Windsor fire in Madrid vs. WTC fires on 9/11

Our government and media told us that the jet-fueled fires in the World Trade Center towers on 9/11 were roaring infernos, so hot that they weakened the massive steel columns and caused them all to simultaneously collapse right down to the sidewalk. 

This was the first time in history that fire had caused a steel-framed building to collapse. 

Yet other buildings have suffered far, far worse fires for much longer periods of time, without collapse.  Here are shots of the Windsor building in Madrid.  The building was engulfed in an immense conflagration, such that it resembled an enormous match, with the entire top of the building in flames for 28 hours. Everything was burned away but the floors and columns supporting the building.  Yet the Windsor building did not collapse. 

You see that this was a really, really bad fire.  It's not possible to imagine anyone escaping down the stairs past the burning floors. 

Compare this to the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.  The fires are so cool that we can see a woman (in red box)  in the gash in the building where the plane hit!  Presumably this would be the point of greatest intensity, the actual point of collision.  Yet, as we look into the hole, we see only blackness. No flames are visible.  The building is clearly standing solidly and the best description of the fire would be "smoldering." 
Because we believe we have a free media, most Americans accept the story we were fed, that the hot fires brought down the towers in less than two hours. 

Ask yourself if it is reasonable to believe that the WTC towers would collapse after briefly smoldering fires when the Windsor building was engulfed in flames for 28 hours and stood strong. 

Here is the Windsor building after the fire died out.  It is gutted, but still standing.

Comments

[Psikeyhackr]

Don't forget the hotel fire in Beijing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7880348.stm

[cocaine rehabilitation]

Looks good! Very useful, good stuff. Good resources here. Thanks much!.
I am from Monaco and now teach English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "Bill lerach, the famed plaintiffs lawyer currently serving a month prison sentence, is seeking to enter a prison alcohol treatment center.New found life is a residential treatment center for men and women suffering from drug and alcohol abuse."

:-) Thanks in advance. Mato.

[corey hanke]

B.J Edwards, Sheila didn't write the comment about the woman not getting the Memo, so you might need to retract you statement saying she has reached a new low. As far as 9/11 being an Inside Job, I believe it was. Thanks for spreading the truth Sheila.

[Sheila Casey]

Clarification, I meant it burned like a torch for 28 hours and is still standing in the photo. You are correct that it is gone now, demolished 6 months after the fire, at a cost of $28.5 million.

For anyone who really wants to know the truth about 9/11, there are abundant resources to find out. Unfortunately most of the people commenting here are either disinfo agents or else frantically trying to ward off a terrible realization about their government.

[TK]

The woman is dead due to the fires. It is amazing she lived through the impact of the plane; the plane's kinetic energy was over 1000 pounds of TNT! Lack of knowledge in physics and firefighting, makes your article sophomoric at best, more like a fantasy.

The Madrid building is not standing, it was totaled by fire, it stood after the fire only due to, firefighting efforts, and the core steel was encased in concrete. As you notice most of the parts that burned fell off in 2 hours. So much for your attempt to compare a fire that destroyed a building, to a fire that destroyed a building, and make rational conclusions.

[Sheila Casey]

Thank you JD, I agree with you 100%. I have spent many months examining all the evidence and the conclusion I came to broke my heart. It is with no joy that I report that the government's story is a lie. What is even more terrifying is that the media has been an accessory to the crime.

If you look in my 9/11 category, you'll see an event organized by the Foreign Correspondents Club of Japan, in which they ask "has America lost its freedom of the press? There seems to be no other explanation for (the shutout of the truth about 9/11.)"

About these pugnacious commenters--I think it is interesting to consider the motivations of the 9/11 truthers and the 9/11 anti-truthers.

Truthers speak what they believe at considerable personal risk. Steven Jones lost his job at BYU, Kevin Ryan lost his job at UL, David Griffin writes books that never get reviewed. I've heard of numerous journalists whose careers ended because they were unwilling to go along with the party line. So the only thing driving people like me to speak up and say that the emperor has no clothes is a sense of justice and concern for the country.

What drives the anti-truthers? Must be something strong, as evidenced by the enormous energy they give to attacking anyone who doubts the official story. Since they espouse the majority opinion, what have they to fear from us? If we are really so misguided, our movement will eventually just wither away and die, right?

What I suspect is that many of them are paid, probably by the CIA. There was an anti-truther whom I encountered on TruthDig who only posted 8am to 5pm. But during that time, he seemed to be doing it fulltime. He wanted to argue every tiny point, and seemed to have nothing else to do. I truly think he was doing it as an 8-5 job.

My post comparing the two photos brought them out of the woodwork because the contrast between the two photos is so stark. In one photo we see a veritable torch, in the other just sooty smoke. Yet the building that burned like a torch for 28 hours is still standing. The smoldering building suddenly collapsed at free fall speed all the way to the sidewalk, way past the areas of fire and destruction.

This scares them and they jumped on me to discredit my post. But the evidence speaks for itself.

[JD]

I’m an attorney, 58, with a post-graduate background in science. I’ve examined the evidence and arguments on both sides of the issue, and I’m forced to conclude (reluctantly, I might add, but without a doubt) that the official account of 9/11 is a fraud.

I have two problems with b.j. edwards and others here (who seem to have full-time jobs descending on these forums in full attack mode). One is their utter dogmatism. They absolutely refuse to believe—despite historical evidence to the contrary—that they may have been lied to by the very authority figures they trusted (government, media, military, etc). Whether this denial is genuine, from deep within their frightened psyches, or faked to use as a rhetorical bludgeon, I can’t say. What I can say is, it’s a very difficult, painful, and terrifying realization—one that all of us in the “Truth movement” have had to face and overcome. The political consequences will not be pleasant, to say the least. But the alternative—of participating in and perpetuating what amounts to treason—is unacceptable.

