• 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?

aggle-rithm said:
Once again, this doesn't answer the question. In fact, it doesn't address the question in any way.

Are you having trouble understanding the question? Would you like someone to explain it to you?
Click to expand...

I think the closest LC will ever get to answering the question is when he admitted that he has no other examples of 9/11's circumstances, and thus no idea how it all should have panned out.

Meanwhile, it's been shown that fire can indeed cause a steel-structure to collapse. Combine that with the fact that the WTC buildings had no concrete core or concrete supports and he's left with no reason why a partial collapse cannot lead to complete collapse, other than "well I've never seen a collapse like the WTC before" - something that is explained by his continued inability to find another case that is even remotely similar to 9/11.

Twoofers know the answer to the question but can't say it without having to let go of some cherished talking points.
 
LastChild said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3432163.stm

"The governor of Cairo said the building did not have planning permission for its 11 storeys - it had approval for just four floors

Sources said the blaze possibly started in a cellar storing flammable materials, causing several explosions.. "

What's your next comparison a controlled demolition?
Click to expand...

fire started and complete collapse of building ensued

fail again LC
 
CHF said:
I think the closest LC will ever get to answering the question is when he admitted that he has no other examples of 9/11's circumstances, and thus no idea how it all should have panned out.

Meanwhile, it's been shown that fire can indeed cause a steel-structure to collapse. Combine that with the fact that the WTC buildings had no concrete core or concrete supports and he's left with no reason why a partial collapse cannot lead to complete collapse, other than "well I've never seen a collapse like the WTC before" - something that is explained by his continued inability to find another case that is even remotely similar to 9/11.

Twoofers know the answer to the question but can't say it without having to let go of some cherished talking points.
Click to expand...

The OP has been ....

Answered
here

Answered
here

Answered
here

Finally put to rest
here
 
Last edited:
The South Korean Sampoong Department Store collapsed in 1995, according to the 'truth'er approach that implosion must have been a controlled demolition not sub standard construction as the 'official story' says.
 
LastChild said:
The OP has been ....

Answered
here

Answered
here

Answered
here

Finally put to rest
here
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I said: you have no precedence on which to judge the events of 9/11 and you have no clue how it should have panned out.

All you have are some situations that were different from 9/11 and thus didn't end the same way as 9/11. For some reason you find this totally baffling.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
:rolleyes:
Lastchild, why is it that truthers always think that lying for the truth is not an oxymoron ?

No buiding of the towers' size had collapsed before 9/11. That you interpret that as some sort of proof that it's impossibel for such towers to collapse is your problem, not mine.
Click to expand...

Why is it that people with beliefs such as yours desperately rely on mockery and calling people liars in order to puff up the feeble argument for the Official Theory?

The problem becomes yours Belz when the consequences of believing the official 9/11 lies is ultimately faced in the near future.

Enjoy your "fool's paradise" while it lasts.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
The problem becomes yours Belz when the consequences of believing the official 9/11 lies is ultimately faced in the near future.

Enjoy your "fool's paradise" while it lasts.

MM
Click to expand...

Sounds like a threat! You planning a coup, MM?

:dl:
 
1337m4n said:
This thread is solely to focus on the question:

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

Simply put, because modern concrete & steel buildings are largely composed of non-combustible materials!

Talk about asking a stupid question.

MM
 
CHF said:
Sounds like a threat! You planning a coup, MM?
Click to expand...

I'm happy you are so optimistic about your future CHF.

doglaugh.gif


MM
 
Miragememories said:
Simply put, because modern concrete & steel buildings are largely composed of non-combustible materials!

Talk about asking a stupid question.

MM
Click to expand...

So are the parts that are composed of combustible materials the parts that can collapse while the other parts cannot?
 
You answered this:

OP said:
If "partial collapse" is POSSIBLE why is "complete collapse" IMPOSSIBLE?
Click to expand...

with this:

MM said:
Simply put, because modern concrete & steel buildings are largely composed of non-combustible materials!
Click to expand...

and then to my question:

Miragememories said:
Is that a submission for dumbest question of the week?

MM
Click to expand...

Your claim is that because modern concrete & steel buildings are composed of non combustible materials, they can partially collapse but not completely collapse. I was trying to get you to clarify an obviously uninformed incredulous position regarding expected building performance capabilities. Your dodge, of even a simple question, is noted.

ETA: What conditions can result in a partial collapse that would not be also applicable to the entire structure?
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
Why is it that people with beliefs such as yours desperately rely on mockery and calling people liars in order to puff up the feeble argument for the Official Theory?
Click to expand...

Because logic and reason doesn't work on you. All that is left is comedy.

The problem becomes yours Belz when the consequences of believing the official 9/11 lies is ultimately faced in the near future.

Enjoy your "fool's paradise" while it lasts.
Click to expand...

Is that a threat ? It would be vaguely amusing if not for the slight chance that you actually believe what you type. Do you REALLY believe that my world will be shattered by your ridiculous movement ? You're just a bunch of lifeless children who are using the internet to give yourselves a sense of importance and belonging. You'd never risk bursting your dreamworld by actually doing something about it.
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
I'm happy you are so optimistic about your future CHF.
Click to expand...

Sure am...planning on having a kid soon, the job's going well, Bush is out of office in less than a year, and you've been reduced to rambling about the "consequences" that face those of us silly enough to laugh at your brilliance.

What's not to be optimistic about?
 
CHF said:
Sure am...planning on having a kid soon, the job's going well, Bush is out of office in less than a year, and you've been reduced to rambling about the "consequences" that face those of us silly enough to laugh at your brilliance.

What's not to be optimistic about?
Click to expand...

Climate change?:rolleyes:

[/derail]
 
So what have we got so far? Let’s see...

In trying to support their claim that it was possible for the WTC buildings to suffer complete global collapse after damage to a few floors near the top and pockets of fire after less then an hour the debunkers have pointed to the following…

1. A highway overpass suffered partial collapse after a fuel tanker crashed and burned and sent one overpass crashing down onto a lower overpass. The lower overpass did not suffer collapse and supported the one that crashed down on top of it.

2. A poorly designed and built, four story toy factory, in a third world country, with un-insulated steel girders, that wasn’t even repaired yet from a previous fire, suffered collapse after a raging inferno engulfed the entire building.

3. The Windsor tower suffered only a partial collapse after a raging inferno burnt throughout the entire building for 24 hours.

4. A structure violating building regulations and codes collapsed in Egypt after an explosion in the basement and subsequent fire.

5. A cheap low cost pre-fab building in England suffered collapse to only one corner after an explosion took out a load-bearing wall while the rest of the building stood.

Does that about sum it all up? Hmmmm…I don’t know….. Are you sure you guys aren’t trying to build a case against the official version? You almost got me convinced. Got any more scary evidence you’re still scrapping from the bottom of the barrel?
 
Actually all we have to do is point at the buildings themselves. You have posed no credible alternative explanation for what happened yet (and likely never will).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom