Split Thread Was global collapse of WTC inevitable?

[willhaven]

Again, please show me whatever experiment you believe best confirms the notion that fires could bring down a steel framed high-rise anywhere near as quickly and completely as the towers came down. You've got a big bag of nothing here, but you refuse to admit it, eh?

Do you think fire can cause a steel structure to collapse?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Do you think fire can cause a steel structure to collapse?

You'll likely get the qualifier "not nearly as quickly and completely." Which always winds back up to "never before in history has it happened at all" that is automatically rejected for being preposterous to begin with.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Again, please show me whatever experiment you believe best confirms the notion that fires could bring down a steel framed high-rise anywhere near as quickly and completely as the towers came down. You've got a big bag of nothing here, but you refuse to admit it, eh?

Every single one of them. What makes you think that the steel in the WTC was different than every other piece of steel used in structures all over the world? Fire weakens steel. Period. Weaken it enough and it will no longer support whatever it is holding up. It doesn't matter if it's some small warehouse in Podunk Iowa or a 110 story tall skyscraper in Manhattan. Why don't you show me the experiments that invalidate that? Surely there must be some where exposed steel and unfought fires resulting in an intact steel structure once the fire goes out right? Why else would you be saying what you say. Put up or shut up.

As far as speed and completeness goes that's just an attempt at a magical handwave to keep people from looking behind the curtain. The buildings collapses after the first second or so after collapse initiation had little to do with the fires higher up in the structures and nobody but the nutjobs say differently. You are talking about fire and steels resistance to fire damage.

 

[ozeco41]

Folks if we are going to try debating with kylebisme then we shouldn't let the big bits of evasive trickery slip through whilst we address the diversionary crap. Like this one:

Again, please show me whatever experiment you believe best confirms the notion that fires could bring down a steel framed high-rise anywhere near as quickly and completely as the towers came down. You've got a big bag of nothing here, but you refuse to admit it, eh?

Lets deal with the trick first.

He conflates the two stages of collapse:

1. The "initial collapse" which occurred when the damaged impact and fire zone let the "top block" start to fall and took about one hour whether or not there was demolition assistance; AND
2. The "global collapse" which followed, which did not involve fire and which took just over 10 seconds.

So the "bit that was too fast" which he complains about was that 'global collapse" stage and it did not involve fire. The floors of the "lower tower" away from the impact zone were not affected by fire.

And the bit which did involve fire was not fast.

THEN if we address that "bit that kylebisme says was too fast" there are several compatible lines of arguments to show why that global collapse was inevitable.

And, to use a simple analogy, when you have a one pound breaking strain line and you hang 10 pounds off it surprise surprise it will break.

As will any tower designed like the Twin Towers and subjected to gross overload.

And you don't need experiments to prove that simple fact OR to get it accepted by any honest but reasonable lay person.

 

[kylebisme]

Rather, you don't have any experiments which even come close to proving what you claim as fact, which is why you're left to appeal to credulity instead.

 

[Architect]

Come on, name the ones you looked at. Give us the examples.

You seem strangely unable to meet this challenge, notwithstanding its importance to your "argument".