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

[LastChild]

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?

Why don't you ask aggle? lol

Can you say why a building cannot collapse from fire if the fire is localized somewhere around the 90th floor on a 110-story building?

Was the fire on 9/11 now raging through the entire building? Because it was the entire building that collapsed correct? And the op of this thread was talking about fire correct? Why does the op of this thread contain a picture of the Windsor building? Was it hit by a plane too?

 

[Belz...]

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.

Well, fire CAN destroy whole buildings, so the point is moot.

Has a plane never hit a high-rise?

Yep. Not at those speeds, though. And not anywhere near that size.

Has a high-rise never been on fire?

Yes. Never so much after being hit by an airliner, of course, per my previous point.

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

Many things are "unprecedented". Firsts usually are.

 

[CHF]

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?

And let's not forget the fact that there was no jet impact back in 1975 and the fact that the lower floors of that tower had asbestos fireproofing, which the upper floors did not.

Try again, LC!

 

[LastChild]

Well, fire CAN destroy whole buildings, so the point is moot.



Yep. Not at those speeds, though. And not anywhere near that size.



Yes. Never so much after being hit by an airliner, of course, per my previous point.



Many things are "unprecedented". Firsts usually are.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-12-06-tehrancrash_x.htm

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

Fiery plane crash in Iran kills 115 people
TEHRAN (AFP) — A huge explosion was reported as the plane, carrying 94 people, crashed into a 10-story apartment building killing all on board.

 

[Belz...]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-12-06-tehrancrash_x.htm

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

Fiery plane crash in Iran kills 115 people
TEHRAN (AFP) — A huge explosion was reported as the plane, carrying 94 people, crashed into a 10-story apartment building killing all on board.

[qimg]http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2005/12/06/in-tehran.jpg[/qimg]

Did you even READ what I said ?

You can post as many pictures of buildings on fire that didn't collapse. If you think it's a "gotcha" moment, you're wrong. Nobody ever said that all buildings collapse from fire. What we are saying, and what most of the world is saying, with numbers to back it up, is that the structural damage from the fires AND the raging fires had little option BUT to destroy those buildings entirely.

ETA: And I'd like to know how fast that C-130 was going.

 

[Shalamar]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-12-06-tehrancrash_x.htm

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

Fiery plane crash in Iran kills 115 people
TEHRAN (AFP) — A huge explosion was reported as the plane, carrying 94 people, crashed into a 10-story apartment building killing all on board.

[qimg]http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2005/12/06/in-tehran.jpg[/qimg]

How big was the aircraft that his that building as compared to the ones on 9/11? How fast was it traveling? How much fuel was it carrying?

What type of building did it crash into? How was it constructed?

 

[LastChild]

How big was the aircraft that his that building as compared to the ones on 9/11?

It was big enough to carry 94 people.

How fast was it traveling? How much fuel was it carrying?

Fast enough to take off and it was full of fuel and it hit a gas station next door to the Apt building it bounced off of. So there was no shortage of fuel.

What type of building did it crash into? How was it constructed?

Evidently much smaller but for some reason much stronger then the WTC. And it suffered no collapse at all.

 

[Myriad]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-12-06-tehrancrash_x.htm

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

Fiery plane crash in Iran kills 115 people
TEHRAN (AFP) — A huge explosion was reported as the plane, carrying 94 people, crashed into a 10-story apartment building killing all on board.

[qimg]http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2005/12/06/in-tehran.jpg[/qimg]

A few differences, according to the linked article:

1. Plane was going at a much slower speed (pilot was attempting an emergency landing, not an act of terrorism).

2. Only one wing of the plane hit the building.

3. The fire was fought.

Any one of these factors, as well as the difference in the building's size and likely differences in its design and construction materials, could make the difference between the building collapsing and not collapsing. So, this example has no relevance to 9/11.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Swing Dangler]

How big was the aircraft that his that building as compared to the ones on 9/11? How fast was it traveling? How much fuel was it carrying?

What type of building did it crash into? How was it constructed?

It doesn't matter, the towers survived the impact and would have remained standing if the fire and those explosions oops sorry, sudden pressure pulse from (insert your interpretation here) had not have taken place.

 

[CHF]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-12-06-tehrancrash_x.htm

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

Fiery plane crash in Iran kills 115 people
TEHRAN (AFP) — A huge explosion was reported as the plane, carrying 94 people, crashed into a 10-story apartment building killing all on board.

http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2005/12/06/in-tehran.jpg

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."

 

[LastChild]

You can post as many pictures of buildings on fire that didn't collapse.

Yeah I can. But for some reason you can't even find one that even remotely compares to what it is you claimed to have happened on 9/11.

Why is that?

 

[eeyore1954]

It was big enough to carry 94 people.



Fast enough to take off and it was full of fuel and it hit a gas station next door to the Apt building it bounced off off. So there was no shortage of fuel.



Evidently much smaller but for some reason much stronger then the WTC. And t suffered no collapse at all.

It didn't have a the mass of a couple hundred feet of building above where the impact was. It hit the building near the top.

Your following quote implies it was not hit head on .

Fast enough to take off and it was full of fuel and it hit a gas station next door to the Apt building it bounced off off.

 

[CHF]

It doesn't matter, the towers survived the impact and would have remained standing if the fire and those explosions oops sorry, sudden pressure pulse from (insert your interpretation here) had not have taken place.

Twoofer science at its best.

 

[LastChild]

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."

Well I guess if imagination is all you got to support what it is you believe happened on 9/11 then you go with that skippy.

I'll stick with the facts.

 

[CHF]

Yeah I can. But for some reason you can't even find one that even remotely compares to what it is you claimed to have happened on 9/11.

Why is that?

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?

 

[DGM]

It doesn't matter, the towers survived the impact and would have remained standing if the fire and those explosions oops sorry, sudden pressure pulse from (insert your interpretation here) had not have taken place.

Pressure pulses before the collapse? Show me.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Did you even READ what I said ?

You can post as many pictures of buildings on fire that didn't collapse. If you think it's a "gotcha" moment, you're wrong. Nobody ever said that all buildings collapse from fire. What we are saying, and what most of the world is saying, with numbers to back it up, is that the structural damage from the fires AND the raging fires had little option BUT to destroy those buildings entirely.

ETA: And I'd like to know how fast that C-130 was going.

How did you get NIST's evidence, data, and numbers to back up what your saying?

 

[Shalamar]

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.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Pressure pulses before the collapse? Show me.

From a New Mexico explosives expert:

Romero said he believes still it is possible that the final collapse of each building was triggered by a sudden pressure pulse caused when the fire reached an electrical transformer or other source of combustion within the building. Source: Here

 

[DGM]

From a New Mexico explosives expert:

So no inside job then. Thanks for clearing that up.