Question about steel buildings

[cynatnite]

One of the things I've heard when it comes to MIHOP is that no steel building has ever collapsed as a result of fire. Where those hit by large planes?

This is where a lot of the argument for MIHOP falls apart for me. How many times in history have large buildings been hit by planes of this size or even close to it?

Maybe an explanation might help me understand this better.

[Christophera]

1. Steel Shares Loads Well & The Concrete Core Is Missing

FEMA has lied about the core of the buillding.

with the perimeter box columns 14 inches square and spaced at 22 inches, the load bearing capacity of that was immense, the outer wall of the outer tube of the "tube in a tube construction". The inner tube was a rectangular, steel reinfoced cast concrete tube.

As long as the corners of the steel perimter columns were intact, even with what could not be more than a few 20 foot spans running back to the core, and a floor or 2 of interior box column, bolted to the concrete core face, heated to degrees where bending might ocurr, no toppling would happen. No failure whatsoever would be expected.

The concrete core was tremendously strong. Example.

The plane really only has 4 components that have the mass to get through the core walls. 2 engines and landing gear. Only the engines have penetrated in videos. There is a puff of smoke in the pictures of WTC 2 east face as the fire ball is billowing, lower and to the right. It is not really smoke, nor an explosion. It is the left engine of 175 after busting through both walls of the concrete core and slamming up against the inside of the exterior box columns but failing to breach the final steel wall. The impact vector horizontally and vertically is consistent.

The right engine did not contact the core and slid right across the end of the building to exit near the NE corner to land 6 blocks away.

[cynatnite]

2. That's not what I'm asking

I'm asking about other instances of planes hitting buildings. If it's never happened before how can anyone predict what a building would or wouldn't do when hit by a large passenger plane?

[Christophera]

3. Physics And Structures Are Predicatable Within Tolerances

The materials are very predictable and collapse is a specific to structure. Yes, vector analysis can show you right where a failure will occur, if it is going to occur, as related to a damage point within a given structure and combinations of structures. The basic failures that must occur are quite simple and impirically solid for what was observed.

They are utterly NOT in the character of "collapse".

[cynatnite]

4. Thanks for your answer

Well, since nothing like this has happened before I am still at the same place as I was before. Between the planes hitting the towers and the fires it just seems what people didn't think was going to happen did.

I've looked at both sides of this and have done quite a bit of research over the last week. I'm still LIHOP. There's plenty enough to convince me that the criminal regime knew what was coming and did nothing. Although, I doubt they knew when.

The other thing is the idea of a rocket or something similar hitting the pentagon. That right there is another issue that still doesn't scream MIHOP.

I do think with every high profile incident whether it's JFK's assassination, Waco or whatever, not all the questions will ever be answered. But it certainly doesn't mean that something more nefarious was going on.

on edit: Another reason why I think it's not MIHOP is in Richard Clarke's book. It was said that Bush asked after his family when he was being shuttled away. That doesn't strike me as a reaction of someone who planned 9/11.

[Kevin Fenton]

7. Jet fuel

I don't think the jet fuel played much of a part in the buildings' collapse. Even the NIST presentation, which you can find here:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NFPA_Presentation_on_WTC.pdf
says, on page 25, "The jet fuel, which ignited the fires, was mostly consumed within the first few minutes after impact. The fires that burned for almost the entire time the buildings remained standing were due mainly to burning building contents and, to a lesser extent, aircraft contents, not jet fuel."

The presentation says several core columns were severed in each tower, but I don't know where they got this from. It also says that the impact damaged sprinkler systems and enabled increased air flow due to the big holes in the buildings, which means the fires inside may have been worse than an average office fire (or even a really bad office fire).

I don't beleive in LIHOP or MIHOP.

[Frederik]

8. "MIHOP"

doesn't mean Bush was in on the planning. If he was in on it, he would have been in Washington acting like a hero.

[LARED]

6. vector analysis can show you right where a failure

Really?

Please expand on this idea as I think you are grossly simplefying things.

[Rob Conn]

5. You're missing something...

When people refer to the fact that no steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire, they are generally refering to the collapse of WTC 7, which had no major impact damage, and not the Twin Towers. And, MIHOP does not depend on this fact, or any of the physical evidence, although the collapse of WTC7 is a mighty problem for the offical story. There are several books you can read if you want to get up to speed. I suggest, "The New Pearl Harbor" by David Ray Griffin. Good hunting. - R.C.

P.S. Don't fall for the Mihop/Lihop falacy. If the government knew at all, and they sure did, they are guilty enough. Accessories to murder do jail time.

[Christophera]

10. Good Points On The Buildings & MIHOP, Consider That ...

There is an "official" division of perceptable culpability.

The LIHOP aspect is grossly obvious when looking at official ommissions of duty, wargame cover, intelligence, foreknowledge, all of that. The MIHOP of the attack details is totally hidden in black ops as are stock put ID's. Edmonds case touches on foreknowledge as LIHOP and maybe eventual evidence to MIHOP.

The official MIHOP of the WTC was masked some by the new lease of the buildings, guiliani taking and hiding the WTC records which enables the FEMA lie about the core which makes more feasable (for a dumbed down public) the official impact/fire deception.

The water is so muddy from deceptions, that what lies at the bottom cannot be seen easily. Which is why I stick with the MIHOP of the FEMA lie about the core of the towers because it is so easy to prove and we posess the evidence.

[Rob Conn]

11. Please clarify

You seem like you are on the right track, but I have an important question. I've looked at some of your data, and then I've looked at several construction pictures of the WTC, and I see the rumored '40 interior columns' of steel in the core. Do you deny this? What do you think about those pictures? They probably encased the core in concrete, but the building was not held up by the perimeter columns. I don't have to be a structural engineer to recognize that concrete, with its potential for corrosion could not be the only structual element in the core. Is this what you propose? - R.C.

[spooked911]

9. MIHOP can refer to many aspects of the attacks besides the collapse

of the towers-- generally I use MIHOP to refer to the planes being controlled by someone other than the hijackers.

[stickdog]

12. WTC7 wasn't hit by any plane. (nt)