it as as "partial destroyed" rather than "relatively lightly damaged", but yes, it is right next to the tower, so not a lot considering.


    Metabunk 2018-05-01 13-21-05.

    Metabunk 2018-05-01 13-24-04.
  17. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Before and after:
    (drag slider)
    Metabunk 2018-05-01 13-32-13. Metabunk 2018-05-01 13-32-49.
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Useful Useful x 2
  18. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Inevitable some people are going to think it was controlled demolition. I'm interested in what AE911's reaction is going to be:

    A) Looks very suspicious, the Brazilian government should investigate evidence of the use of explosives
    B) This is nothing at all like WTC7, totally different fire and circumstances.

    I had expected them to go with B) with the Plasco building, but the doubled down there and became full Plasco Truthers. Will they double down again here?

    I suspect they will. The reason being that we see several types of "evidence" that we also saw with WTC7 (and Plasco). There's the sudden onset, the straight down collapse (through what they mistakenly call "the path of most resistance"), then there's the "into it's own footprint", and "no other high-rise has ever collapse from fire". There would probably be squibs, however it's different looking at night, with more fire. There's also "pyroclastic flow". Probably also "a portion of free fall acceleration", or "near free fall"

    They really can't drop all this "evidence" and still continue, so they are going to say this is suspicious and needs investigating.

    I'm interested in an early assessment from @Tony Szamboti ?
    Last edited: May 1, 2018
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  20. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    "close to "in its own footprint""?

    That would mean NOT in its own footprint.
  21. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    Last edited: May 1, 2018
  22. benthamitemetric

    benthamitemetric Active Member

    Mick, are you able to track with any reasonable degree of accuracy the acceleration of the top floors of the building during the collapse? (If I recall, you were able to graph your own curves for WTC7 using some software on hand.) Just eye balling it, it looks like there is a period of very rapid acceleration, not unlike what was seen with the northern wall of WTC7 when its outer columns buckled. It seems like this may thus be another example of the effects of buckling, though of course much remains unclear as to the how this collapse actually progressed. Given the night time video, it's not immediately clear to me whether we are seeing WTC7-like buckling or whether the rapid descent occurs from the top floors toppling out of alignment with the lower floors (which is, in a sense, more like what happened with the twin towers, though on a much smaller scale).
    Last edited: May 1, 2018
  23. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I've not really tried yet, but the darkness is going to be a factor.

    In the video with the man on the rope (who sadly was one of the casualties) you see the building tilt away about 1 foot over about 1.5 seconds, a few seconds before before global collapse. Not dissimilar to the tilt of WTC - the only difference being we have close-up video.

    My impression of the collapse is that the concrete core fell first, then the four columns failed. Hard to say - it might be one of the columns went out, redistributing weight, then the core failed, then the rest of the columns. I need to look at more video.
  24. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Eyeballing a couple of videos, the bulk of the building seems to come down in about 7 seconds. If we are dealing with 26 floors, and story height is about 3.3 meters (ca. 11 ft), then building height was ca. 86 m, falling in 7 s gives an acceleration:

    a = 2h/t^2 = 2*86 m / 49 s^2 = 3.5 m/s^2, that's ca. 35% of freefall acceleration.

    If my eyballing is off by a second (6 s <= t <= 8 s), then average acceleration may have been anywhere between 2.7 and 4.8 m/s^2 (between 27% and 49% of g).
  25. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    There seems to be just two videos so far showing the collapse. There a shaking one from above, and another from below that shows the building lean then zooms out to show the collapse. Both are shot from the NW (Church) side)
    Metabunk 2018-05-02 09-02-51.

    Timing from approximately the first detectable lean of the building: Time is in seconds and frame (1/30th)

    Metabunk 2018-05-02 08-57-57.

    First frame at which ejected smoke dust is visible, just before zoom out.
    Metabunk 2018-05-02 08-59-32.

    End of zoom out, collapse of what seems to be the elevator/utility core on the church side
    Metabunk 2018-05-02 09-00-35.

    At this point it seems like the upper roofline is still not descending. This remains stable: Note the two vertical lines in the top left of the building here:
    Metabunk 2018-05-02 09-08-48.
    Metabunk 2018-05-02 09-09-55.

    There's a simultaneous vertical line of expulsions at 3:06
    Metabunk 2018-05-02 09-14-04.

    Another zoom obscures the start of the collapse of the upper roofline. But I'd put it about here:
    Metabunk 2018-05-02 09-11-44.

    Then again hard to say where to the top hits the ground, but I'd put it at around: Really this is more where it falls past the level of the body of the church.
    Metabunk 2018-05-02 09-16-06.

    About 4 seconds. And I'm pretty sure it's not much more than that.
    • Useful Useful x 2
  26. Bruno D.

    Bruno D. Senior Member

    By the way, the investigation is going on and they are suspecting a domestic accident with a gas cylinder or pressure cooker. There were 100+ families (even though the city says it was "only" around 50; 50 is the registered number, not the real one) living there. They even paid some kind of bizarre rental agreement to the auto-declared owners of the building, but that's another story.

    Anyway, there was no running water or gas installations, everything was very precarious. Families would bring gas cylinders to the building to connect to their stoves. The investigation is pointing to a gas cylinder or pressure cooker explosion as the cause for the fire. The "apartments" were divided by wooden planks as this was a commercial building with no real walls diving areas. There were no elevators as they were taken away years and years ago (elevators usually do not belong to the building, they are third parties equipment - atlas, thyssen krupp - and they are returned after the end of the contract), so the elevator shafts worked as some efficient chimneys.

    This building was known as the Glass Tower when it was built, and marketed by the builder as an almost see-through building (it was 1961, so cut the guys some slack ;-) ).

    This is a long article (in Portuguese) discussing the stell+concrete structure of the building, fire protection, etc. Let me know if you have trouble understanding any paragraphs there.

    So, you had the perfect combination: old concrete/steel building with little fire proofing + no maintenance of the little fire proof that was there + lots of flammable materials + great chimneys + no diving walls. Any small fire would escalate to uncontrollable fires very very quickly.

    By the way, the city was warned about this risk over and over again. And by the way #2, there are 70 other buildings in the exact same risk scenario, probably not built the same way though.

    Nothing nefarious here folks, just the old city neglectfulness to poor people and avoidable tragedies.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  27. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    A translated portion, emphasis and [alternate] translations mine:
    This seems to confirm what the plan diagram seems to show - concrete core and four large steel columns (and then a lattice of smaller steel - but the exterior walls not being load bearing. Floors are cantilevered)

    The four H shapes are, I think, based on the above, steel columns. However I've not seen any evidence of them in the debris. It also appears the the first thing to fully collapse was the concrete core - but then we've only got video from one side of the building.

    We see the building lean away, which suggest to me that the (steel?) columns had started to thermally buckle and the building was redistributing the load. This put more stress on the concrete core, which fractured and failed, then global failure.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  28. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    In the above image the line of expulsions is matched by the floors (on the right) tilting downwards. Outlined in green:
    Metabunk 2018-05-02 10-24-54.

    STABBED-Wilton Paes-section-floors-bend.

    This suggests a failure of these columns:
    Metabunk 2018-05-02 10-23-19.

    And it suggests a failure of those columns near the bottom, somewhat similar to the C79 [& 80,81] failure in WTC7.
    Metabunk 2018-05-02 10-28-02.
    Last edited: May 2, 2018
    • Informative Informative x 2
  29. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    • Informative Informative x 1
  30. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Metabunk 2018-05-02 14-15-56.

    Attached Files:

  31. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    And his source:
    Metabunk 2018-05-02 14-20-28.
    Which does not mention the columns.
  32. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    This would seem to fit the bill for a large H-shaped column, but it looks like Steel Reinforced Concrete
    Metabunk 2018-05-02 14-49-20.

    Metabunk 2018-05-02 14-51-49.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  33. benthamitemetric

    benthamitemetric Active Member

  34. Bruno D.

    Bruno D. Senior Member

    Steel reinforced concrete is very very common in most buildings and houses in Brazil. I also searched a lot but couldn't find any definitive information about this specific building. If I still lived in Sao Paulo I would go to the city files or somewhere else and search for physical copies, as public electronic info is not available. I think 1961 is too old for anyone to have thought about digitalizing those project files.

    Metabunk 2018-05-02 18-54-50.

    This is obviously not from the same building, but the image from Mick is similar to this, or similar to what this would look like after it collapsed.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2018
    • Informative Informative x 1
  35. raven1

    raven1 New Member

    As an engineer member of AE911 Truth, and just looking at the videos and stills without any in-depth knowledge or study of the structure, my first impression is that the structure was very likely far below standard in terms of structural member quantities and/or sizes. A collapse waiting to happen, in other words.

    Hopefully our group's most active members will get the blueprints and/or calculations, so we can see what the cause of this collapse actually was.

    Eleanor White, Ontario, Canada
    • Informative Informative x 1
  36. DBia

    DBia New Member

    Contrast and compare, building 7 vs. São Paulo building. I’m sorry but you are comparing apples and oranges. Many MANY more columns in building 7. São Paulo was asking for a collapse under the overwhelming weight of the building, especially considering the asymmetrical layout of the minimal amount of columns.
    F345DCEE-5EC9-47E1-92C9-D3907D3318DD. 04DA8382-3BB4-4717-B9FA-608C80B1A61F.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2018
  37. benthamitemetric

    benthamitemetric Active Member

    Welcome to Metabunk. I hope you will take the time to systematically present such calculations and the assumptions thereunder on this forum. Many around here have long been looking to AE911Truth representatives like Tony Szamboti (who, to his credit, does from time to time engage in discussions, while others like Richard Gage will not) for rigorously developed principles that can be used to underpin and justify AE911Truth's various claims, most of which seem spuriously driven by pre-determined conclusions and not actual data and fundamental principles.

    It would be helpful, for example, for you to actually put some meat on the bones of what you mean when you say the structure was far below standard in terms of structural member sizes and quantities. It appears to me that the building had a fairly standard design in terms of its ratio of support columns to floor space based on the diagrams Mick has produced, though perhaps the NE floor (which appears to be cantilevered) is unusually long (at least in terms of ratio to the core area if not in absolute terms). What seems out of spec to you specifically on your first impression?
  38. benthamitemetric

    benthamitemetric Active Member

    The number of columns isn't really important though, right? It's the load bearing capacity of the columns relative to the load that is important. And WTC7 had an unusual, asymmetrical design with long span floors and a complicated transfer truss system lower down. It's obviously true that a one-to-one comparison between the two is non-starter; I think what most here would be most interested in is identifying the first principles considerations that drove the collapse modes of both buildings--i.e., what principled reasons can be used to understand why each building completely collapsed and can they be used to also understand why the other completely collapsed?

    There are additional questions that are worth probing as well regarding whether certain phenomenon witnessed during each collapse is evidence of a controlled demolition or not. For example: air ejections. AE911Truth has long claimed that high speed ejections of air during a building collapse are "squibs" of explosive blasts and thus prima facie evidence for explosives. Beyond the collapses on 9-11, however, we now have two other large building collapses in Tehran and Sao Paulo that both also created such ejecta. Does it mean explosives were used in both of those collapses or does it mean that such ejecta is not, in fact, the signature of explosives that AE911Truth long claimed?
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  39. Bruno D.

    Bruno D. Senior Member

    Fire probably started due to a short circuit.


    They know about that so quickly because the mother of the family living in that room left the building safely and she saw everything happening. The investigation will continue anyway so that they can validate the hypothesis.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  40. John85

    John85 Member

    Are the ejections similar in Sao Paulo?