• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Quick guys - steel structures collapsing due to fire

Checkmite

Skepticifimisticalationist
Checkmite
Joined
Jun 7, 2002
Messages
29,007
Location
Gulf Coast
Can a get a couple of links for a few non-WTC examples please? Someone's arguing the whole "never happened before 9/11" thing, and I need something to counter it with.
 
Of course, when you bring these up the nutters will just come back with 'But no HIGH RISE steel structure has collapsed due to fire'.. as if infernos in tall buildings were an everyday occourance.
 
A good article on that is at debunking911 dot com. The "First Time In History" link goes into detail on the McCormick building, I believe.
 
kookbreaker said:
Of course, when you bring these up the nutters will just come back with 'But no HIGH RISE steel structure has collapsed due to fire'.. as if infernos in tall buildings were an everyday occourance.
Click to expand...

Most (if not all) high-rise fires before 9/11 were box-frame designs, unlike the WTC design.

Besides, how many high-rises have been hit by airliners before? How many had a 110 story building fall on it (WTC7)?
 
The CT's will laugh at some of those because they are nowhere near as big as the WTC, etc., etc.

Let's dial into 9/11 Mysteries....they show us a pancake collapse of a 4 story building, and ask us why the WTC didn't look like that. Well dummies, it's a different size building, duh.
 
Just point out to them, that by their logic, the Earth should be a barren ball of mud. Their entire argument from personal incredulity rests on the idea that lack of precident means it can't happen. Not to say that pointing out that even this argument is wrong, since there it prior evidence, but be sure to point out the sheer stupidity of their argument.
 
Using truther logic, the WTC weren't destroyed because they never existed. After all, no buildings that tall had ever been built before.
 
The fact that a 3 or 4 story building would collapse from fire just increases the odds that a skyscraper would collapse. The smaller buildings don't have the weight of all those upper floors bearing down on them. Tower 1 of the WTC had the weight of about a dozen floors bearing down on the damaged area. Tower 2 had twice that much. That guarantees a collapse.

Steve S.
 
Last edited:
Alareth said:
Using truther logic, the WTC weren't destroyed because they never existed. After all, no buildings that tall had ever been built before.
Click to expand...

One of my favorite answers to stupidity! The answer from twoofers, is always.....
 
steve s said:
The fact that a 3 or 4 story building would collapse from fire just increases the odds that a skyscraper would collapse. The smaller buildings don't have the weight of all those upper floors bearing down on them. Tower 1 of the WTC had the weight of about a dozen floors bearing down on the damaged area. Tower 2 had twice that much. That guarantees a collapse.

Steve S.
Click to expand...



Truther's don't understand the fairly basic idea that shorter smaller buildings tend to be stronger.

I've actually read a post by a Truther in which they claimed the towers were the strongest buildings in the world.

-Gumboot
 
What always amazes me isn't the fact that the buildings collapsed, it's how long they stayed up after the impacts and fire.
 
gumboot said:
Truther's don't understand the fairly basic idea that shorter smaller buildings tend to be stronger.

I've actually read a post by a Truther in which they claimed the towers were the strongest buildings in the world.
Click to expand...

Well, one way of looking at it is that the tallest buildings in the world have to be the strongest buildings in the world, in order to hold up their own weight. But that kind of "strong" doesn't translate into "resistant to collapse." Quite the contrary.

I've seen guys who weigh 500 pounds, who can walk and even climb stairs. That means they have to be very strong. Certainly a lot stronger than me; I don't think I'd be able to stand up, let alone climb stairs, if you loaded 310 extra pounds onto my body. But... push me and the 500-pound dude off a 4-foot ledge, which of us would be more likely to be able to walk away? (Depends, of course, on whether the 500-pound guy lands on me...)

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Sports Analogy:

They always tell you to bend your knees and get low. Hmm, probably because you have more leverage. Harder to knock you down. Same reason race cars don't have lift kits. Not that this is nessecarily a scientific explanation for any of this, but it does show you that common sense would tell you a small steel framed building should be stronger.


......I also liked how 9/11 Mysteries has the quotes, etc. from the engineers of the WTC, and they even tell you the portion of how the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a plane moving at SLOW speeds, lost in the fog. They contradict themselves so often it's just ridiculous.
 
kookbreaker said:
Of course, when you bring these up the nutters will just come back with 'But no HIGH RISE steel structure has collapsed due to fire'.. as if infernos in tall buildings were an everyday occourance.
Click to expand...
I got into this over the McCormick Place fires. The dimwit kept going on about how it didn't completely collapse. Duh. Each floor of the WTC towers had over an acre of rentable space. It was taller than it was wide.

I also point out this:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2311123&postcount=4
 
It's always worth asking why steel needs to be fireproofed if fire isn't a problem for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom