São Paulo High Rise Fire and Collapse - Wilton Paes de Almeida Building

Oystein

Senior Member
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.
Hi Eleanore, and also welcome to the forum!

Who are the most active members of your group who you'd expect to do the bulk of the analysis? Last year, when the Plasco building collapsed in Tehran, the AE911 brochure to claim explosive demolition was put together in large part by Ted Walters, Craig McKee and Chris Sarns, none of whom has any relevant credentials whatsoever. One would have thought that a group that claims 2500+ members with degrees in engineering or architecture would be able to put a group of experienced engineers to the task.

I hope your group will look at the sudden onset, the high acceleration, the pyroclastic-like dust clouds, the reports of "explosions", the dust ejections, the falling straight down into foorprint, etc., to re-evaluate whether these features are indicative of controlled demolition rather than collapse from fire, as has been claimed by AE911T for so many years. What's your take on on these features?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BrightJ

New Member
Only 4 columns, and by the look of the picture I provided, they are hollow and falling apart even before fire.

2914A2A9-4549-4D11-87BC-5A8A221253E3.jpeg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
Only 4 columns, and by the look of the picture I provided, they are hollow and falling apart even before fire.

View attachment 32786
It looks like this photo was taken from the NE floor area. I see three large columns on the left side of this photo, which is consistent with the diagrams Mick has provided that indicated there were six support columns in total. See this post, for example.
[mod add photo from "this post" below]

The other three columns are presumably obscured by brick stairwell area on the right.

I don't know why you think any of the columns in the photo is hollow. Could you please explain that? Are you referring to the cavity area formed by the I-beam shape of the column in which electrical wire was run?
Metabunk 2018-05-01 09-43-53.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
Are the ejections similar in Sao Paulo?
I think there are significantly fewer focused ejections here than were seen in the WTC1 & 2 collapses or even in the Plasco case, though that is easily enough explained by the fact that this building had no facade remaining by the time it collapsed. Still, however, there were less-pronounced ejections along the southwest wall that Mick has pointed out and that truthers on other forums have already started claiming were explosive squibs.
 

John85

Member
I think there are significantly fewer focused ejections here than were seen in the WTC1 & 2 collapses or even in the Plasco case, though that is easily enough explained by the fact that this building had no facade remaining by the time it collapsed. Still, however, there were less-pronounced ejections along the southwest wall that Mick has pointed out and that truthers on other forums have already started claiming were explosive squibs.
I agree that the ejections here are different. They're small puffs rather than sequential, jet-like bursts. From the video above, I didn't see any obvious indications of explosions. To a layperson like me, it appears there is no comparison between what happened here and what happened at the WTC.
 

qed

Senior Member
I agree that the ejections here are different. They're small puffs rather than sequential, jet-like bursts. From the video above, I didn't see any obvious indications of explosions. To a layperson like me, it appears there is no comparison between what happened here and what happened at the WTC.
@John85 Do you accept that the Sao Paulo building collapsed naturally under fire?
 
Last edited:

Oystein

Senior Member
I agree that the ejections here are different. They're small puffs rather than sequential, jet-like bursts. From the video above, I didn't see any obvious indications of explosions. To a layperson like me, it appears there is no comparison between what happened here and what happened at the WTC.
The WTC buildings had MUCH larger floor areas, but similar story heights. Also, the WTC buildings had external structural columns and spandrels which would reduce the wall area through which pressured air could escape. If a floor collapse in, say, 0.1 seconds (i.e. air volume between two floor slabs is reduced from HxWxD to 0 in 0.1 s and escapes through the wall openings), that means air would have to escape from the WTC buildings at average speeds of hundreds of km per second, but at only tens of km/h from the Sao Paulo building. That explains why the ejections are less pronounced there.


To throw in a few guesstimated numbers and a quick back-of-the-envelop calculation:

A) WTC1/2:
Dimensions of 1 story (from floor to ceiling) are 60 m wide, 60 m deep, 3,50 m high, for an air volume of 12,600 cubic meters.
The wall area of a story is 60 m by 3.5 m per wall, 4 times that per story (four walls), for a total wall area of 840 square meters. Of that area, 1/3 is blocked by perimeter columns. Of the remaining 560 square meters, 1/3 is blocked by the spandrels, so there are 373 square meters of wall openings per story. As the ceiling slab descends upon the floor, that area is reduced from 373 m^2 to 0. Ignoring the effect of acceleration (i.e. assuming constant fall speed), that means that during the collapse of that floor, the average wall openings are 187 m^2.
So 12,600 m^3 of air must escape through 187 m^2 of openings within 0.1 seconds: The average air speed works out as v = 12,600 m^3 / 187 m^2 / 0.1 seconds = 674 m/s!!

B) WPdA Building
Dimensions of 1 story are 24 m x 10 m X 3.5 m = 840 m^3 (I am seriously eyeballing! Insert better numbers, if you have any!)
The glassed wall area is (24+10+12+10) x 3.5 m = 196 m^3 (I am guessing that half of one of the two long walls is concrete core and thus sealed). If this, nothing needs to be deducted, as the steel work within the facade provides negligible obstruction. But ok, hey let me be generous, and deduct 10% anyway: we have an area of 176 of glass panes through which air can escape. Half that, or 88 m^2, is the average glass wall area during the ceiling collapse.
So 196 m^3 of air must escape through 88 m^2 of openings within 0.1 seconds: The average air speed works out as v = 196 m^3 / 88 m^2 / 0.1 seconds = 22.3 m/s.

Average speed of laterally ejected in Sao Paulo would thus be expected to have had only 3.3% the speed of the WTC ejections.


Are you following, @John85?
 
Last edited:

John85

Member
The WTC buildings had MUCH larger floor areas, but similar story heights. Also, the WTC buildings had external structural columns and spandrels which would reduce the wall area through which pressured air could escape. If a floor collapse in, say, 0.1 seconds (i.e. air volume between two floor slabs is reduced from HxWxD to 0 in 0.1 s and escapes through the wall openings), that means air would have to escape from the WTC buildings at average speeds of hundreds of km per second, but at only tens of km/h from the Sao Paulo building. That explains why the ejections are less pronounced there.


To throw in a few guesstimated numbers and a quick back-of-the-envelop calculation:

A) WTC1/2:
Dimensions of 1 story (from floor to ceiling) are 60 m wide, 60 m deep, 3,50 m high, for an air volume of 12,600 cubic meters.
The wall area of a story is 60 m by 3.5 m per wall, 4 times that per story (four walls), for a total wall area of 840 square meters. Of that area, 1/3 is blocked by perimeter columns. Of the remaining 560 square meters, 1/3 is blocked by the spandrels, so there are 373 square meters of wall openings per story. As the ceiling slab descends upon the floor, that area is reduced from 373 m^2 to 0. Ignoring the effect of acceleration (i.e. assuming constant fall speed), that means that during the collapse of that floor, the average wall openings are 187 m^2.
So 12,600 m^3 of air must escape through 187 m^2 of openings within 0.1 seconds: The average air speed works out as v = 12,600 m^3 / 187 m^2 / 0.1 seconds = 674 m/s!!

B) WPdA Building
Dimensions of 1 story are 24 m x 10 m X 3.5 m = 840 m^3 (I am seriously eyeballing! Insert better numbers, if you have any!)
The glassed wall area is (24+10+12+10) x 3.5 m = 196 m^3 (I am guessing that half of one of the two long walls is concrete core and thus sealed). If this, nothing needs to be deducted, as the steel work within the facade provides negligible obstruction. But ok, hey let me be generous, and deduct 10% anyway: we have an area of 176 of glass panes through which air can escape. Half that, or 88 m^2, is the average glass wall area during the ceiling collapse.
So 196 m^3 of air must escape through 88 m^2 of openings within 0.1 seconds: The average air speed works out as v = 196 m^3 / 88 m^2 / 0.1 seconds = 22.3 m/s.

Average speed of laterally ejected in Sao Paulo would thus be expected to have had only 3.3% the speed of the WTC ejections.


Are you following, @John85?
Yes I follow, but here it looks like the building's disintegration jolted loose a bit of dust, while the WTC was blown apart.

