I believe the hotel in Spain you’re referring to was the Madrid Windsor which burned in 2005. It had an unusual construction - part of the building was framed with concrete, the other part with steel.
Maybe your sources didn’t mention this to you, but the steel-framed parts of the building completely collapsed.
That’s right actually. WTC 7 was hit instead by a fricking skyscraper on its way down and the fires within it were fueled by its own supply of diesel. Thanks for making that point. In the 101 threads about this day, nobody ever made that observation before.
Glad you were on the scene to straighten us out.
[quote=“CurtC, post:41, topic:553541”]
My FiL is a structural engineer; he’s built several buildings over 30 stories tall.He works exclusively with reinforced concrete - won’t touch steel girders. One of the reasons he cites is their vulnerability to fire.
There’s a reason for that. The WTC buildings got a special permit to apply the fire retardant material onto the steel by spraying it on; usually it was not done that way. Presumably the enormous amount of material involved made it a lot easier to spray it on, and the exemption was granted. In retrospect, perhaps that was a bad decision.
The sprayed-on fireproofing material was not supposed to withstand impact and a lot of it is believed to have been shaken off by the lateral impacts.
Aha, proof it wasn’t a conspiracy! Anyone conspiring to fake a huge terrorist attack to enrage or distract America would have deliberately made certain the buildings fell sideways to inflict maximum damage on the surrounding city. In fact, Osama bin Laden is on record as having said he hoped the buildings would fall sideways (originally, that one would fall into the other).
So everybody who wanted or could have wanted the towers down wanted or would have wanted them to fall sideways. Falling straight down is the only direction that could be accidental.
.
On further reading, Fiterman Hall has not actually been replaced as yet; construction of the new building is ongoing. Still, I figure until Mozart recognizes that his “WTC7 fell straight down” idea is clearly wrong, he’s stuck in the kiddie pool of 9/11 analysis.
Actually, even a Jenga tower will fall in a reasonable approximation of “straight down” if you make it tall enough (about six feet will do it). The rubble pile will have a larger footprint than the original tower, of course, but it’ll be more or less centered. There’s simply no material strong enough to be able to topple over sideways, if it’s as tall as a skyscraper.
Sweet Mother of Fuck, do we really have to go through this again? Aren’t the existing threads enough? We have literally hundreds of pages of 9-11 conspiracy debunking.
Of course there was a conspiracy to cause 9-11. The conspiracy succeeded. The conspiracy was to hijack some airplanes and smash them into the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon, and an unknown fourth landmark, that could have been the White House or the Capitol, or the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum.
The guys who hijacked the planes had a secret network of people who supported then to achieve their goal. This network was global in scope, like something straight out of a Tom Clancy novel.
Now. The thing I simply can’t wrap my head around is the fascination the truthers have for WTC 7. Here’s a building that collapsed, yet wasn’t hit with airplanes. And why did it collapse?
But the thing is, suppose we take as a premise that the official story can’t be true, that crashing airplanes into buildings can’t make them collapse, and being hit by debris from a collapsing megaskyscraper can’t possibly make a nearby regular-old skyscraper collapse.
But–what the fuck was the point of making sure WTC 7 collapsed? It doesn’t make sense. The (presumed false-flag) attack on WTC 1 and 2 and the Pentagon make sense. Why would terrorists, or Illuminati pretending to be terrorists, care about WTC 7?
And of course, everyone who says the WTC 1 and 2 collapses “look just like a controlled demolition” must not have seen the same controlled demolitions I’ve seen. In every controlled demolition, the base of the structure is demolished, and the building looks like it’s falling into a hole–the upper part of the building as more or less intact as it falls. And this is the reason controlled demolitions have very little debris scatter, because the upper parts are still joined together and aren’t able to be thrown about by random collisions.
That isn’t the case for the WTC collapses. They start at the TOP. At the place where the planes impacted. Where there were raging fires for hours before the collapse. And the collapse happened from the top floors, then the floor directly below the collapsing floors, then then next floor below, then the next floor below, then the next—until the whole structure is gone.
Think about how this “controlled demolition” was supposed to work, how the conspirators were supposed to trigger the explosives ON THE FLOOR WHERE THERE WAS A RAGING FIRE. And to trigger the explosives below on schedule with the collapsing upper floors.
Skyscrapers are much more analogous to a house of cards than a stack of Jenga blocks. They are mostly empty space inside, not solid. And when a house of cards collapses, the cards fall down. Because of gravity. Gravity pulls things straight down, always. When something is thrown sideways, it has a sideways vector, but the force of gravity still acts on that body, and it falls in a parabolic arc.
And our sense of how things “should” act when they fall doesn’t scale well to a structure like a megaskyscraper. Build a model of the WTC at 1:10 scale and crash a 1:10 scale model airplane into it, and the model will behave very differently than the real structure. This is because we can’t scale gravity up or down to match the model. If an object is ten times larger, it has ten times the strength. But it also weighs 100 times as much. Which means that instead of being 10 times stronger, it’s actually 1/10th as strong.
Simple laws of physics here.
I seriously think there should be some sort of protocol truthers should have to follow before shitting in our forums anymore. Lock their threads with a link to where their questions were already answered, until they can ask new questions or admit that they’re just farting in the wind.
So its more like a house of cards than a tree?
So the next time we build a 100 story building it should be made out of concrete 
Just an aside:
I really appreciate the many many dopers who take one for the team by dealing with 9/11 truthers. I’m not a materials expert, nor an aircraft expert, and if you guys and gals weren’t here, I’d have to learn up this stuff. As it is, I can concentrate on the things that I know something about. It must suck to have to keep fighting ingnorance on the same topic over and over again.
Thanks, team.
A3D
“Straight down” is a relative term for two buildings standing 1000 feet high. The offices where I worked at Two World Financial Center were so damaged from falling debris that we could not use them for six months. And that building is at least 500 feet from the WTC towers.
The Deutsch Bank Building at 130 Liberty Street (also at least 500+ feet away) was DESTROYED by the WTC collapse. The only thing left was a burt out steel skeleton.
In the weeks after 9/11 I was working at a client on the 30+ floor of the Woolworth building (about 2 blocks from the WTC) and you could see debris on top of the roofs a good block or two in every direction from the WTC.
To answer the OPs question, the WTC towers were built like a big tube. Each floor consisted of a concrete slab with supporting trusses pinned to the inside of the tube. In contrast, most skyscrapers are built as a monolithic steel frame covered in glass (like the Deutsch Bank building or as a concrete core with the floors cantilevered out.
The advantages of the frame or core structure is that when you crash an airplane into them, the floor slabs don’t come loose from the structure and pancake on top each other like a house of cards.
FWIW, the Empire State Building is a steel framed structure covered with concrete. It is about 40x as dense structurally as the WTC IIRC.
Google the ingredients of “Thermite” or “thermite reaction”.
I think you’re giving Mozart too much credit. I’m not a structural or any other type of engineer but having looked at the design of the WTC I could easily understand how the building could “pancake” in on itself.
Willful ignorance is more likely. Or if this was the pit, a more apt description would apply.
I blame “Mythbusters”.
-Joe
Concrete doesn’t do well with earthquakes. It can be built to survive with a lot of steel reinforcement but in the end you have a building that is less flexible and will probably sustain more damage. Steel will always be king of the really tall buildings. The Empire State building took the impact of a WWII bomber with gasoline instead of jet fuel and it survived because of the way the beams were insulated.
A lot was learned from the WTC buildings and not just with protecting steel. Newer designs will have separate water risers so a single riser disruption doesn’t negate the sprinkler system. Stairwells will be wider and hardened from fires (no more flimsy wallboard).
Does anybody know how the Burj Dubai (name changed but I can’t remember to what; Burj Khalafi?) was constructed and how it would hold up to a similar attack*? It seems to me to be a pretty glaring symbol of “western” decadence.
*(or earthquake, for that matter)
Especially since both collapses so obviously started at the point of impact.
I made the mistake of getting involved in one of these conversations yesterday on a different website.
They were going on about how the cellphone calls made from the hijacked planes were impossible. One of them gave as a cite a series of experiments that supposedly proved that cellphone calls are impossible above 7,000 feet. I countered with a cite of a paper describing high altitude balloon experiments where they maintained a cellular connection up to 20,000 feet. The response was that their paper was written by a Professor Emeritus in Computer Science “so you know he’s not talking through his hat!”
I told him that I had a BS in Comp Sci and, while I did not have the educational achievements of this professor, I did know enough to know that experience in the field does not give you any special expertise in cellphone communications. I also suggested that he look up the definition of “emeritus” because it didn’t mean what he seemed to think it means. It simply means “retired in good standing”.
His response was that I may want to rethink my statement because this guy was a PhD while I only had a Bachelors, and gave me a link to this professors CV and emphasized the long list of courses the man had taught. None of the courses had anything to do with cellphone communications or radio technology but my opponent seemed to think they proved something. I think he was impressed by big words like “algorithm”.
Truthers are impervious to logic. I mean, for fucks sake, if someone was planning the conspiracy they’re imagining, why would they fake a bunch of supposedly impossible phone calls? And why fake phone calls to relatives that have a very good chance of realizing they’re being punked and not really talking to their loved one? Why add such a weak, easily busted, element to your conspiracy when that element isn’t even necessary to what you’re trying to achieve?
So much of what they claim doesn’t even make sense from the point of a conspirator.