St Louis building collapse

[firecoins]

I have here a link from a Firefighting's buff website. It shows the collapse of a building on fire. Notice how the debris "explodes" from the bottom. I guess the NWO is at it again but only fire buffs seem to know about it.
http://www.community.firevideo.net/video/video/show?id=2041917%3AVideo%3A27763

Is this a test run for a future operation?
Or is the idea of a conspiracy just lunacy?

[UNLoVedRebel]

Didn't you see the pyroclastic flow? Total proof it was brought down by controlled demolition. Inside job.

[1337m4n]

Appears "free-fall" to the casual observer? Check.
"Pulverized" building materials? Check.
Progressive collapse? Check.
Damage from commercial airliner impact? Hmmm....so this is an even BETTER example of fire damage than the WTC.

It could only have been a Jewside job.

[Egil]

Any information on the building's design? Was it a steel building?

Looks to be mostly masonry.


*Edit*

Okay, steel supported. (http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=170428)

[firecoins]

Appears "free-fall" to the casual observer? Check.
"Pulverized" building materials? Check.
Progressive collapse? Check.
Damage from commercial airliner impact? Hmmm....so this is an even BETTER example of fire damage than the WTC. This is a much better example. A builging can collapse from just fire. I wonder if Larry Silverstein owned it.

It could only have been a Jewside job.There are Jews in St. Louis?

[eromitlab]

Now that it's here, I'm sure the CTists will pick up on it... somehow.

[Minadin]

One of my buddies did some work on this building a couple of years back - it was a dairy, but I don't think they were using it anymore.

[firecoins]

One of my buddies did some work on this building a couple of years back - it was a dairy, but I don't think they were using it anymore.
They are definatly not using it anymore.

[Mancman]

Controlled demolition. Look at the black smoke, the fire was obviously oxygen starved.

[twinstead]

All right, I'll come clean. I'm personally responsible for bringing that building down. There. I said it. I feel better now.

[Toke]

It doesn´t prove anything, it´s not on youtube.

[firecoins]

damn it! Fire buffs should post on you tube.

[JoeTheJuggler]

http://www.community.firevideo.net/video/video/show?id=2041917%3AVideo%3A27763


I'm pretty sure one of those voices on the video was my brother's. He works maybe 200 yards behind the vantage point of that video. I'm pretty sure his entire company witnessed the collapse.

[Dave Rogers]

Dudes, the fire was only in the bottom story. How come all three collapsed?

Dave

[Travis]

It wasn't even hit by a plane! Are we supposed to believe that these bricks like smashed each other?

[scissorhands]

One of my buddies did some work on this building a couple of years back

Hmmmm, and what kind of "work" did he say he was doing?

[Myriad]

But notice that the building didn't completely collapse.

Obviously, if there had been another 20 floors on top of those and another 86 below, all those other floors would have totally remained standing.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Toke]

But notice that the building didn't completely collapse.

Obviously, if there had been another 20 floors on top of those and another 86 below, all those other floors would have totally remained standing.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Good point, a fire cannot bring down more than a few floor.

This video is proof of CD, just wait til it gets out on youtube.

[Minadin]

Hmmmm, and what kind of "work" did he say he was doing?

I asked him this last night and it seems that they were measuring up various dairy processing equipment to see how they would fit into another dairy building across town - also, I was wrong about the time frame, it was closer to 6 months ago, not a few years.

[Trojan]

Now was that faster than free fall? Anyone got a stop watch and a calculator??

:boggled:

[Wolrab]

Now was that faster than free fall? Anyone got a stop watch and a calculator??

:boggled:

I have a stopped watch made in Calcutta and it was definitely faster than free fall on Ceres.

[JSSTyger]

That was pretty cool. WTC 7 shoulda fell like that. This building actually slumped off to the side whilst WTC 7 fell straight down for a few seconds.

I think its funny how these JREF'ers think their the ****. They debate amongst themselves in this near 100% (by design!) biased forum. I'm not sure that even makes sense.

I'll probably be quoted by 15 of these nuthuggers in the next 20 posts!

[Macgyver1968]

I hope no firefighters were in the building.

[Minadin]

http://videos.stltoday.com/p/video?id=3513980

I don't believe anyone was seriously injured.

At its height, about 60 firefighters battled the blaze. Keuss credits an experienced command staff for calling them out about 15 minutes before the first of two portions of the structure collapsed. Two firefighters suffered minor injuries from falling debris, much of which still littered Grand late Sunday.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/laworder/story/FF2E683AAF88685E86257582000BE88F?OpenDocument

[Mince]

That was pretty cool. WTC 7 shoulda fell like that. This building actually slumped off to the side whilst WTC 7 fell straight down for a few seconds.

I think its funny how these JREF'ers think their the ****. They debate amongst themselves in this near 100% (by design!) biased forum. I'm not sure that even makes sense.

I'll probably be quoted by 15 of these nuthuggers in the next 20 posts!

I don't mean to break you from your Alex Jones matrix, but there is absolutely no comparison to the collapse of WTC 7 and the collapse of the St. Louis building. WTC 7 was damaged significantly, had unchecked fires for over seven hours and had a lot more weight compelling its collapse.

What the collapse of the St. Louis building does show is that buildings can collapse due to fire weakening its steel supports and that a building outside of 9/11 has collapsed due to fires.

Of course, most people already knew this. That is why 99% percent of the world's engineers are not in the "truth" movement.

[1337m4n]

I'll probably be quoted by 15 of these nuthuggers in the next 20 posts!

Sup dawg we heard you like being quoted so we put a quote in yo quote so you can get quoted while you get quoted.

[Mince]

Sup dawg we heard you like being quoted so we put a quote in yo quote so you can get quoted while you get quoted.

That's 2 out of 4 (now 2 out of 5); a bit below his expectation.

[firecoins]

I'm pretty sure one of those voices on the video was my brother's. He works maybe 200 yards behind the vantage point of that video. I'm pretty sure his entire company witnessed the collapse.
your brother must be in on it!:eek:

[firecoins]

I have a stopped watch made in Calcutta and it was definitely faster than free fall on Ceres.
well mayby you should have a stop watch instead. With a stopped watch everything happens in less than a second. No wonder it was faster than fee fall. :D

[JSSTyger]

I don't mean to break you from your Alex Jones matrix, but there is absolutely no comparison to the collapse of WTC 7 and the collapse of the St. Louis building. WTC 7 was damaged significantly, had unchecked fires for over seven hours and had a lot more weight compelling its collapse.

What the collapse of the St. Louis building does show is that buildings can collapse due to fire weakening its steel supports and that a building outside of 9/11 has collapsed due to fires.

Of course, most people already knew this. That is why 99% percent of the world's engineers are not in the "truth" movement.

No offense..."friend"...but if 99% of Engineers believe the OCT, there wouldn't be any alternate theories.

I can see why you believe in this fallacy. The corporations/organizations all seem to be on your side. And of course these organizations each consist of hundreds of engineers. I see alot of OCT'ers making the mistake of claiming every single one of those engineers. You can't do that. I'll tell you why. I write reports every day. They are submitted to a PM (Project Manager). The PM has editing power. He takes my report, reviews it, might make some changes (usually very minor grammatical or format), and then signs off on it. Data is never changed of course...but it could be...if there was enough incentive. And guess what. I don't have to know a dam thing about it!

So you can't take credit for all the Engineers employed by the corporations/organizations. You can, however, take credit for the individuals who write up the reports...

...And I can claim at least 600 individual engineers from the AE911truth site and whatever other truther Engineers there might be out there.

One more thing. YOU CAN'T CLAIM THE ENGINEERS WHO NEVER LOOKED INTO 9/11...which undoubtedly is a vast majority of them.

So the 99% number is a complete joke

[Dave Rogers]

No offense..."friend"...but if 99% of Engineers believe the OCT, there wouldn't be any alternate theories.

Sorry? What exactly do the other 1% think? It only takes two insane engineers to formulate two alternate theories.

The PM has editing power. He takes my report, reviews it, might make some changes (usually very minor grammatical or format), and then signs off on it. Data is never changed of course...but it could be...if there was enough incentive. And guess what. I don't have to know a dam thing about it!

