• 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?

lapman said:
You can't see the difference between the steel portions of the Windsor tower collapsing SOLELY due to fire and the towers collapsing due to fire AND EXTENSIVE STRUCTURAL DAMAGE. Why do you keep taking the damage out of the equation?
Click to expand...

The damage isn't in the question. Stop moving the goalposts.
 
JHarrow said:
Why does it follow?

There are no examples of complete collapse of tall buildings due to fire, except on 911.

Partial collapse are to be expected in certain types of building. Total collapses have never occured.
Click to expand...
Move the goal posts. How many buildings that have been hit by airliners have survived when their fire systems were destroyed? Zip. Sorry, but you leave out evidence.

And building that did burn for a long time on many floors were destroyed by fire. Madrid - gone. One Meridian Plaza - gone! Destroyed by fire! Fire weakened the steel, building gone.

Hundreds of steel building have failed in fire. Fires not fought cause building to fail. On 9/11 had the fire fighting system not failed and there was water, the firemen could have fought WTC7 and maybe saved it from falling, if not total destruction like One Meridian Plaza, and the Madrid Windsor building.

It is funny watching truthers present a building with steel sections failing in the first few hours and the building was torn down due to fire! Funny, and only showing how shallow the research and knowledge of all in 9/11 truth are.

All of 9/11 truth is woefully ignorant of fire, fire fighting, energy, flying, structures, physics, and evidence on 9/11.

Acting so cool and ignoring the impact energy alone could cut all the WTC tower columns of steel! On purpose ignoring the energy! 2,839,000,000 joules of impact KE (kinetic energy) for Flight 11, and 4,380,000,000 joules of impact KE (kinetic energy) for Flight 175. Ignoring a 1360 pound and 2093 pound TNT bomb! How nice to ignore the impact which destroyed the fire control systems and dooming the towers;
Leslie E. Robertson said: on being hit by a commercial jet -
" It appears that about 25,000 people safely exited the buildings, almost all of them from below the impact floors; almost everyone above the impact floors perished, either from the impact and fire or from the subsequent collapse. The structures of the buildings were heroic in some ways but less so in others. The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed."
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument
Click to expand...
The Chief Structural Engineer of the WTC said the WTC failed due to impact and fire! So who is your expert? 9/11 truth; pure failure to understand and use logic? 9/11 truth void of facts and evidence to the end
 
Last edited:
JHarrow said:
The damage isn't in the question. Stop moving the goalposts.
Click to expand...

Uh. You are saying 'well, total collapse isn't possible because the Windsor Hotel didn't collapse'

The thing is, he's pointing out that the Windsor Hotel is not analgous. It didn't suffer severe structural damage. Therefore, he didn't move the goalposts.

Please answer the question.
 
LastChild said:
No. If you dropped a bag of cement on your head you might be killed depending on where it was dropped from. If you dropped an open bag of cement the impact would be less.

If you stacked 20 bags of cement on top of each other and ripped open the 17th bag up the 3 above it might eventually fall. Probably over the side if at all but never straight through the lower 16.
Click to expand...

Does NIST know of this?
 
JHarrow said:
The damage isn't in the question. Stop moving the goalposts.
Click to expand...
This coming from someone that refuses to answer the question. The fact that you and LC are harping on the WTC buildings collapsing due to fire shows that you are ignoring the damage.
 
JHarrow said:
It is up to the official story defenders to show it could.

It doesn't follow that because a few steel members failed in a fire then all 47 core columns in wtc would fail and completely destroy the building.

If complete collapse was so rational and logical why would 300 firefighters go into the towers? They did not think those towers would collapse, why is that?
Click to expand...

How do you know that they did not fear its collapse? Is it possible that they thought it could collapse but went in anyway, because they knew there were people inside needing assistance?
 
GStan said:
How do you know that they did not fear its collapse? Is it possible that they thought it could collapse but went in anyway, because they knew there were people inside needing assistance?
Click to expand...


No way would they risk that many firefighters for what was an almost impossible rescue mission.

They had no idea it would collapse. Nobody did.
 
JHarrow said:
The damage isn't in the question. Stop moving the goalposts.
Click to expand...

The fires began because of the damage. Or to put it another way, when the planes hit the buildings, the fires started. As for Salomon Bros, the fires started with the debris of the collapsing WTC 1&2.

You can't separate the impact and the fires (in a general sense). So when you say "no such-and-such type of buildings ever collapsed due to fire" you intentionally leave out the damage from the planes.

Say! Would that, perhaps, be your purpose? How underhanded. Too bad it's so obvious that any nincompoop can see what you are doing. And I'm proud to be that nincompoop. (Just ask my wife of 29 yrs 11 mos 350 days).
 
LastChild said:
chillzero,

What pecentage of say WTC1 would you say was on fire? (And we're not talking about the foundation are we?)

What percentage of WTC1 would you say suffered collapse?
Click to expand...

Look up the definition of progressive collapse before you make a fool of yourself.
 
JHarrow said:
No way would they risk that many firefighters for what was an almost impossible rescue mission.

They had no idea it would collapse. Nobody did.
Click to expand...

If they had "no idea" Why'd they pull the fire fighters out?

Why do they call it a collapse zone? I know you claimed it was for "partial collapse", but if partial collapse is possible, why not full collapse?
 
Last edited:
JHarrow said:
It is up to the official story defenders to show it could.
Click to expand...

No, reality showed that it could. It's up to 'truthers' to prove their alternative reality.

Prove it was impossible for the damage sustained by the wtc towers to lead to catastrophic structural failure.

Similarily, prove that it was impossible for the damage sustained by wtc7 to lead to the catastrophic structural failure of that building.
 
R.Mackey said:
Completely false analogy. If your head was wide enough that all of the ton of sand would impact it, the change in momentum would be the same at impact, and both would kill you.

The boulder in some situations actually delivers less damage, because it can ricochet in a coherent fashion, and its material strength can absorb some of the energy. Look up "dead blow hammer." This is also why aircraft midair collisions are sometimes survivable, but an aircraft flying through a flock of geese is going to have a bad day guaranteed.
Click to expand...

All we have to do is put a sheet of plywood over his head and try the experiment

note: not recommending this.
 
JHarrow said:
There are no examples of complete collapse of tall buildings due to fire, except on 911.
Click to expand...
There are no examples of multiple aircraft being hijacked and flown into buildings, except on 9/11. There are no examples of a 110 story building collapsing for any reason, except on 9/11. The list can go on and on. The question is a simple one that does not require any examples. If a fire can cause a partial collapse, why can't it cause a complete collapse?
 
This is going entirely off quoted material so maybe I'm missing something, but...

LastChild and JHarrow, stop bickering and just answer the question.

You are clearly convinced that "complete collapse" is impossible. We understand; we get that that's what you believe. But unfortunately that's not the question of this thread. I never once asked you "do you think complete collapse is impossible", what I asked you is WHY. You have ignored this simple question and opted instead to derail the debate into something you think you can win (ironically, you are still losing, but that's beside the point).


It's not that complicated. It's not rocket science. All it is is you justifying what you have already made perfectly clear that you believe. Since you believe so vehemently that "complete collapse" is impossible, it should not be that difficult to explain WHY you believe that.

For the umpteenth time:

If fire can destroy PART of a building why can it not destroy ALL of a building? Unless your "first time in history" fallacy is supposed to be your answer, I don't see an answer anywhere in this thread.
 
Last edited:
lapman said:
There are no examples of multiple aircraft being hijacked and flown into buildings, except on 9/11. There are no examples of a 110 story building collapsing for any reason, except on 9/11. The list can go on and on. The question is a simple one that does not require any examples. If a fire can cause a partial collapse, why can't it cause a complete collapse?
Click to expand...
There are no examples of JHarrow or LastChild answering a simple, relevant, direct question, therefore it cannot happen.


If fire can cause partial collapse of a building why can't it cause total collapse of a building?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom