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

[lapman]

Stating it this way may make it sound logically difficult or even impossible to a non-engineer, but your being misleading. The top 20 stories need only enough force to fall through the 90th floor, one floor, that's it. If the 90th floor cannot resist the mass of the top 20, the entire building is likely to collapse, because the 89th floor will have even less ability to resist the mass of the top 21 floors, and so on. There is no argument to be made against the progressive collapse unless you can show how the many peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that have been linked for you have incorrectly explained the initial failure. Take a cue from GUrich or Christopher7, who at least read the reports they are attempting to refute.

To put this in more simple terms that people like JHarrow can understand. Since each floor is not supported by the floors below, they have to be treated as separate entities. According to one MIT paper, the floors were designed to hold ~1,300 tons. How is that going to stop, let alone slow down 25,000 tons of upper floors that have accelerated over 12 feet of distance?

 

[lapman]

If fire can destroy PART of a building why can it not destroy ALL of a building?

Sorry for the previous derail. So far, there is no answer to the above question. The truthers have only derailed and avoided it at all cost. So, JHarrow, LastChild, do you care to actually answer the simple question?

Why does this remind me of the flyover witness thread?

 

[Myriad]

In the spirit of the "debunkers are the only thing keeping the Truth Movement alive" hypothesis, allow me to provide an answer for the Truthers. (Got a crayon? Write this down.)

"Fire can only destroy the part of the building that's actually on fire."

Note that this isn't true or anything. It kind of sort of sounds like it might make sense, while actually being utterly and demonstrably false. This makes it a perfect Truth Movement "talking point."

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[LastChild]

Sorry for the previous derail. So far, there is no answer to the above question. The truthers have only derailed and avoided it at all cost. So, JHarrow, LastChild, do you care to actually answer the simple question?

Why does this remind me of the flyover witness thread?

I'm sure that ALL of the building could possibly be destroyed by fire if ALL of the building was on fire. But do you have an example of one? A skyscraper that is.

The picture posted of the Windsor is of a building that was completely on fire. Did it even suffer global collapse? For how long was it completely engulfed in flames? Was it for only for an hour and only a few floors near the top?

If you are going to compare to the Windsor building that was completely engulfed in flames for hours but did not suffer global collapse then what the hell is your point again?

Logic?

 

[Dave Rogers]

"Fire can only destroy the part of the building that's actually on fire."

Note that this isn't true or anything. It kind of sort of sounds like it might make sense, while actually being utterly and demonstrably false. This makes it a perfect Truth Movement "talking point."

I'm sure that ALL of the building could possibly be destroyed by fire if ALL of the building was on fire. But do you have an example of one? A skyscraper that is.

Myriad, I think you just won a million dollars.

Dave

 

[LastChild]

Ack, go look up "static force", and "dynamic force", come back and then explain the difference, and then you will be allowed to talk again.

Oh I know the difference do you? So a broken lighter dynamic force that is losing mass over the sides with most of it's floor loads burnt up in smoke has more force to push down then a static intact mass?

How so?

 

[LastChild]

In the spirit of the "debunkers are the only thing keeping the Truth Movement alive" hypothesis, allow me to provide an answer for the Truthers. (Got a crayon? Write this down.)

"Fire can only destroy the part of the building that's actually on fire."

Note that this isn't true or anything. It kind of sort of sounds like it might make sense, while actually being utterly and demonstrably false. This makes it a perfect Truth Movement "talking point."

Respectfully,
Myriad

Got an example of a skyscraper that suffered global collapse from a fire?

How about a model of the WTC collapse? Maybe you can use your crayon. Be sure to pass it on to NIST when you're done. They couldn't seem to recreate something that happened twice in an hour and three times in one day.

BTW got that WTC7 report yet? What's taking so long if it's all so simple and logical?

 

[R.Mackey]

Got an example of a skyscraper that suffered global collapse from a fire?

Three. WTC 1, 2, and 7.

How about a model of the WTC collapse? Maybe you can use your crayon. Be sure to pass it on to NIST when you're done. They couldn't seem to recreate something that happened twice in an hour and three times in one day.

There isn't a dynamic simulator in the world, on any computer, that can accurately predict what side a six-sided die will come up. Yet you expect a faithful recreation of a 300,000 ton building collapse? That must be some box of crayons you've got.

NIST replicated the situation that caused the collapse to reasonably high accuracy. That's what we want. What you want is a cartoon of the destruction that followed. How morbid.

BTW got that WTC7 report yet? What's taking so long if it's all so simple and logical?

Scope creep. It'll be out in the summer. Much, much sooner, I might add, than even a single publication from the entire Truth Movement. As far as simplicity, the firefighters figured it out even before it happened, so yes, the core conlcusion is indeed simple and logical. It's the details that take time. QED.

 

[funk de fino]

Oh I know the difference do you? So a broken lighter dynamic force that is losing mass over the sides with most of it's floor loads burnt up in smoke has more force to push down then a static intact mass?

How so?

Pure comedy gold and he does not see it

 

[LastChild]

Three. WTC 1, 2, and 7.

So you don't. That's what I thought.

There isn't a dynamic simulator in the world, on any computer, that can accurately predict what side a six-sided die will come up. Yet you expect a faithful recreation of a 300,000 ton building collapse? That must be some box of crayons you've got.

Why is it complicated and not simple logic? That's what I thought.

NIST replicated the situation that caused the collapse to reasonably high accuracy. That's what we want. What you want is a cartoon of the destruction that followed. How morbid.

Oh I see. They didn't do it because it's morbid. I didn't think of that one. How scientific of them and you. LOL

Scope creep. It'll be out in the summer. Much, much sooner, I might add, than even a single publication from the entire Truth Movement. As far as simplicity, the firefighters figured it out even before it happened, so yes, the core conlcusion is indeed simple and logical. It's the details that take time. QED.

Yeah we've heard those promises before. You really are a faithful follower aren't you? That's what I thought.

 

[R.Mackey]

So you don't. That's what I thought.

3 > 0, son.

Why is it complicated and not simple logic? That's what I thought.

Simulating the collapse is exponentially complicated. Take a class in deterministic chaos.

Oh I see. They didn't do it because it's morbid. I didn't think of that one. How scientific of them and you. LOL

No, they didn't do it because it's not feasible and not valuable. You want it because you are morbid. Read the post, please.

Yeah we've heard those promises before. You really are a faithful follower aren't you? That's what I thought.

I'll make you a bet, if you like, that the draft RFC version of the NIST WTC 7 final report will be out before September 30 of this year. You game?

 

[CHF]

There isn't a dynamic simulator in the world, on any computer, that can accurately predict what side a six-sided die will come up. Yet you expect a faithful recreation of a 300,000 ton building collapse? That must be some box of crayons you've got.

NIST replicated the situation that caused the collapse to reasonably high accuracy. That's what we want. What you want is a cartoon of the destruction that followed. How morbid.

Demanding a model of the collapse itself has always struck me as being a bit like asking air crash investigators to model an actual plane crash.

When a plane goes down, investigators look into why it crashed - ie. was it mechanical failure? Weather? Pilot error? Terrorism?

Once they figure that out, the investigation is pretty much over since we know what is most important: why the plane crashed.

Nobody asks investigators to model what happened to the plane when it hit the ground!

Doing so would be morbid and rather pointless. To the average person, it's pretty obvious what happens to a plane when it crashes, just as it's pretty obvious what happens to a building when it suddenly has to cope with a 50,000 ton dynamic load.

But hold on....we need a new investigation because some kooks are either too stupid, or simple refuse, to understand it!

 

[LastChild]

3 > 0, son.

3>0? lol I think not. In fact I think right in this thread I can find a high-rise that was completely engulfed in flames that did not collapse. And I can find plenty other examples. You however will never have anything other then your 9/11 buildings because it just never happens.

Simulating the collapse is exponentially complicated. Take a class in deterministic chaos.

Really? So the WTC collapses shouldn't just be logical to everyone? So you disagree with the op?

No, they didn't do it because it's not feasible and not valuable. You want it because you are morbid. Read the post, please.

Not valuable to know how much time one might have to get out of a building after it sufferers some type of structural damage and fire to a few floors near the top? Why not? There are still plenty of buildings in NYC and plenty of airports and there is a war on terror presently no? Someone has got to think of these morbid realities no?

I'll make you a bet, if you like, that the draft RFC version of the NIST WTC 7 final report will be out before September 30 of this year. You game?

Bet? Why don't you know for sure when it will be out? It's all so simple and logical isn't it? Please don't set yourself up for another let down Mackey. It's sad to watch. You’re like a kid that Santa never visits but still you have faith and defend him till the end. That's not very logical.

 

[Dave Rogers]

So a broken lighter dynamic force that is losing mass over the sides with most of it's floor loads burnt up in smoke has more force to push down then a static intact mass?

I'm Stundie nominating this one, because it's one of the clearest examples of the unevaluated inequality fallacy I've seen yet.

Dave

 

[CHF]

3>0? lol I think not. In fact I think right in this thread I can find a high-rise that was completely engulfed in flames that did not collapse. And I can find plenty other examples.

Sure you can. And I'll bet your examples would be of buildings with concrete cores.

Can't wait to see some pics of the Madrid fire....

BTW, there have been several papers published about the WTC collapses by people who were simply interested in the subject, just like yourself.

Needless to say, those papers don't support a demolition theory. Sucks, I know.

 

[LastChild]

I'm Stundie nominating this one, because it's one of the clearest examples of the unevaluated inequality fallacy I've seen yet.

Dave

Is that a double or a triple negative there Genius? Careful you don't stundie yourself. And when you’re all done maybe you can answer the question instead of dodging it.

 

[R.Mackey]

3>0? lol I think not. In fact I think right in this thread I can find a high-rise that was completely engulfed in flames that did not collapse. And I can find plenty other examples. You however will never have anything other then your 9/11 buildings because it just never happens.

You can find exactly one, the Windsor Madrid, and large portions of it collapsed (over half). All the others were not even close to "fully engulfed," and some came close to collapse. One Meridian Plaza was evacuated though only eight and a half floors burned. Didn't collapse, but could have.

You're arguing from a false perception of precedent. These events are so rare that no argument from probability can be made.

Really? So the WTC collapses shouldn't just be logical to everyone? So you disagree with the op?

Stop jumping between arguments. The WTC collapses are logical to almost everyone. You claimed "NIST couldn't recreate the collapses." Different problem. This is inherently impossible to do. But at gross order, it's quite logical and easy. Read the Purdue results.

Not valuable to know how much time one might have to get out of a building after it sufferers some type of structural damage and fire to a few floors near the top? Why not? There are still plenty of buildings in NYC and plenty of airports and there is a war on terror presently no? Someone has got to think of these morbid realities no?

NIST did exactly this, matching the collapse times with reasonable accuracy. So either you lied when you said NIST couldn't do this, or as I suggested, you were instead talking about the collapse mechanics itself, and thus you've changed your argument here. Pick an argument and stick to it.

Bet? Why don't you know for sure when it will be out? It's all so simple and logical isn't it? Please don't set yourself up for another let down Mackey. It's sad to watch. You’re like a kid that Santa never visits but still you have faith and defend him till the end. That's not very logical.

So you won't bet? That answers my question.

 

[LastChild]

Sure you can. And I'll bet your examples would be of buildings with concrete cores.

So you don't have any examples to compare to something that happened three times in one day? Not even one?

Can't wait to see some pics of the Madrid fire....

There's one here. Did you miss the still standing burnt out building in the op?

BTW, there have been several papers published about the WTC collapses by people who were simply interested in the subject, just like yourself.

And?

Needless to say, those papers don't support a demolition theory. Sucks, I know.

So. If it's not controled demolition in the traditional sense of the term your official theory is correct by default?

 

[DGM]

It seems LastChild knows as much about this as he does "silent explosives".

 

[e^n]

Bet? Why don't you know for sure when it will be out? It's all so simple and logical isn't it? Please don't set yourself up for another let down Mackey. It's sad to watch. You’re like a kid that Santa never visits but still you have faith and defend him till the end. That's not very logical.

I cannot believe that you're trying to make this sort of argument, it speaks to your character that you haven't even thought it through.

Here's a challenge for you, suppose I employ 3 mathematicians to write a paper proving say the irrationality of Pi. How long will their paper take?