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

[LastChild]

This is going entirely off quoted material so maybe I'm missing something, but...

LastChild and JHarrow, stop bickering and just answer the question.

You are clearly convinced that "complete collapse" is impossible. We understand; we get that that's what you believe. But unfortunately that's not the question of this thread. I never once asked you "do you think complete collapse is impossible", what I asked you is WHY. You have ignored this simple question and opted instead to derail the debate into something you think you can win (ironically, you are still losing, but that's beside the point).


It's not that complicated. It's not rocket science. All it is is you justifying what you have already made perfectly clear that you believe. Since you believe so vehemently that "complete collapse" is impossible, it should not be that difficult to explain WHY you believe that.

For the umpteenth time:

If fire can destroy PART of a building why can it not destroy ALL of a building? Unless your "first time in history" fallacy is supposed to be your answer, I don't see an answer anywhere in this thread.

I did answer and I said it may be possible if the whole building was on fire. I’ll go further and state it may be possible if the foundation is on fire. It's just never happened.

You posted the Madrid building as some kind of example. When I tried to point to that example and examine it further I was told it was irrelevant to what happen to the WTC because it had a concrete core.

So what the hell are we doing here? More debunker bull?

Is it just the fire destroying ALL of the building?

 

[peteweaver]

Differences between windsor tower, and the twin towers.

Planes Crashed into the twin towers, fireproofing was damaged, contents caught fire extremely rapidly over a wide area, causing a wide surface area of steel to immediately be exposed to high temperatures.

Windsor tower not as high as twin towers, not constructed the same way, and the effect of load was not the same.

Concrete was indeed used as the core for the windsor tower. Concrete is a very very good insulator, its performance under compression is very good too.

Take a look at a thorough investigation of the windsor tower blaze, and the resulting collapse of steel sections above the seventeenth floor
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...Study/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm

Steel perimiter columns buckled in the blaze.

Professor Colin Bailey: the reinforced concrete central core, columns, waffle slabs and transfer structures performed very well in such a severe fire. It is clear that the structural integrity and redundancy of the remaining parts of the building provided the overall stability of the building.

 

[VespaGuy]

Partial collapse are to be expected in certain types of building. Total collapses have never occured.

So partial collapse is to be expected in certain types of buildings. Excellent.

So the next question is: What is the maximum amount of partial collapse that could ever be expected in a building? Why?

 

[Miragememories]

Truthers seem to acknowledge that it is fully reasonable for buildings to experience "partial collapses" due to fire. They even acknowledge this with regards to the Windsor building:

[qimg]http://www.debunking911.com/madrid.jpg[/qimg]

This building experienced a "partial collapse" due to nothing more than a really hot fire.

So logically one would assume that the WTC collapses are perfectly reasonable, right?

Not to the Truthers. According to them, the fact that Windsor only suffered "partial collapse" while WTC suffered "complete collapse" is somehow a critical distinction.

Anyone? Does this make sense to you? Anyone at all? Can someone explain to me how this is supposed to make sense?

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

I think you are leaving out some very important points.

Most notably, the speed of those complete collapses.

Truthers argue, in particular against the WTC7 collapse being a natural expectation.

For the collapse of WTC7 to have occurred naturally, strictly as a result of debris and fire damage, the conditions necessary for a balanced implosion would have to be achieved.

Considering how difficult it is to engineer a balanced building implosion by intentional methods, it's absolutely amazing to imagine such a feat occurring as a result of random debris and fire damage creating the necessary simultaneous column weakness on the lower floors.

It is particularly amazing, given the lack of supporting evidence for even a fraction of the necessary fire and debris damage in the locations required to achieve a balanced implosion like that observed with WTC7.

MM

 

[cisco]

it may be possible if the whole building was on fire

Do you have to shoot someone in every part of their body for them to die? Oh, sorry, given troothers' proclivities for citing works of fiction you're probably gonna drop Michael Myers or Jason Vorhees on me as proof.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

I did answer and I said it may be possible if the whole building was on fire. I’ll go further and state it may be possible if the foundation is on fire. It's just never happened.

So LC has answered the question: Yes.

 

[Corsair 115]

There are no examples of complete collapse of tall buildings due to fire, except on 911.

Your first task here is to define what you mean by "tall buildings."

 

[JHarrow]

Your first task here is to define what you mean by "tall buildings."

You don't know what a tall building is? Good grief!

 

[funk de fino]

I did answer and I said it may be possible if the whole building was on fire. I’ll go further and state it may be possible if the foundation is on fire. It's just never happened.

You posted the Madrid building as some kind of example. When I tried to point to that example and examine it further I was told it was irrelevant to what happen to the WTC because it had a concrete core.

So what the hell are we doing here? More debunker bull?

Is it just the fire destroying ALL of the building?

yet again, you display a total ignorance of what a progessive collapse is?

 

[CHF]

You cant see a difference between fire collapsing a small steel portion of the windsor tower (After hours of burning) and fire destroyong TWO 110 storey buildings pretty much completely, after only 1 or 2 hours?

Small steel portion...

Yeah, you mean the entire steel section that was unsupported by concrete.

Now remind me how much of the WTC was unsupported by concrete....

 

[CHF]

No way would they risk that many firefighters for what was an almost impossible rescue mission.

They had no idea it would collapse. Nobody did.

Well....aside from the NYPD helicopter crews who reported the exterior columns bending inward and warned of collapse...

 

[aggle-rithm]

The damage isn't in the question. Stop moving the goalposts.

OK, how about this:

Hypothetically:

If it is possible for a building to partially collapse by fire alone, why is it IMPOSSIBLE for a building to fully collapse by fire alone?

We're not necessarily talking about the Windsor Hotel or the WTC. We're talking about buildings in general.

SOMETHING leads you to believe that a building cannot fully collapse by fire alone.

We won't accept "it never happened before". That's irrelevant, as we are talking about hypothetical scenarios. There are many things that haven't happened that CAN happen.

Try to verbalize it, and get back to us.

(If you wish, substitute "high rise" or "skyscraper" for "building". It makes no difference.)

 

[Mobyseven]

You don't know what a tall building is? Good grief!

It's not about knowing what a 'tall building' is - it's about knowing how you are using the term 'tall building'.

You made the claim:

There are no examples of complete collapse of tall buildings due to fire, except on 911.

The problem here is that 'tall' is a relative term. I went to school with some very tall people - but none of them stand taller than 7'. Compared to me, my house is 'tall', but I wouldn't say it is a 'tall building'. There's a state government building in my home city that is a few stories high - I guess I might call it a tall building. The tallest things in the city are, if I recall correctly, grain silos - and they are definitely tall buildings.

Of course, if I go to Melbourne, things get even taller. Apartment buildings in the northern suburbs would be classified as 'tall', skyscrapers in the city (Eureka Tower and the Rialto, for example) are very, very tall, and factories in the industrial areas are also quite tall.

So the point remains: What is your definition of a 'tall building'?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Well....aside from the NYPD helicopter crews who reported the exterior columns bending inward and warned of collapse...

The first person to predict the collapse was a structural engineer in WTC1 who observed buckling in the elevator shafts. His voice was lost in the chaos, unfortunately.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I don't see any consideration of the 47 huge core columns in your calculations. Please revise them and get back to me.

You really had me going there! For a while, I thought you were actually serious about all this "inside job" nonsense. Now it's obvious that it's just a big joke.

I should have known that no one with the brain wave activity of a glazed carrot could possibly believe this stuff.

Good one, JHarrow!

 

[aggle-rithm]

I did answer and I said it may be possible if the whole building was on fire. I’ll go further and state it may be possible if the foundation is on fire. It's just never happened.

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?

 

[LastChild]

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?

Can you say where a 90 or more story building has completely collapsed because of fire alone?

 

[funk de fino]

Can you say where a 90 or more story building has completely collapsed because of fire alone?

Can you show me a 90 storey building with fires as large as the twins?

Still struggling with the definition of progressive collapse? Its a well known phenonema and has been discussed for years?

 

[twinstead]

Can you say where a 90 or more story building has completely collapsed because of fire alone?

Remember those airliners?

 

[CHF]

Can you say where a 90 or more story building has completely collapsed because of fire alone?

That depands. Can you think of an example of a 90+ story building with the WTC design that had a huge fire after a jet impact or being struck by a fall skyscraper?

Because if you can't then your argument basically boils down to this: "on 9/11 were saw a set of unprecedented circumstances which resulted in unprecedented things."

To which one might say: DUH!