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

[CHF]

Still can't think of any examples of 9/11's circumstances resulting in anything other than what happened on 9/11, huh LastChild?

Well keep looking. I'm sure there's gotta be an example out there somewhere. Otherwise why would you hold the bizarre views that you do?

 

[GStan]

So what have we got so far? Let’s see...

In trying to support their claim that it was possible for the WTC buildings to suffer complete global collapse after damage to a few floors near the top and pockets of fire after less then an hour the debunkers have pointed to the following…

1. A highway overpass suffered partial collapse after a fuel tanker crashed and burned and sent one overpass crashing down onto a lower overpass. The lower overpass did not suffer collapse and supported the one that crashed down on top of it.

2. A poorly designed and built, four story toy factory, in a third world country, with un-insulated steel girders, that wasn’t even repaired yet from a previous fire, suffered collapse after a raging inferno engulfed the entire building.

3. The Windsor tower suffered only a partial collapse after a raging inferno burnt throughout the entire building for 24 hours.

4. A structure violating building regulations and codes collapsed in Egypt after an explosion in the basement and subsequent fire.

5. A cheap low cost pre-fab building in England suffered collapse to only one corner after an explosion took out a load-bearing wall while the rest of the building stood.

Does that about sum it all up? Hmmmm…I don’t know….. Are you sure you guys aren’t trying to build a case against the official version? You almost got me convinced. Got any more scary evidence you’re still scrapping from the bottom of the barrel?

Do you not ever grow weary of being incorrect. The Twin Towers and WTC7 suffered complete collapses as a result of damage (plane and debris respectively) and fires. The hypothesis has been scientifically supported through 1,000s of hours of research and analysis and 1,000s of pages of peer-reviewed work in the form of NIST documents and other journal articles.

It is the claim of the truth movement that the buildings could have suffered a partial collapse but not a complete collapse under the known conditions of the buildings. You have failed to present any evidence to back up that claim, as usual.

 

[1337m4n]

So what have we got so far? Let’s see...

In trying to support their claim that it was possible for the WTC buildings to suffer complete global collapse after damage to a few floors near the top and pockets of fire after less then an hour the debunkers have pointed to the following…

1. A highway overpass suffered partial collapse after a fuel tanker crashed and burned and sent one overpass crashing down onto a lower overpass. The lower overpass did not suffer collapse and supported the one that crashed down on top of it.

2. A poorly designed and built, four story toy factory, in a third world country, with un-insulated steel girders, that wasn’t even repaired yet from a previous fire, suffered collapse after a raging inferno engulfed the entire building.

3. The Windsor tower suffered only a partial collapse after a raging inferno burnt throughout the entire building for 24 hours.

4. A structure violating building regulations and codes collapsed in Egypt after an explosion in the basement and subsequent fire.

5. A cheap low cost pre-fab building in England suffered collapse to only one corner after an explosion took out a load-bearing wall while the rest of the building stood.

Does that about sum it all up? Hmmmm…I don’t know….. Are you sure you guys aren’t trying to build a case against the official version? You almost got me convinced. Got any more scary evidence you’re still scrapping from the bottom of the barrel?

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

And your post raises one more question...

If fire can COMPLETELY destroy a building that has building-code violations, why can it not COMPLETELY destroy a building with a gaping hole in it?

 

[1337m4n]

Simply put, because modern concrete & steel buildings are largely composed of non-combustible materials!

Talk about asking a stupid question.

MM

Thank you, THANK YOU for giving me a direct answer to my question.

Granted, it's an answer that's so stupid as to be Stundie-worthy, but it's still a direct answer, something that I hadn't yet gotten in this thread.

I congratulate you sir. That alone makes you ten times more respectable than the rest of your Truther buddies.

 

[1337m4n]

I guess I'm never going to get a coherent answer out of this one.

 

[LastChild]

I guess I'm never going to get a coherent answer out of this one.

Answered
here

Answered
here

Answered
here

Finally put to rest
here

 

[aggle-rithm]

Answered
here

Answered
here

Answered
here

Finally put to rest
here

Basically, your answer is "it's never happened before". That isn't a valid argument. Nothing is made impossible simply by virtue of never having happened before.

Perhaps if we rephrased the question?

Given that it is possible for fire to cause a partial collapse, please explain the mechanism that makes it impossible for fire to cause a total collapse.

How about it?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Answered
here

Answered
here

Answered
here

Finally put to rest
here

LC, let me explain something to you about the English language. The word "Why" in a question asks for a reason. Therefore, if someone asks you "If partial collapse is possible, why is complete collapse impossible", then when you say "Complete collapse is only possible if the entire building is on fire" it's not an answer to the question that was asked, it's an answer to a different question. Therefore, you haven't answered the question, however much you may want to think you have.

Dave

 

[1337m4n]

LC, let me explain something to you about the English language. The word "Why" in a question asks for a reason. Therefore, if someone asks you "If partial collapse is possible, why is complete collapse impossible", then when you say "Complete collapse is only possible if the entire building is on fire" it's not an answer to the question that was asked, it's an answer to a different question. Therefore, you haven't answered the question, however much you may want to think you have.

Dave

 

[funk de fino]

4. A structure violating building regulations and codes collapsed in Egypt after an explosion in the basement and subsequent fire

I think you will find it was fire then explosions.