Steel framed builing partially collapsed today

Lots of dustification and a nice pyroclastic flow,too.

Two years ago, students from this university were given a summer project to examine the claims of Loose Change. They appeared in the same Zembla program that featured Danny Jowenko. The students came to the conclusion that nothing in Loose Change stood up to scrutiny.
 
On the topic of partial collapse versus complete collapse, we have to remember that a huge section of both tower cores survived the collapses (maybe as much as all the way up to the impact zone in the south tower and about 60 floors in the north tower). The cores did collapse eventually, but not from the fires, likely from falling debris crushing their bases. So if truthers want to argue about fires only ever causing partial collapses in steel-framed buildings (even though this isn't true anyway), shouldn't we remember that in a sense, the collapse of the towers were partial collapses which left huge sections of the buildings still intact? And even once the cores failed, 6 floors of the north tower's core remained standing with 14 people inside, as did huge sections of the exterior facades which had to be cut with torches during cleanup.

Just something to remember, since truthers put so much emphasis on partial collapse.
 
RKOwens4 said:
On the topic of partial collapse versus complete collapse, we have to remember that a huge section of both tower cores survived the collapses (maybe as much as all the way up to the impact zone in the south tower and about 60 floors in the north tower). The cores did collapse eventually, but not from the fires, likely from falling debris crushing their bases. So if truthers want to argue about fires only ever causing partial collapses in steel-framed buildings (even though this isn't true anyway), shouldn't we remember that in a sense, the collapse of the towers were partial collapses which left huge sections of the buildings still intact? And even once the cores failed, 6 floors of the north tower's core remained standing with 14 people inside, as did huge sections of the exterior facades which had to be cut with torches during cleanup.

Just something to remember, since truthers put so much emphasis on partial collapse.
Click to expand...

Truthers would tell you you're stretching it by claiming only six floors remaining in WTC 1 constitutes a "partial collapse".
 
Wasn't anywhere near worth the losses just to prove a point but...

I'd like to ask the truth movement supporters here, especially those who have claimed engineering knowledge yet reject the notion of progressive collapse of the WTC towers sustained by gravity alone, a few questions about this recent event in the Netherlands:

1. Why didn't the intact unburned floors below the collapsing sections "arrest" the collapse? Why didn't the steel framework of the collapsing section get "tangled" in the intact framework below and remain standing?

2. How could it fall at near free-fall speed? What destroyed the "resistance" of the floors below the collapse initiation zone?

3. If the collapse was driven by gravity, how could all that debris have been ejected horizontally?

4. Since one column or another must have been the first to fail, how could the falling section remain nearly horizontal along the left-right axis as it fell? We can see at about 0:44 of the first video, all the front columns giving way almost simultaneously. Are we supposed to believe all those columns just happened to fail at the same moment?

5. And yet, it's also clear from the video that the columns on the wall nearer the camera failed first, with the center and rear layers of the wing falling later. Since the foreground columns gave way first, how come the whole upper section ended up falling straight down instead of toppling forward?

Could it be that (1) intact structures can't resist the dynamic load of several floors falling on them from above; (2) the resistance, while substantial and able to reduce the acceleration considerably, doesn't make much difference to the total collapse time; (3) collisions and the release of elastic strain energy during the collapse propel some debris (especially from exterior panels) sideways; (4) rapid load redistribution beyond the reserve capacity of the columns can result in a rapid horizontal progression of failure at the onset of the collapse; and (5) the top section cannot topple because the supposed pivot point for toppling cannot bear the strain and collapses downward before enough rotation can take place to cause toppling?

Or is the answer again (1) explosives, (2) explosives, (3) explosives, (4) explosives, and (5) explosives?

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
RKOwens4 said:
On the topic of partial collapse versus complete collapse, we have to remember that a huge section of both tower cores survived the collapses (maybe as much as all the way up to the impact zone in the south tower and about 60 floors in the north tower). The cores did collapse eventually, but not from the fires, likely from falling debris crushing their bases. So if truthers want to argue about fires only ever causing partial collapses in steel-framed buildings (even though this isn't true anyway), shouldn't we remember that in a sense, the collapse of the towers were partial collapses which left huge sections of the buildings still intact? And even once the cores failed, 6 floors of the north tower's core remained standing with 14 people inside, as did huge sections of the exterior facades which had to be cut with torches during cleanup.

Just something to remember, since truthers put so much emphasis on partial collapse.
Click to expand...


you like videos.

here a little video about the spire

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=nHxDdbdsCDY
 
The Delft Uni building only had fires on one floor (well, visible fires, that is)
 
uk_dave said:
All along 'truthers' have been assuring us that steel framed structures cannot collapse through fires and that the sounds of explosions must be bombs.
Click to expand...

Do you mean all 'truthers', or just some of them? Because if you mean all, you're lying.

BTW, wtc7.net says

According to the government, fires, primarily, leveled this building, but fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper.
Click to expand...

So, if this building qualifies as a skyscraper, he's going to have to change that. Does it?
 
Can anybody post close-ups of the rubble? I'd be very interested to see this.
 
Last edited:
metamars said:
Do you mean all 'truthers', or just some of them? Because if you mean all, you're lying.

BTW, wtc7.net says



So, if this building qualifies as a skyscraper, he's going to have to change that. Does it?
Click to expand...



Actually he should change it regardless. The government does not contend that it was primarily fires that levelled the building.
 
metamars said:
Do you mean all 'truthers', or just some of them? Because if you mean all, you're lying.
Click to expand...

I assume you're a twoofer, since you can't seem to read.
Now, read it with me!

All along
"truthers"

That's what he's saying!

uk_dave said:
All along 'truthers' have been assuring us that steel framed structures cannot collapse through fires and that the sounds of explosions must be bombs.
Click to expand...

See?

Two parts! You see? Even a German can do it and if a German can do it, you can, too! :)
 
Is it certain that the building in Delft was steel-framed?

In this article, faculty head Wytze Patijn says it had a concrete frame:
Het gebouw is veertig jaar oud en bestaat uit dertien etages en heeft een betonskeletbouwconstructie met liftschachten die voor de stabiliteit zorgen.
Click to expand...
Translated (by me): The building is 40 years old and consists of 13 floors and has a concrete frame with elevator-shafts providing stability.
 
Last edited:
So the title of this thread is a lie.

OP get the thread title changed to concrete building partially collapsed.
 
That fire lasted for how many HOURS?

There was enough steel on the 81st level of the south tower to hold how many more stories?

But the south tower collapsed after 56 MINUTES destroying 70+ stories below which couldn't have been affected by the fire.

Whose side does this example help?

psik
 
mrbaracuda said:
I assume you're a twoofer, since you can't seem to read.
Now, read it with me!

All along
"truthers"

That's what he's saying!



See?

Two parts! You see? Even a German can do it and if a German can do it, you can, too! :)
Click to expand...

You haven't answered my question. Believe it or not, the English language allows for a lot of ambiguity. That's one reason a lot of arguments get bogged down in word parsing - it's not necessarily an attempt to be difficult.

I doubt the situation is much different in German, but you be the judge of that, OK?

When I read
All along 'truthers' have been assuring us that steel framed structures cannot collapse through fires and that the sounds of explosions must be bombs.
Click to expand...

the question that arises in my mind is whether the author means

All along all 'truthers' have been assuring us that steel framed structures cannot collapse through fires and that the sounds of explosions must be bombs.
Click to expand...


or

All along some 'truthers' have been assuring us that steel framed structures cannot collapse through fires and that the sounds of explosions must be bombs.
Click to expand...


If the former, then the author is lying. At least in English....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom