Carlos
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 285
Truthers,
Consider these two statements:
A - Fire can bring down steel structures buildings like Twin Towers.
B - The Twin Towers collapse was a controlled demolition.
It is quite possible to believe that both statements are true. If you believe that "B" is true you don't need to believe "A" is false.
In other words, if you believe there is sufficient evidence that explosives were used in the towers, it does not mean that you have to believe that the collapse due to fire would be impossible.
So what are the arguments that support the claim that fire can not bring down buildings?
Before answering, let me remind you some facts:
1 - Steel does lose strength at high temperatures.
2 - The fire protection were removed from the truss on the floors where the impact occurred.
3 - It is not necessary to remove all fire protection to make the structure susceptible to fire.
4 - The failure of a structural element can cause the failure of others.
5 - Progressive collapse does exist.
This thread is not about evidence of controlled demolition nor NIST findings. It's about arguments that support the claim the towers (WTC 1 and 2) couldn't have collapsed due to fire.
Consider these two statements:
A - Fire can bring down steel structures buildings like Twin Towers.
B - The Twin Towers collapse was a controlled demolition.
It is quite possible to believe that both statements are true. If you believe that "B" is true you don't need to believe "A" is false.
In other words, if you believe there is sufficient evidence that explosives were used in the towers, it does not mean that you have to believe that the collapse due to fire would be impossible.
So what are the arguments that support the claim that fire can not bring down buildings?
Before answering, let me remind you some facts:
1 - Steel does lose strength at high temperatures.
2 - The fire protection were removed from the truss on the floors where the impact occurred.
3 - It is not necessary to remove all fire protection to make the structure susceptible to fire.
4 - The failure of a structural element can cause the failure of others.
5 - Progressive collapse does exist.
This thread is not about evidence of controlled demolition nor NIST findings. It's about arguments that support the claim the towers (WTC 1 and 2) couldn't have collapsed due to fire.