• 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.

If "partial collapse" is POSSIBLE why is "complete collapse" IMPOSSIBLE?

LOL, next time do the darn experiment! Took 5 minutes for Noodle Model failure

Sizzler said:
Mackey; as a laymen, the sudden failure of the core seems counter-intuitive to me. How fire can cause a sudden failure of 47 vertical core columns is something I will never understand.

Humour me here for a second (stundie this if you want:) )

Imagine I took 47 dry spaghetti strands and stood them up vertically. Now I apply pressure on the top with my hand. Then I spray hot steam on one section of the 47 dry strands. Eventually the strands will lose strength but certainly not suddenly. It will be gradual, not sudden.

As laymen, I cannot, for the life of me understand the sudden failure of the core......:confused::confused:
Click to expand...
You cite the dumbest paper ever on 9/11 and the WTC failure; not only is the paper wrong, they had to publish them in a phony Journal. Then you take the time from impact to failure and call it sudden. You have no idea what you are doing. Sudden is how many minutes after impact? Since fire makes steel loose strength, it takes time, it is not sudden. When the failure begins it proceeds and accelerates; gravity takes over. Your failure to understand the real world with your noodle simile is noted; and I expect you took tons of stuff and put it on your noodle building top. Go ahead make your noodle model and see what happens! Done yet?


Oops, just did the 47 noodle steam failure mode and the top of my WTC-Noodle fell to earth due to gravity, and the noodles bent over and failed to support the top of the noodle-WTC building! Model confirms WTC gravity failure due to heat! Darn, you should do the stupid experiment like me instead of being wrong by making it up in your MIND.
 
I think of the collapse as a pyramid of cheerleaders (or normal people, whichever makes me seem less perverted). Once a small support fails, suddenly the entire squad goes down.


It may not be a very decent anaolgy, but it at least shows to me how things can collapse quickly.
 
Garb said:
I think of the collapse as a pyramid of cheerleaders (or normal people, whichever makes me seem less perverted). Once a small support fails, suddenly the entire squad goes down.
Click to expand...

I'm trying figure out why cheerleaders aren't normal people...;)
 
JHarrow said:
Debunkers keep arguing that the zone created around 7 showed that they knew it would collapse. This is untrue since collapse zones are standard round all high rise fires.
Click to expand...

Now you are the one who is lying, JHarrow.

The firefighters on the ground did predict the collpase. They knew it was coming down just from looking at it.



It's definitely coming down... there's no way to stop it. Because you have to go up in there to put it out and the structural integrity isn't there.

Do you understand what "there's no way to stop it" means, JHarrow? If all one had to do to keep WTC7 standing was simply not push the big red button, "there's no way to stop it" wouldn't be a true statement, would it?
 
Last edited:
Garb said:
I think of the collapse as a pyramid of cheerleaders (or normal people, whichever makes me seem less perverted). Once a small support fails, suddenly the entire squad goes down.


It may not be a very decent anaolgy, but it at least shows to me how things can collapse quickly.
Click to expand...
It is as good as my 47 noodles next to the tea kettle fire simulator and beer can top falling to the ground. He should have done his noodle experiment, it failed "all of a sudden". It scared me the third time, I left the kitchen and could not find the simulated WTC top. It had fallen on the floor simulated 700 feet below the impact zone for the steam. 5 minutes of heat and the strength of my simulated "Sizzler steel" failed to hold up a simple weight, do not use your hand, the steam will give you bad burns.

And he has failed to make simple analogies as you point out.
 
Sizzler said:
Mackey; as a laymen, the sudden failure of the core seems counter-intuitive to me. How fire can cause a sudden failure of 47 vertical core columns is something I will never understand.

Humour me here for a second (stundie this if you want:) )

Imagine I took 47 dry spaghetti strands and stood them up vertically. Now I apply pressure on the top with my hand. Then I spray hot steam on one section of the 47 dry strands. Eventually the strands will lose strength but certainly not suddenly. It will be gradual, not sudden.

As laymen, I cannot, for the life of me understand the sudden failure of the core......:confused::confused:
Click to expand...

Much of engineering is counterintuitive. That's why we keep insisting on seeing your calculations (using the "you" in the wide sense). If it were easy, anybody could do it. We wouldn't have to go to school for 5-6 years, Take an 8 hour test, and then spend years working in our field, after which we have to pass another 8 hour test ( and there are only 8 questions you get to work on) and submit recommendations by people who have already done the same thing, just so we can be an engineer.
 