I know of no one who, once he or she has carefully and honestly examined the evidence and arguments—with a truly open mind and no biases or ulterior motives or a shared hatred of “conspiracy theorists”—can accept the government’s version of events. In fact, many high-level government officials have come to reject it, at great personal and professional risk, only to be ridiculed by the likes of ConsDemo, who accuses them of “vitriolic hatred of the United States.” Try actually reading the individuals listed in patriotsquestion911.com, most of whom have taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and are trying to do just that.

The repulsive idea that someone within our government was involved in 9/11 is the Big Lie that the real terrorists (whoever they are—but it certainly was NOT Bin Laden and 19 Arab patsies) are hoping will keep most citizens from questioning the scripted story. They may be able to control the media, but they haven’t been able to control the Internet—although I’m sure they’re working on it furiously. Perhaps b.j. and his gang are part of that effort.

The second problem I have is their method, as exemplified by Henry62 and other presumably honest researchers, of isolating every scientific observation or example given by the “9/11 twoofers,” nitpicking it with alternative explanations, then triumphantly declaring that they’ve debunked them and therefore proved the official version. While these explanations may have some validity in isolation, they lose their credibility and become irrelevant and even absurd when considered in the context of the actual events. Any physicist can isolate an atom and prove that it consists mostly of empty space; but the atoms of a fist flying into the atoms of your nose confirms an entirely different plane of reality. Does one “truth” contradict the other?

This is where the denial I described above blocks reality and common sense. The evidence speaks for itself. The Big Picture is staring you in the face. All you have to do is unplug your ears and open your eyes.

For Enrico: “E pur si muove.”

[Henry62]

Hi Sheila,

I write You from Italy.

I wrote an article about Windsor Tower and effects of fire in particular location, like tunnels or towers.

All articles have Google Autmoatic English translation link, but You can only look at the images to understan what happens during a fire:

Windsor Tower fire:

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/08/effetti-dellincendio-nella-torre.html

Gottardo Tunnel fire:

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/08/effetti-dellincendio-nei-tunnel-il-caso.html

Here You can find some English articles about some interesting (I hope) analysis I did abou 9/11 attacks:

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/english-section.html

Thanks and bye,
Enrico (Henry62)

[b. j. edwards]

Sorry, DGM. I attributed the post to Casey. The layout of the comments confused me. Your sarcasm was right on.

[DGM]

b j edwards:
I made the post about Edna and I think you missed the sarcastic tone. I seems obvious (to me) if someones best option was to jump to their death the fires must have been unbearably. Sorry for the confusion.

[TomB]

"Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth has an excellent website on the proof for controlled demolition in the towers, see http://ae911truth.org

Over 400 licensed architects and engineers have posted their photos and statements on that site, giving the technical explanations for why the official story doesn't hold water. Highly recommended."

We can assume, then, since you group has only 400 members, the rest of the architects and engineers in the country support the offical explanation?

If not, why not?

[TomB]

If fire can't cause steel to collapse, what happened to all the steel in the after-fire picture of the Windsor?

[b. j. edwards]

Shiela Casey wrote...

"The name of the woman in your post is Edna Clintron. Apparently she didn't get the memo that the fires were not that bad,..."

MEMO??!! Are you mad?

You should be ashamed of yourself for insulting the families of the victims of the 200+ people like Edna who jumped to their deaths rather than burn to death.

You're response is a new low in 9/11 Denial. Unbelievable.

[ConsDemo]

“Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth has an excellent website on the proof for controlled demolition in the towers”

They “prove” nothing of the sort. The whole “truth” movement is ideological, not fact based. These people believe in their conspiracy theories because they want to believe in them, because they satisfy their world view. They have many reasons, although vitriolic hatred for the United States is a common theme.

The so-called truthers cloak their beliefs in the “aura” of science because they think it is an easier sell, however, their “evidence” isn’t even remotely compelling. Saying “the buildings didn’t fall the way I say they should have” is not proof a “controlled demolition” any more than someone saying their belief in God proves God exists. So-called “A&E for truth” is not an independent objective scientific body and they do not speak for the professions they claim to represent. Defrocked professor Steven Jones also claims he proved Jesus came to North America, he isn’t at all credible and even if he was, he is only one man he does not speak for the physics profession.

[Sheila Casey]

I'm glad to see there is interest in understanding the cause of the so-called collapses. However all your questions have been addressed in detail elsewhere. I would refer you to the list of links on the left hand side of this page; you will find them to be well reseached and quite helpful.

[911realtruth]

"This was the first time in history that fire had caused a steel-framed building to collapse."

And you don't see the logical fallacy in this statement?

If this were a controlled demolition, than it would be the first time in history a building over 24 stories was imploded. ERGO, it could NOT be a controlled demolition.

Funny how your picture even shows the steel core of the Madrid building collapsing!

You did know the all steel parts of the building did collapse and only the concrete core remained standing? Of course the towers didn't have such a core, it was all steel.

[DGM]

The name of the woman in your post is Edna Clintron. Apparently she didn't get the memo that the fires were not that bad, she jumped to her death (along with several others).

[Sheila Casey]

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth has an excellent website on the proof for controlled demolition in the towers, see http://ae911truth.org

Over 400 licensed architects and engineers have posted their photos and statements on that site, giving the technical explanations for why the official story doesn't hold water. Highly recommended.

[b. j. edwards]

I'd ask yourself where you got the story you wrote above and why you believe it.

See: http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2008/06/for-sheila-casey.html