@qed you guys! Not everything is a conspiracy ;). No, there doesn't seem to be anything for me to accept - my view at this time is that fire caused the collapse.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
Yes I follow, but here it looks like the building's disintegration jolted loose a bit of dust, while the WTC was blown apart....
Seriously, @John85? You think you are following? It sure doesn't look like it, because what you quoted is the very explanation for why the WTC collapses would LOOK a lot more LIKE they were "blown apart", as judged by dust ejections!

John, could you please briefly summarize what my calculation shows? Just so I know whether you are actually following.
 

John85

Member
Seriously, @John85? You think you are following? It sure doesn't look like it, because what you quoted is the very explanation for why the WTC collapses would LOOK a lot more LIKE they were "blown apart", as judged by dust ejections!

John, could you please briefly summarize what my calculation shows? Just so I know whether you are actually following.
It seems as though you believe the ejections here and in the WTC resulted from floors hitting each other. You're perfectly entitled to that view, but I disagree! Like everyone else, I will await any evaluations of this collapse with curiosity.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
It seems as though you believe the ejections here and in the WTC resulted from floors hitting each other. You're perfectly entitled to that view, but I disagree!...
I am slightly flabbergasted.

What, specifically, do you disagree with?
Do you disagree that the buildings collapsed?
Do you disagree that after collapse, there was almost no air left inside what was left of the buildings?
Do you disagree that floors hit each other?
Do you disagree that floors hitting each other reduces the volume between them to practically zero?
Do you disagree that the volume of air between any two floor that hit each other had to escape during the collapse?
Do you disagree that, in the case of the WTC buildings, this air had to escape at great speeds (as fast as hundreds of miles per hour)?
Do you disagree that lots and dust and rubble would be created as each floor collapsed onto the one below?
Do you disagree that such strong winds would transport the dust and rubble?
Can you be specific as to what, exactly, you disagree with, please?

Also, I asked you to please briefly summarize what my calculation shows, so I see whether or not you are actually following. So please, please briefly summarize what my calculation shows now. Thank you.
 

BrightJ

New Member
They are not 3 foot sections. At 1:46 in the video you provided, you see a shirt wrapped around a thin bar.

Metabunk 2018-05-07 07-45-36.jpg

Furthermore, it appears perimeter is simply a “curtain” wall, glass and aluminum.

Floor apperently made of more concrete than I had previous thought:
upload_2018-5-7_2-26-24.png

This seems rather important due to the fact that propane or gas cylinders were in the building. There were a lot of families. Whether it was explosions from cylinders or simply spalling of the cores, the collapse, based upon available video seems to suggest its starts with core bursting. That puts instant tension on on the other concrete columns. Concrete does not do good In tension conditions, but does so in compression which was the state they were in until fire/core burst.

If In fact the floors consisted of a large amount of concrete like picture above, then it’s possible that the picture below is a collection of floors that would be expected in a fire induced gravitational collapse:

upload_2018-5-7_2-35-5.jpeg

That is one of several items that makes the Wilton Paes building far different that the WTC collapses.

It seems to me, given the unusual contextual history, the questionable construction, along with gas cylinders, a collapse time of 7 seconds for a building that is far smaller than the WTC7 it seems silly to compare with WTC 7.

Furthermore, the claim that no steel building had ever collapsed from fire is not the foundation of A & E’s arguments.

And since this is not a steel framed building, well, you get the point.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It seems to me, given the unusual contextual history, the questionable construction, along with gas cylinders, a collapse time of 7 seconds for a building that is far smaller than the WTC7 it seems silly to compare with WTC 7.
Would you say the same about Plasco, which has been much more extensively compared?

Furthermore, the claim that no steel building had ever collapsed from fire is not the foundation of A & E’s arguments.
It's a pretty foundational point for most 9/11 Truthers. I'm pretty sure AE911 only attempted to clarify it after Plasco:
https://www.ae911truth.org/news/402...with-the-plasco-building-demolition-in-tehran
(The author of the above article clearly thinks that Plasco exhibits the same "evidence" of controlled demolition as did the Twin Towers).

I'm sure it would not make an initial dent for many people. But Plasco did make such a dent because most people who believe in the controlled demolition conspiracy theory do so based on very superficial evidence. They became convinced based on limited number of points that they found compelling. When they are shown that these points are not true then they can either hand-wave them away, or take a fresh look at the actual evidence. One would hope it would prompt them to honestly ask, if there actually is "overwhelming scientific evidence" then why is the 9/11 Truth movement so ignored and derided by mainstream science.

"No steel framed building..." has been used as a foundational piece of evidence, just as much as "near free-fall", "iron microspheres", "squibs", "thermite chips", "molten steel". It's an equally specious argument. AE911 have attempted to back away from it, but were unable to extricate themselves from the similarities Plasco showed.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It seems to me, given the unusual contextual history, the questionable construction, along with gas cylinders, a collapse time of 7 seconds for a building that is far smaller than the WTC7 it seems silly to compare with WTC 7.
But less silly that comparing WTC7 to a steel-reinforced concrete building in Chechnya in which only the plastic cladding burnt?


Or (speaking of "unusual contextual history) comparing WTC7 to the one (steel reinforced concrete) building out of thousands that happened to survive the atomic bomb in Hiroshima?

https://www.ae911truth.org/news/226-news-media-events-raging-infernos
Metabunk 2018-05-07 08-00-16.jpg


AE911 is making some utterly ridiculous comparison. So their followers are naturally going to compare any high-rise collapse to the 9/11 collapses.
 

BeenAwake

New Member
I wouldn’t compare this to the events of sept 11 2001... this was a non functioning building engulfed in flames that fell while on fire, wtc buildings 1and 2 were being destroyed from the top down which is clearly visible in every video caught from every angle which had little to no fires indicated by the black smoke and with this building in Brazil you did not see anything eject from that building
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I wouldn’t compare this to the events of sept 11 2001... this was a non functioning building engulfed in flames that fell while on fire, wtc buildings 1and 2 were being destroyed from the top down which is clearly visible in every video caught from every angle which had little to no fires indicated by the black smoke and with this building in Brazil you did not see anything eject from that building
But you just compared them.

Comparing things means identifying the differences and the similarities. For example the Wilton Paes building collapsed straight down into its own footprint. This is similar to the WTC collapses. Can we compare that? Do this mean that falling straight down is perhaps not as suspicious as was once thought?
 

BrightJ

New Member
Falling straight down was only characteristic of WTC7. As the French explosionless demolition technique shows us, the debris field for a gravity driven demolition will be less than approximately 1/8 of the height of building. WTC 1 and 2 had a debris field 1/2 of the height of the building in all directions.!

When people mention WTC 7 falling in its own footprint, it is just used as emphasis. Granted, we probably will be able to do so now. But that does not take take away from the important points yet to be explained about the collapse of WTC7.

Many assume it was just the north facade of WTC 7 that we see falling (thanks to NIST) at free-fall for over 100 feet, but that is not the case. We know the mechanical features and west penthouse went down with rest of the building, so at minimum , 75-78 columns simultaneously failed to offer any resistance.

This WPdA building did not fall as a cohesive unit like WTC 7. So I am more than willing to comtrast them.

The other commenter was talking about the fact that the characteristics and context between Wilton Paes and WTCs is one of opposities. Such as:

WPdA WTC
Not maintained. Maintained
Complete enferno. A small percentage on
on fire
Concrete Steel
Current use Current use intended
not intended use
use
Possibility of gas. No possibility of gas
explosions explosions

Etc.

Maybe he meant, since there was more contrast between the buildings, it is not appropriate to compare them but contrast them.

And as I mentioned, let’s do so. Becuase in the end, the WPdA building will only help the truth movement.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Falling straight down was only characteristic of WTC7. As the French explosionless demolition technique shows us, the debris field for a gravity driven demolition will be less than approximately 1/8 of the height of building. WTC 1 and 2 had a debris field 1/2 of the height of the building in all directions.!
Citation needed.

This sounds like a vast and incorrect oversimplification. Is there math behind it? Are there examples where this has been measured? What's the ratio for Wilton Paes?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And where do you measure the extent of the debris field? The furthest piece?
And how do you measure the size, from the edge of the building, or the center?
Brazil_fire_AFP.jpg
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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
The 26 floors does not seem to include all of the building. In Google Earth I added this polygon and it matches at 96m above ground level:
Metabunk 2018-05-08 08-59-13.jpg

Half the height of the building (from the center) is roughly
Metabunk 2018-05-08 09-07-11.jpg
Which seems like a reasonable match for the observed debris field.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
...WTC
...A small percentage on fire...
I find it difficult to take serious anyone who so crassly mischaracterizes the single biggest fire in the US history of any building constructed for human occupancy. Many acres fully involved over the course of many hours, accumulating unprecendented structural damage.

This is blatantly dishonest and disqualifies the claimant, IMO.

10 floors fully involved, several more with sparser fires: That is not a "small" percentage. And it wouldn't matter one bit anyway.
 

23463334

New Member
Look at 0:02 mark. you can clearly see an explosion flash. same as the plasco building.

Untitled.jpg


You really think a high rise collapses by itself? really?
You know how many engineers, how many explosives, how many workers and preparations, and how much money it take to collapse a building to its footprints like you see in that video?
If it were that easy all demolition companies were bankrupt, and the standard practice would be to just start fires and wait.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

deirdre

Senior Member.
That's a start in the right direction. Thanks for acknowledging there is at least 1 explosive.
Don't get too excited. If you read through the thread, you will see many families were living there and they had propane tanks and what not. I'd be more suspicious if I didn't see anything resembling an 'explosion'.
 

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
Most of you have cognitive dissonance in levels which the internet never witnessed, and are all jammed in this small space, filling each others disease.
It is actually a cognitive dissonance forum.
You guys are trying to convince the convinced.

Now that that's cleared.
To remain on topic.


Look at 0:02 mark. you can clearly see an explosion flash. same as the plasco building.

View attachment 32831


You really think a high rise collapses by itself? really?
You know how many engineers, how many explosives, how many workers and preparations, and how much money it take to collapse a building to its footprints like you see in that video?
If it were that easy all demolition companies were bankrupt, and the standard practice would be to just start fires and wait.
How did you determine that the flare-up in question was an explosive and not just the already extant fire flaring out of a window opening as a result of air compression as the the building began to collapse behind it? It looks like it follows from the movement of the building rather than that it precedes such movement. You can see this evidenced in the snapshot you included in your post as the there appears to be dust ejections from the right side of the left-most gray facade panel (note the uneven line it cuts against the black background).

On a separate note, no one thinks high-rise buildings have a tendency to collapse on themselves. Fire, however, has a tendency to damage and destroy the materials that people use to construct buildings and fire can thus certainly cause high- and low-rise buildings alike to fail and collapse. Query what the "fire resistance rating" of a building element actually means, for example. Buildings are comprised of building elements and no building element is impervious to fire. Fire's ability to destroy buildings of various constructions is very well understood by the people who build and regulate such structures.
 
Last edited:

Oystein

Senior Member
...you can clearly see an explosion flash. same as the plasco building...
You seem to have missed that the actual expert investigation of the Plasco incident found that fire, not any explosive event(s), caused that collapse.

You also seem to be oblivious to the fact that explosives capable of initiating a highrise collapse go "BANG" very very VERY loudly. A very sharp kind of "BANG", more like a PENG.
As a little excercise to you: Search YouTube or any other site of your choice for as many actual explosive demolitions as you can find. It would be best if you found at leat 100 different demolitions, with 200+ videos. I give you free rein.
Watch them all in one go once you have a list.
Count the number of videos where the BANGs of the explosions are the single loudest sound, and unmistakeable. I am pretty sure you will find that every single video, all 200+, will have that feature.
Also, try to notice when the BANGs are heard, relative to the collapse itself.
Then count the number of "explosion flashes" truly similar to the one you see at the Sao Paulo building. You will find that that number is, quite precisely, ZERO. Concrete-cutting high explosives simply do not create fire balls.

When you are done, please present the video with the least audible BANG alongside the Wilson Paes de Almeida video with the most prominent BANG, and compare.
Then find the videos for each of the 3 WTC collapse with the most prominent BANG, and present those again to the actual explosive CD video with the least prominent BANGs, and compare.

You will find that none of the WTC/WPAB/Plasco videos feature any BANG comparable to even the least prominent BANG ever recorded for actual expllosive CD.

Discuss why that is so!
 

DBia

New 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?
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?

------------------------

By saying "the number of columns isn't really important" you have no choice but to acknowledge the fact that these are two completely different types of structures. One of the most important points that AE911 makes is that they refer to high-rise collapses only, not houses, not small buildings- high-rises. If you're stating that it doesn't matter because a "one-to-one comparison between the two is a non-starter," then with the simple act of making that statement you're acknowledging the fact they don't compare. In other words- if they don't compare then don't bring up WTC and use this building as a reason for why the official line about it is valid. I'm sorry but saying the Sao Paulo building is "rather large" doesn't make it a comparable structure. Additionally, I've seen how columns can rust and degrade without maintenance when left to the open air as was the case with the Sao Paulo building, especially in its highly degraded state. Take one drive through Chicago and view some of the overpasses and you'll see what I mean. A highly degraded building with 4 columns is no defense of the official theory.

Further, you state WTC7 had an "unusual, asymmetrical design." Are you not looking at the same images? Yes, WTC7 is somewhat unusual, but even a blind man can see the STRIKING differences between the two buildings. I would pose this as a challenge. Go up to anyone. Don't bring up what this debate is about, but simply show them both diagrams and ask them to point out which one has more symmetry. I'm sorry, but WTC7 is about 90% more symmetrical. Again, you try to continue with your apples and oranges comparisons as if they're valid. In the end I'm not taken with your argument.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
By saying "the number of columns isn't really important" you have no choice but to acknowledge the fact that these are two completely different types of structures.
Nobody has said they were the same. In fact it was quickly found that the Wilton building had steel-reinforced concrete columns - totally different to WTC7 and the Towers.

There are similarites in the events though. Tall building collapsing due to fire. Straight down at high speed. In its own footprint (to the same extent as the WTC buildings)

But perhaps you should be looking at the Plasco building, widely considered, including by AE911, to have far more similarities.
https://www.metabunk.org/ae911-truth-forced-to-claim-plasco-collapse-is-an-inside-job.t8339/
 

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
------------------------

By saying "the number of columns isn't really important" you have no choice but to acknowledge the fact that these are two completely different types of structures. One of the most important points that AE911 makes is that they refer to high-rise collapses only, not houses, not small buildings- high-rises. If you're stating that it doesn't matter because a "one-to-one comparison between the two is a non-starter," then with the simple act of making that statement you're acknowledging the fact they don't compare. In other words- if they don't compare then don't bring up WTC and use this building as a reason for why the official line about it is valid. I'm sorry but saying the Sao Paulo building is "rather large" doesn't make it a comparable structure. Additionally, I've seen how columns can rust and degrade without maintenance when left to the open air as was the case with the Sao Paulo building, especially in its highly degraded state. Take one drive through Chicago and view some of the overpasses and you'll see what I mean. A highly degraded building with 4 columns is no defense of the official theory.

Further, you state WTC7 had an "unusual, asymmetrical design." Are you not looking at the same images? Yes, WTC7 is somewhat unusual, but even a blind man can see the STRIKING differences between the two buildings. I would pose this as a challenge. Go up to anyone. Don't bring up what this debate is about, but simply show them both diagrams and ask them to point out which one has more symmetry. I'm sorry, but WTC7 is about 90% more symmetrical. Again, you try to continue with your apples and oranges comparisons as if they're valid. In the end I'm not taken with your argument.
You quoted me but you didn't actually respond to what I wrote. I don't think I could have been clearer about the high-level differences between the Sao Paulo building and WTC7 and what I thought some of the obvious implications of those differences are for a comparison of their respective collapses. It's all right in the quotes of my posts you included in yours so I won't repeat myself. I'm happy to discuss disagreements you may have with what I actually wrote, but it seems to me you are disagreeing with arguments I did not make.
 

econ41

Senior Member
- Go up to anyone. Don't bring up what this debate is about,... In the end I'm not taken with your argument.
What is "this debate about"? what point or claim are you trying to make? Then - and it is a separate issue - what is the aspect of the topic for which you are "...not taken with your argument".

Which is my way of making the same point as Oystein. What are we talking about?
 

DBia

New Member
You quoted me but you didn't actually respond to what I wrote. I don't think I could have been clearer about the high-level differences between the Sao Paulo building and WTC7 and what I thought some of the obvious implications of those differences are for a comparison of their respective collapses. It's all right in the quotes of my posts you included in yours so I won't repeat myself. I'm happy to discuss disagreements you may have with what I actually wrote, but it seems to me you are disagreeing with arguments I did not make.
The fact that you bring up WTC7 at all in respect to San Paulo is exactly my point. If you can't see that I can't help you.
 

DBia

New Member
What is "this debate about"? what point or claim are you trying to make? Then - and it is a separate issue - what is the aspect of the topic for which you are "...not taken with your argument".

Which is my way of making the same point as Oystein. What are we talking about?
The point I'm debating is the assertion that WTC7 was "asymmetrical," which was an attempt to dispute my point that the San Paulo building was completely asymmetrical. If you ask anyone on the street to look at the two diagrams and answer as to which one is asymmetrical (mod:impolite assertion removed) then I'd be willing to bet my life savings the overwhelming majority of people are going to acknowledge the fact that WTC7 is by far and away a multitude more symmetrical in its design of columns. My point is you have four degrading columns in Brazil, along the edges, as opposed to nearly 100 in NY (mostly even in their distribution), and people here are trying to compare these two as if this somehow reinforces NIST's assertions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
J Identifying the Mountains in JTolan's "Rocky Mountains" IR Video Flat Earth 31
Mick West Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting Current Events 11
omaehamoushindeiru De-fisheye techniques for high altitude photography of earth show earth still curved Flat Earth 11
Mick West F-WWQF high altitude test flights Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 3
Mick West How Do You Take Good Photos of High Altitude Planes and Contrails? Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 2
drhex Explained: Apollo 17 Photo of Earth from Moon Seems too High Conspiracy Theories 16
Steve Funk Claim: Extremely high radiation levels in the US. General Discussion 7
Leifer Bumblebee Pupae Contain High Levels of Aluminium General Discussion 15
Whitebeard Dubai High Rise Fire - Not like 9/11 9/11 9
Henk001 High altitude clouds don't have a cooling effect Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mick West Debunked: High Bypass Turbofans do not make Contrails [actually they make more] Contrails and Chemtrails 150
Balance Debunked: High Radiation Readings in Japanese Green Tea, linked to Fukushima? Conspiracy Theories 24
TWCobra Debunked: High Bypass TurboFans not making contrails, and other misconceptions Contrails and Chemtrails 5
tryblinking High pressure = no 'chemtrails' Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Cairenn Celestial Seasoning Teas have a high amount of pesticide General Discussion 5
Mat Is there any high quality evidence of chemtrails? Contrails and Chemtrails 31
PCWilliams High Altitude Airways (Get 'em now!) Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Des O High School Kids launch Weather Balloon Contrails and Chemtrails 8
Mick West Debunked: Mile High Halo over Bronco's Stadium, Tim Tebow UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 1
awake101 High altitude holding patterns and racetrack contrails Contrails and Chemtrails 10
Mick West Engine Efficiency, High Bypass, and Contrail Frequency - How much? Contrails and Chemtrails 9
MikeC High barium levels in blood? ( Mohave, AZ?) Contrails and Chemtrails 79
J Why Does the Sun Rise and Set In a Straight Line? Flat Earth 14
Mick West Debunked: Rise In Respiratory Mortality from 4th to 3rd Cause of Death. "Chemtrail Flu" General Discussion 13
derwoodii Catalytic converters and the rise of rare metals and other elements traces in soils General Discussion 7
Clock Patrick Michaels discusses "Ocean sea levels could rise 3 to 6 feet in this century" Science and Pseudoscience 39
HappyMonday Psychopaths rise to the top of organisations General Discussion 16
JRBids The Rise in Autism Health and Quackery 46
Related Articles




























Related Articles

Top