JHarrow said:
As usual, you have completely missed the point of what you quoted.

Debunkers keep arguing that the zone created around 7 showed that they knew it would collapse. This is untrue since collapse zones are standard round all high rise fires.

Why did you not address that point before using my quote for this thread? Could you please address it now?
Click to expand...

As usual, you are attempting to derail the thread with irrelevant banter.

Is this thread about the collapse zones around WTC7? No.

If you would re-read my OP you would find that my use of your quote has nothing to do with collapse zones. I'm not using your quote to say anything about collapse zones. I'm using your quote to make the point that truthers admit that PARTIAL collapses are possible.

Do you dispute this point? If not, you have no business derailing my thread. Attempt it again and I will report you.



Now let's see you attempt to stay on topic and ANSWER MY QUESTION:

If fire can destroy PART of a building why can it not destroy ALL of a building?
 
Last edited:
I am getting REALLY tired of Truthers constantly ignoring my question and instead cherrypicking my OP, attempting derails, or giving blatant non-answers.


The next Truther to respond with something that is NOT an answer to my question is getting reported for derailing and getting placed on my Ignore list. I'm going zero-tolerance here.
 
1337m4n said:
I am getting REALLY tired of Truthers constantly ignoring my question and instead cherrypicking my OP, attempting derails, or giving blatant non-answers.
Click to expand...

Good luck. Ignoring questions, cherrypicking quotes, derailing, and getting lost in endless, mindless, irrelevant discussions about semantics is pretty much what they do.
 
1337m4n said:
I am getting REALLY tired of Truthers constantly ignoring my question and instead cherrypicking my OP, attempting derails, or giving blatant non-answers.


The next Truther to respond with something that is NOT an answer to my question is getting reported for derailing and getting placed on my Ignore list. I'm going zero-tolerance here.
Click to expand...

Welcome to ignore.
 
twinstead said:
Good luck. Ignoring questions, cherrypicking quotes, derailing, and getting lost in endless, mindless, irrelevant discussions about semantics is pretty much what they do.
Click to expand...
Especially one in particular, you know, the one with all the sock puppets...
 
1337m4n said:
From my other thread:



Truthers seem to acknowledge that it is fully reasonable for buildings to experience "partial collapses" due to fire. They even acknowledge this with regards to the Windsor building:

[qimg]http://www.debunking911.com/madrid.jpg[/qimg]

This building experienced a "partial collapse" due to nothing more than a really hot fire.

So logically one would assume that the WTC collapses are perfectly reasonable, right?

Not to the Truthers. According to them, the fact that Windsor only suffered "partial collapse" while WTC suffered "complete collapse" is somehow a critical distinction.





Anyone? Does this make sense to you? Anyone at all? Can someone explain to me how this is supposed to make sense?

If fire can destroy PART of a building why can it not destroy ALL of a building?
Click to expand...

What’s logical about a few burnt out structurally damaged floors pile driving through 70 floors of undamaged, not on fire, fully intact structure, offering virtually no resistance?

Does this happen much?
 
Just to point out...

Firstly, failure of the towers was uneven resulting in a twisting of the upper sections. I think it's obvious, if you think about, what happens if you have two steel core column sections bolted one atop the other and the top one is abruptly twisted and pulled violently to the side.

The moment those core columns are misaligned by about a foot (or about 0.5% of the overall building dimensions) the core column becomes irrelevant in preventing continuation of the collapse.

Second thought to offer up, collapse initiation in the case of WTC1 and WTC2 was not sudden at all. Bowing of the exterior columns was observed for a long period of time prior to collapse occurring. The actual failure was sudden, yes, but this is always the case with a fairly rigid brittle material like steel. Find a dry stick and bend it. See if it gradually splits or if it bends before suddenly snapping in half.
 
JHarrow said:
Welcome to ignore.
Click to expand...


Why can't you answer the question posed to you?

Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting LA LA LA LA, is not an answer.

Let me repeat it for you:

If fire can destroy PART of a building why can it not destroy ALL of a building?
 
Actually, it occured to me that all of the towers were not destroyed. There were those segments of the lower portions of the outer walls that were left, not to mention the portion of the core where the starway B survivors were in.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom