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

[LastChild]

Because we're still waiting for you to provide an example of another skyscraper with the WTC design being rammed by an airliner.

What's the holdup?

And I'm waiting for you to provide an example of a high-rise that has suffered global collapse because of anything other then explosives.

What's the holdup?

And why was the Windsor building posted in the op? What's that an example of? How buildings don't suffer global collapse from fire?

 

[LastChild]

Thought so.

If an aircraft of any type size collides with a building of any type and size, than it is EXACTLY THE SAME as what occurred on 9/11.

Got it.

What's the premise of the op genius?

 

[CHF]

From a New Mexico explosives expert:

Ah yes, it's been a while since we heard about Romero. That's the guy who made a "looks like" observation after 9/11 and has been quoted by twoofers ever since - even though he doesn't believe there was a demoliton.

Notice also that the quote has Romero saying "he believes still it is possible."

Then along comes Swing Dangler to proclaim that this "pressure pulse" actually took place.

 

[X]

Twoofer science at its best.

I thought he was being sarcastic.

 

[DGM]

What's the premise of the op genius?

So why can't fire cause a building to collapse if it can cause partial collapse?

 

[CHF]

And I'm waiting for you to provide an example of a high-rise that has suffered global collapse because of anything other then explosives.

What's the holdup?

And why was the Windsor building posted in the op? What's that an example of. How buildings don't suffer global collapse from fire?

So you have no other examples of a skyscraper with the WTC design being hit by an airliner. I didn't think so.

This begs an obvious question, LC: if you have no other examples of this happening, how on earth do you know how such a situation should have played out?

 

[Shalamar]

What's the premise of the op genius?

YOU are the one that posted the C-130 partially crashing into a 10 story building.

What was your point? Or are you just ignoring the OP?

 

[LastChild]

So you have no other examples of a skyscraper with the WTC design being hit by an airliner. I didn't think so.

This begs an obvious question, LC: if you have no other examples of this happening, how on earth do you know how such a situation should have played out?

I don't know... How would the Easter Bunny vs Godzilla play out?

What's your expert opinion? Maybe you should get Mackey to help you.

 

[tsig]

That depands. Can you think of an example of a 90+ story building with the WTC design that had a huge fire after a jet impact or being struck by a fall skyscraper?

Because if you can't then your argument basically boils down to this: "on 9/11 were saw a set of unprecedented circumstances which resulted in unprecedented things."

To which one might say: DUH!

I like that argument.

Can anyone show two 110 story building that were struck by airliners with10,000 gallons of jet-A at 500 mph and did not fall. Maybe one that was struck by debris and burned for seven and did not fall.

Stuff happens every day. It's just when every day becomes "that' day then coincidences matter.

 

[CHF]

I don't know

It took a while but you finally uttered those three magic words.

Give yourself a pat on the back, LC.

 

[CHF]

I like that argument.

Can anyone show two 110 story building that were struck by airliners with10,000 gallons of jet-A at 500 mph and did not fall. Maybe one that was struck by debris and burned for seven and did not fall.

Stuff happens every day. It's just when every day becomes "that' day then coincidences matter.

Here's the entrance exam to join the twoof movement. It consists of one question.

"Even though it's only happened twice in history, and both cases resulted in collapse, is it possible for a building with the WTC's design to collapse as a result of jet impact and fire?"

If your answer is "NO FRIGGIN' WAY!" then you're in!

 

[tsig]

Oh look....another situation that didn't match the WTC.

I can just imagine how you'd investigate a suicide death, LastChild.

"Well the victim was found next to a shotgun, with his head blown off, and with a shotgun slug lodged in the ceiling over the body....

BUT.....there was this case once where someone took a 22 cal bullet in the head and SURVIVED....so clearly something else must have killed this guy."

Seems clear to me that ceiling cat did it. With the '45 in the observatory.

 

[tsig]

Pressure pulses before the collapse? Show me.

I sometimes get pressure pulses then it collapses. I think the twoofers do the same.

 

[aggle-rithm]

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.

Please take a look at the thread topic and try again.

 

[tsig]

Here's the entrance exam to join the twoof movement. It consists of one question.

"Even though it's only happened twice in history, and both cases resulted in collapse, is it possible for a building with the WTC's design to collapse as a result of jet impact and fire?"

If your answer is "NO FRIGGIN' WAY!" then you're in!

Most especially if you lack any training or education in structural mechanics. Information rolls off twoofers like water off a duck's back. I wonder when they will discover gravity?

 

[cisco]

And I'm waiting for you to provide an example of a high-rise that has suffered global collapse because of anything other then explosives.

What's the holdup?

We're waiting for an example of a building over 47 storeys that has been taken down by controlled demolition. It's never happened before, but you claim it happened 3 times on 9/11!

What's the holdup?

 

[cisco]

Evidently much smaller but for some reason much stronger then the WTC.

I'll admit to only rudimentary knowledge of engineering, but don't structures inherently get weaker as they get larger? Wouldn't the 110-storey WTC be necessarily weaker than a 10 storey building of similar construction? And if they weren't of similar construction, then what's your argument, anyway, LastChild? Can an engineering type confirm or deny, please.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I guess they really know how to build them in Iran.

[derail]

Actually, no... they don't "know how to build them in Iran" at all.

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/winter-2008/full-dear-mr-president.html

Finally, changing my gear and tone a little, I want to mention another kind of advantage altogether. Iran is scheduled to suffer from a devastating earthquake in the very near future. Its capital, Tehran, is built on a cobweb of fault-lines: a predicament not improved by the astonishing amount of illegal and uninspected construction that takes place, thanks to corruption and incompetence, within its perimeter. After the catastrophic earthquake in the city of Bam in 2003, some Iranian bureaucrats mooted that the capital, or at least some of the more crucial ministries, be moved to Esfahan. This is the city, I might remind you, where we still suspect that covert underground nuclear facilities have been built. And what will be their fate in the event of an earthquake? I want to underline what might be called a seismic imperative. A serious earthquake in Iran could wreak untold damage not just on the Iranian people but on their neighbors, and the clerical regime is doing nothing to prepare for this eventuality or to protect against it. Instead, a large share of the budget is being spent on a grandiose nuclear program, the benefits of which (were its intentions to be certifiably peaceful) the United States could provide to Iran without any noticeable strain.

At some point in the future, shoddy Iranian construction will kill tens of thousands of Iranians.

[/derail]

 

[DGM]

We're waiting for an example of a building over 47 storeys that has been taken down by controlled demolition. It's never happened before, but you claim it happened 3 times on 9/11!

What's the holdup?

You know that's right. That makes controlled demolition impossible.

Time to pack it up "truthers".

 

[CHF]

We're waiting for an example of a building over 47 storeys that has been taken down by controlled demolition. It's never happened before, but you claim it happened 3 times on 9/11!

What's the holdup?

Indeed, the "it's never happened before" argument sounds pretty silly coming from people who believe that 9/11 also featured...

- the first top-down demolitions
- the first thermite demolitions
- the first demolitions using bombs that made so little noise that it wasn't captured on audio
- the first buildings to be rigged up for demolition in secret with no one noticing
- the first demolitions to leave "molten steel" hanging around....for weeks!
- the first demolition set-ups to have airliners flown into them (and they still worked!)
- the first demoltions to have bombs explode in the basement and yet have the building collapse from the top
- the first demolitions with enough explosive power to blast the building into dust and eject heavy debris laterally

Then there's also the first known use of real-time voice morphing technology, the first ever missile strike that looked to witnesses like an airliner....

The list goes on and on.