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

[aggle-rithm]

Can you say where a 90 or more story building has completely collapsed because of fire alone?

So the answer is no, you CAN'T say why a building cannot collapse from fire if the fire is localized somewhere around the 90th floor on a 110-story building.

I assumed that was the case, now you have effectively confirmed it.

 

[Belz...]

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

And how does that help you ?

 

[Belz...]

You cant see a difference between fire collapsing a small steel portion of the windsor tower (After hours of burning) and fire destroyong TWO 110 storey buildings pretty much completely, after only 1 or 2 hours?

A small portion ? The entire upper section of the building collapsed EXCEPT for the concrete parts. The WTC didn't have concrete structural elements.

It is up to the official story defenders to show it could.

It's up to us to show that buildings can collapse ? That should be a relief to architects.

The damage isn't in the question. Stop moving the goalposts.

You don't think the aircraft damage to the towers is relevant ?????

 

[Swing Dangler]

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?

Perhaps the question should be, why didn't the Windsor Building completely collapse?

Can anyone answer that?

 

[LastChild]

Remember those airliners?

Remember the OP?

"If fire can destroy PART of a building why can it not destroy ALL of a building?"

I don't see anything about airliners there.

 

[CHF]

Perhaps the question should be, why didn't the Windsor Building completely collapse?

Can anyone answer that?

Certainly.

It had a concrete core and an exterior structure that was concrete enforced up to (if I recall correctly) the 14th floor - which is exactly where the collapse stopped.

The fact that twoofers continue to refer to the Madrid fire as proof that steel buildings cannot collapse from fire shows what pathetically lazy researchers they are.

 

[DGM]

Remember the OP?

"If fire can destroy PART of a building why can it not destroy ALL of a building?"

I don't see anything about airliners there.

So why can't it?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Perhaps the question should be, why didn't the Windsor Building completely collapse?

Can anyone answer that?

Different building behave differently. This is obvious to engineers but truthers can't figure out. Why do unreinforced masonry buildings crumble in earthquakes but steel moment framed buildings generally do okay? Why do some concrete buildings fail and others don't? It's because they're different. They behave differently.

And of course, there was no impact damage @ Windsor.

 

[LastChild]

So the answer is no, you CAN'T say why a building cannot collapse from fire if the fire is localized somewhere around the 90th floor on a 110-story building.

I assumed that was the case, now you have effectively confirmed it.

So the answer is no, you CAN'T say why a building can collapse from fire if the fire is localized somewhere around the 90th floor on a 110-story building.

That's why the Windsor building was still standing or any other high-rise that matter that has experienced a fire.

It has never happened.

 

[CHF]

So the answer is no, you CAN'T say why a building can collapse from fire if the fire is localized somewhere around the 90th floor on a 110-story building.

That's why the Windsor building was still standing or any other high-rise that matter that has experienced a fire.

It has never happened.

CONCRETE vs steel. Which does better against fire?

Just say it, LastChild: "on 9/11 were saw a set of unprecedented circumstances which resulted in unprecedented things."

That's basically your argument.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Perhaps the question should be, why didn't the Windsor Building completely collapse?

Can anyone answer that?

Post #11, this thread.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

I still think you should write up the Unevaluated Inequality Fallacy for Wikipedia. It's a good one.

Notability guidelines, unfortunately, get in the way.

The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines. Note WP:Verifiability: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

I think that means I can't put it in Wikipedia until someone's written an article about it somewhere else.

Dave

 

[LastChild]

CONCRETE vs steel. Which does better against fire?

Just say it, LastChild: "on 9/11 were saw a set of unprecedented circumstances which resulted in unprecedented things."

That's basically your argument.

No. What was unprecedented?

Has a plane never hit a high-rise?

Has a high-rise never been on fire?


Has any other high-rise ever suffered global collapse because of these things? Because that's the only thing that's unprecedented.

 

[CHF]

No. What was unprecedented?

Has a plane never hit a high-rise?

Has a high-rise never been on fire?


Has any other high-rise ever suffered global collapse because of these things? Because that's the only thing that's unprecedented.

9/11 saw the first airline impacts of skyscrapers.

9/11 saw the first massive fire burn in a skyscraper with the WTCs design (no concrete support).

THEREFOR....9/11 saw the first skyscrapers collapse from fire and jet impact.

Stop pretending that the events of 9/11 can be accurately compared to a host of other building fires.

 

[funk de fino]

So the answer is no, you CAN'T say why a building can collapse from fire if the fire is localized somewhere around the 90th floor on a 110-story building.

That's why the Windsor building was still standing or any other high-rise that matter that has experienced a fire.

It has never happened.

Definition of progressive collapse in the following.

https://pdc.usace.army.mil/library/ufc/4-023-03/def_of_pc.pdf

http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse%20presentations/HallSohn%20Paper.pdf

Progressive collapse denotes an extensive structural failure initiated by local structural damage, or a chain reaction of failures following damage to a relatively small portion of a structure. This can be also characterized by the loss of load-carrying capacity of a relatively small portion of a structure due to an abnormal load which, in turn, triggers a cascade of failures affecting a major portion of the structure.

http://www.aisc.org/Content/ContentGroups/Documents/freePubs/Blast_Symposium_Proceedings.pdf

Progressive collapse is the collapse of all or a large part of a structure precipitated by damage or
failure of a relatively small part of it. The phenomenon is of particular concern since progressive
collapse is often (though not always) disproportionate, i.e., the collapse is out of proportion to
the event that triggers it. Thus, in structures susceptible to progressive collapse, small events can
have catastrophic consequences.

Collapse of a 11 storey building due to fire

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3432163.stm

If a high rise building cannot collapse due to fires near the top then why do they put fire proofing on the steel frame all the way to the top?

Why not just fire proof the bottom of the frame?

 

[funk de fino]

No. What was unprecedented?

Has a plane never hit a high-rise?

Has a plane ever hit a steel framed high rise before at that speed?

Has a high-rise never been on fire?

Has a 110 storey steel framed building ever had fires that large before?

Has any other high-rise ever suffered global collapse because of these things? Because that's the only thing that's unprecedented.

Does not mean it cannot happen does it? There is always a first time for evrything. Like you actually getting something right about 911

 

[LastChild]

 

[funk de fino]

The fire was mainly confined to the 11th floor and was fought

You point was?

Any reply to the other points or is that too inconvenient for you?

 

[AZCat]

You don't know what a tall building is? Good grief!

What's your criteria? I usually go with the NFPA/ICC definition.

 

[Belz...]

Can you say where a 90 or more story building has completely collapsed because of fire alone?

None have done so in history as far as I know.

I think you meant "fire AND large airliners crashing into them OR large buildings collapsing onto them."