photo gallery of meridian fires-amazing stuff

by **darkbeforedawn** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 1:59 pm

Go to this address to see what happens when steel strucutures burn. These photos tell an amazing story. <a href="http://www.newsfocus.org/gallery_madrid.htm">www.newsfocus.org/gallery_madrid.htm</a> NEWSFocus Comparison: WTC vs Windsor Here is the complete article How Did The WTC Towers Drop So Easily? Dropping 110-Stories of Concrete and Steel in Under One Hour By Tim Watts - NewsFocus One of the most sought after answers for many since the attacks on 9/11 revolves around the question, "How is it that World Trade Center towers one and two both dropped so easily?" Where's the Fire? The official government explanation is that the towers were greatly ravaged and weakened by the intense fires, however, the fires in the WTC never swept through the lower floors of either tower, nor were they ever that intense, at least for no more than maybe 10 to 20 minutes, tops! Neither building was rampant with widespread fire, so how could the lower structural supports have been weakened so badly, as has been claimed? The second plane that hit WTC 2 lost most of it's fuel outside the tower in a tremendous fireball witnessed by everyone who saw it live on TV. What then was able to allegedly ignite an entire 110-story skyscraper, in less than an hour? Video: 2nd Plane Hitting WTC 2 Video: Close-up of the fireball Two Before One? Why did WTC 2, the second tower hit that morning, a building with far less airplane fuel inside, collapse almost a full half hour before WTC 1, the tower that was actually hit first? How does that happen? WTC 1 is hit first and burned for 45 minutes longer than WTC 2, which was hit last. With most of the jet fuel exploding outside tower number 2 in the initial fireball, what could have possibly caused a heat source so hot that could permeate 110 stories in only 57 minutes and drop the entire structure, even though no high rise before has ever been dropped by fire? Never. These fires burned LESS THAN TWO HOURS and we're expected to believe the building code of New York doesn't call for better construction than that? Fact: Both WTC tower fires burned a very short time. New York firefighters are on record as saying the fires were "contained" and could be managed. Many of the major fires were already burning out when the buildings collapsed. (Thanks to emergency sprinkler systems and the brave NYFD.) Question: With only sparse fires remaining at the WTC, how was the building so hot that it would thoroughly compromise the mammoth steel girders, the thick cement slab flooring, and overall structural integrity of an entire 110-story building in less than one hour? First off, the buildings did have working sprinkler systems. They were designed to work in this type of emergency. If a case could be made for any sprinkler systems being cut off, it could only be the upper floors and not the lower structural support, as the planes clearly did not affect those areas. The sprinkler systems actually prevented the fire from spreading en masse throughout the entire structure, contrary to what has been suggested by some. The official story would have you believe the fire was able to sweep rampantly and freely throughout all floors. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Secondly, the World Trade Center had fire-proofing between all floors, as well as the mandatory fire sprinkler system to help control a possible fire and thus prevent it from getting out of control. These buildings were specifically designed to contain a fire, not let it spread out of control. The Windsor building in Madrid had no such sprinkler system. As a matter of fact, at the time of the blaze, the building was shut down for repairs; to retrofit the building with a fire safety sprinkler system. Unlike the WTC towers, this building had nothing to keep it from getting very hot. The Comparisons WTC 1 North tower burned .......... 1 hour 42 minutes WTC 2 South tower burned ......... 57 minutes Madrid Windsor tower burned ...... 21 HOURS straight! Compare the respective fires yourself with the galleries below. Click on a picture for the corresponding gallery Arguing Physics To help its case with the WTC collapse, the US government argued after 9/11 that the melting point of steel was 2,500 degrees F. Many scientists came forward to argue that the temperature needed to melt a steel alloy was actually closer to 2,800 F, 300 degrees hotter than the government claim. The argument continues to this day. The Madrid fire was originally reported at its peak to be 1500 Celsius. That is 2,732 degrees Fahrenheit and is close to the 2,800 degrees that scientists claim is necessary to melt a steel alloy. Madrid Fire Originally Reported Up To 1500 Degrees Celsius So What Happened in Madrid? Only a smaller portion of some of the upper floors of the building collapsed on top of each other, much like they claim happened on 9/11, yet mysteriously the Madrid Windsor building did not begin a cascading "domino effect" of floors collapsing under the fallen weight, as happened with the WTC. Most importantly, after 21 hours of super-hot blast furnace inferno conditions that clearly far exceeded those of 9/11, there was no pulverized concrete from the Madrid tower. There was no exploding concrete, nor pulverized concrete dust, as was the case with the WTC. As the Windsor fire reached the scientific community's claimed melting point, the steel girders actually did start to become malleable and bend. Girders are seen curling up at the ends in many photos. It would seem apparent, according to the evidence from the Madrid fire, that the scientific temperature claim for melting a steel alloy is indeed correct. The features of the Madrid fire are undeniable proof that this raging inferno was indeed much hotter than the WTC. Over 21 hours later, the fires were finally put out and the building was still standing. Still standing?! Burning Questions Shouldn't a fire as intense as that in Madrid have dropped the building, just the same as the WTC towers allegedly fell on 9/11? It's interesting to note that the WTC in New York and the Windsor building in Madrid were both of late 60s / early 70s design and engineering. The Madrid building even had an inner concrete core for stability, very much like the WTC towers. But somehow we're left to try and understand why TWO buildings that clearly were not anywhere close to as hot as the building in Madrid, both collapsed in :57 minutes and :102 minutes respectively. Meanwhile, a building that was indeed much hotter was able to burn uncontrollably, with no building sprinkler system, for over 21 straight hours, and yet was still standing when it was over. For those that may be trying to keep track, or should be, that's 1,260 hours of burn time for the Windsor building, which figures out to 1,259 hours longer than WTC 2 and 1,258 hours longer than WTC 1. And once again, the Madrid, Spain building clearly burned at a much higher temperature that either building in New York. How Hot Was It? Immediately, the day after the blaze, the original fire temperature that was reported during the fire's peak was drastically reduced to nearly half what had been reported the day before. Why the sudden huge disparity in temperature? If the Madrid building could burn so hot and yet still be standing when it was over, an argument could be made that there must be a flaw in the US explanation for the WTC collapse. If those temperatures are kept at the original 1500 Celsius, the US government has a serious problem with its scenario of 9/11 because the Madrid Windsor tower was not melting like the U.S. government said it should. Remember, after 9/11 the US government argued that the melting point of steel was 2,500 degrees F. Scientists argued that the temperature needed to melt a steel alloy was actually closer to 2,800 F. So, if the original Windsor fire temperature is left to stand at 1500 C, or 2,732 F, as it was originally reported, that is 232 degrees hotter than the reported U.S. government claim of 2,500 F for the melting point of steel, as they claimed in their 9/11 explanation. This would undeniably contrast the U.S. government position and the official 9/11 explanation of the actual melting point of steel. It would ask why the Windsor tower withstood much hotter temperatures for twenty-one times longer duration and yet was still standing afterwards. It would ask, how did a lesser fire drop two larger buildings in a scant fraction of the burn time with much less heat and ferocity? That in a nutshell blows the entire U.S. government explanation right out of the water for why the WTC towers collapsed so easily. Which building do you think was hotter, the Madrid Windsor building or New York WTC? Whether 1500 Celsius or not, the Madrid building undeniably far eclipsed the WTC towers in fire and heat. Look at the damn pictures for crying out loud. You don't need a thermometer to see that the Madrid building fire was clearly waaaay hotter than the WTC. Use your eyes and your God-given brain and decide for yourself. Why didn't the Windsor tower in Spain fall like the WTC fell on 9/11? Many argue that the structure of the WTC towers was compromised due to the plane strikes and that is the reason they fell. According to the people who built the towers, nothing could be farther from the truth. Video: WTC Built To Withstand Airliner Was the WTC really as hot as officials have led us to believe? The woman below sure knew. She's standing right where the plane went through the building. So how hot was it? There were fires above and just below, but from all appearances the area you would think was hottest, the hole where the airplane entered the building and dumped its load of fuel, was actually okay to stand in. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Woman standing in airplane crash hole of WTC tower. Video: The woman shown above (1.23 MB) DivX format, plays on most players

photo gallery of meridian fires-amazing stuff

photo gallery of meridian fires-amazing stuff

Who is online