Unless, of course, he makes the minor error of publishing the altered document in a blaze of publicity and you're cunning enough to think of the highly devious startegy of reading the damn thing. But maybe none of the engineers contributing to the NIST report ever thought of that. After all, it's not like reading a public document and checking whether your work's been altered is particularly easy.

So remind me where these leagues of NIST engineers are publishing their complaints about the misrepresentation of their work? Was it that one anonymous poster right here on JREF, or did I miss a few hundred?

Dave

[Mince]

No offense..."friend"...but if 99% of Engineers believe the OCT, there wouldn't be any alternate theories.



Hi. I don't believe I'm your friend, but it appears you've avoided a direct answer to the question.



I see alot of OCT'ers making the mistake of claiming every single one of those engineers.


I'm not claiming a single engineer. I merely asked your opinion of why 99% of the world's engineers are not in the truth movement.


So you can't take credit for all the Engineers employed by the corporations/organizations. You can, however, take credit for the individuals who write up the reports...

...And I can claim at least 600 individual engineers from the AE911truth site and whatever other truther Engineers there might be out there.


Again, I claim nothing; I'm merely stating a fact and requesting your opinion on that fact. Why are 99% of the world's engineers not in the truth movement?


So the 99% number is a complete joke.

Yes, it does look bad for you. Let me ask an alternate question that may be a little more palatable to you:

Why is only a small percentage of all the engineers who've investigated the collapses of the WTC buildings in the truth movement.

It's not a fallacy. The grossly overwhelming majority of engineers are not in the truth movement. Even you implicitly condede that with your post above.

The small percentage of engineers who've actually investigated 9/11 and are in the truth movement nearly mirrors those who have not. So if anyone could claim the undecided, it wouldn't be truthers.

Do you claim that most of the remaining engineers who've not investigated 9/11 would agree with the truthers? How can you logically claim that since such a small percentage of those that have investigated 9/11 agree with truthers? Please offer some logical basis for this claim---if indeed you make the claim. I don't think you would. I think you're just smart enough to know better.

...And I can claim at least 600 individual engineers from the AE911truth site

Please list these "engineers." AE911Truth has a history of embellishing credentials and truthers have a history of unconditional acceptance. Even if everyone was legitimate (I think even you will admit that not all are legitimate), it is still a very small percentage of all of those who've investigated 9/11 (making a big assumption that your "600" have investigated 9/11 adequately), and an even smaller percentage---by a huge margin---of the rest of the engineers. And please list the magnitude and manner of their research. YouTube and Google?


But boil off everything and you're left with the fact that, for whatever reason, 99% of the world's engineers are not in the truth movement.

[firecoins]

No offense..."friend"...but if 99% of Engineers believe the OCT, there wouldn't be any alternate theories.Less than 1% are in teh truth movement.

The corporations/organizations all seem to be on your side which corporation has investigated 9/11? Are you claiming any were involved?

And of course these organizations each consist of hundreds of engineers.

So you can't take credit for all the Engineers employed by the corporations/organizations. No corporation has issued any reports on 9/11.


...And I can claim at least 600 individual engineers from the AE911truth site and whatever other truther Engineers there might be out there.
Most people on this site are not engineers. Just people who agree with the truth movement.


One more thing. YOU CAN'T CLAIM THE ENGINEERS WHO NEVER LOOKED INTO 9/11...which undoubtedly is a vast majority of them.
Are you claiming them to be in the truth movement? 99% seems like a pretty accurate number. Even if the majority work for some evil corporation. A little sidenote

[Newtons Bit]

99% of the structural engineers in the US are aware of the 9/11 research. I mean the real research, NIST, ASCE, SEA, etc. We are intimately familiar with this because the events of 9/11 are changing building codes. More design is required (but no additional fee; design creep is a bitch), more cost to the building owner, etc.

There is a real cost to future building ventures. If there were any actual truth to the "Truthers" claims then building designers, contractors and owners would be all over them. But they're not. Because the engineering community as a whole accepts NIST's conclusions.

And yes, most of us know about the 9/11 conspiracy theories. But they're just that: conspiracy theories. We actually have a good laugh about it from time to time in my office.

[Kesha]

99% of the structural engineers in the US are aware of the 9/11 research. I mean the real research, NIST, ASCE, SEA, etc. We are intimately familiar with this because the events of 9/11 are changing building codes. More design is required (but no additional fee; design creep is a bitch), more cost to the building owner, etc.

There is a real cost to future building ventures. If there were any actual truth to the "Truthers" claims then building designers, contractors and owners would be all over them. But they're not. Because the engineering community as a whole accepts NIST's conclusions.




May I ask if there are plans to take thermal expansion into consideration? Must have a huge effort on new building codes.

[Kesha]

Any information on the building's design? Was it a steel building?

Looks to be mostly masonry.


*Edit*




From your link,
xxx.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=170428

"The cause of the fire is under investigation. Firefighters say demolition crews were working in the building when the fire started."

I don`t think this event should be widely quoted as an example, for obvious reasons.

[mark4mark]

May I ask if there are plans to take thermal expansion into consideration? Must have a huge effort on new building codes.

For example:
The World Trade Center Seven is being constructed using a method called concrete core construction, in which the steel frame is set first and concrete is poured around the steel framework...

http://www.lincolnelectric.com/knowledge/articles/content/worldtrade.asp

[bio]

From your link,
xxx.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=170428

"The cause of the fire is under investigation. Firefighters say demolition crews were working in the building when the fire started."

I don`t think this event should be widely quoted as an example, for obvious reasons.

Is this a joke?

Perhabs, debunker just mix the words fire and "demoltion crew"? :rolleyes:

[Kesha]

For example:
The World Trade Center Seven is being constructed using a method called concrete core construction, in which the steel frame is set first and concrete is poured around the steel framework...



Ok, but this is obviously not based on NIST`s findings in August 2008, as the new WTC 7 has been planned way earlier.

As I`m working in a multi storey building: How much influence has Thermal Expansion here and now? I.e., what about all those old buildings? What measures will be taken?

Thx

[Kesha]

Is this a joke?

Perhabs, debunker just mix the words fire and "demoltion crew"? :rolleyes:

That`s a quote in the original link.

Check yourself.

[Grizzly Bear]

For example:
The World Trade Center Seven is being constructed using a method called concrete core construction, in which the steel frame is set first and concrete is poured around the steel framework...

http://www.lincolnelectric.com/knowledge/articles/content/worldtrade.asp

The concrete encasement ensures much more efficient fire resistance, it doesn't really negate the effects of thermal expansion.

Kesha, thermal expansion isn't a new concept -- it wasn't then, it isn't now. The case for WTC 7 was a factor of its design which magnified the effects. I haven't read any of the code changes since that period but I would expect that any comment concerning this has been dealt with, as it should be when a design flaw is identified.

[mark4mark]

Ok, but this is obviously not based on NIST`s findings in August 2008, as the new WTC 7 has been planned way earlier.

As I`m working in a multi storey building: How much influence has Thermal Expansion here and now? I.e., what about all those old buildings? What measures will be taken?

Thx

NIST's findings in 08 didn't "discover" thermal expansion.

http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/1216

[firecoins]

From your link,
xxx.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=170428

"The cause of the fire is under investigation. Firefighters say demolition crews were working in the building when the fire started."

I don`t think this event should be widely quoted as an example, for obvious reasons.

From the article.
Heat had weakened the steel supports, and cork insulation in the walls helped the fire spread.

[Minadin]

That`s a quote in the original link.

Check yourself.

They were shutting down that building and moving equipment to a more modern facility across town. You could look at my previous posts for verification.

"Demolition Crew" doesn't have to mean people cutting columns and planting explosives, it might mean people disassembling equipment, cutting pipes, and removing partition walls to salvage some useable bits that the new owner of the property wouldn't want or need.

[Newtons Bit]

They were shutting down that building and moving equipment to a more modern facility across town. You could look at my previous posts for verification.

"Demolition Crew" doesn't have to mean people cutting columns and planting explosives, it might mean people disassembling equipment, cutting pipes, and removing partition walls to salvage some useable bits that the new owner of the property wouldn't want or need.

"Demolition" is the standard term used on construction documents for any removal of existing tenant improvements.

They could have been removing an old sink and they would be a "demolition crew". I don't know if news agencies would understand the different, however.