Can a fire collapse a structure made of concrete and steel?

[Pogo]

To this day, I am still in awe of what two airplanes did to the WTC.

Indeed, two planes brought down three buildings.

Curious that.

Arlen Specter could essplain it.

With his single plane theory

Zackly. I was wondering how long it would take for somebody to catch that.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

While the fire in the trade centers may have been hot enough to weaken the steel to the point of failure where the fires actually were,I have a problem with how all three buildings came down in their own footprint. You'd think the top portion would have failed and toppled in the direction where the heat was more intense.

Especially when you consider building seven never had any jet fuel to fuel the fire yet the building still collapsed. Which of course is the claim for the towers failure....jet fuel.

I have no idea what the mechanism was for building seven. The two towers collapsed in on themselves because of gravity. It is the nature of large buildings to do that. As physical strength fails, the building tilts in the direction of the failure (easily seen in the videos of the collapse) but as the failures begin to overtake the ability of the building to remain upright and the failures become catastrophic the buildings then simply follow gravity. Which is straight down. The designs of the building actually reinforced the directionality of the collapse as well.

I have not seen any compelling evidence that shows building 7's collapse as nothing more than burn damage resulting from a natural sequence of events. Somehow a fuel (I'm not saying jet fuel) was ignited in that building, and after burning long enough it too came down. So then the question becomes what was the fuel? Diesel that was stored in underground tanks? Other types of oils that were being used in the mechanical rooms of the building? A tanker truck parked outside but in very close proximity to a storm drain that allowed the burning substance to enter into the foundation areas? I have no idea, but in a cataclysm of that magnitude there are MANY causes to bring the building down without having to resort to the amazing leap of faith that is required by the 9-11 truthers.

There are many, many possible causes for Building 7 to have come down that don't require a movie level of "willing suspension of disbelief" to accomplish through nefarious means.

Well no shit gravity was involved.
When you weaken one side of a structure it only stands to reason that "gravity" would dictate that it fell towards the weakened side,not straight down. Yet it happened twice.

Show me a modern skyscraper that was brought down by fire alone.

Like I said, the design of the Twin Towers magnified the effect of funneling. The floor weakened and pivoted around the pins that held the floors to the support beams. Then the remaining strong I beams channeled the top floors straight down.

There was a center column of steel that supported the overall structure but it still would have weakened one side over the other.

 

[westwall]

While the fire in the trade centers may have been hot enough to weaken the steel to the point of failure where the fires actually were,I have a problem with how all three buildings came down in their own footprint. You'd think the top portion would have failed and toppled in the direction where the heat was more intense.

Especially when you consider building seven never had any jet fuel to fuel the fire yet the building still collapsed. Which of course is the claim for the towers failure....jet fuel.

I have no idea what the mechanism was for building seven. The two towers collapsed in on themselves because of gravity. It is the nature of large buildings to do that. As physical strength fails, the building tilts in the direction of the failure (easily seen in the videos of the collapse) but as the failures begin to overtake the ability of the building to remain upright and the failures become catastrophic the buildings then simply follow gravity. Which is straight down. The designs of the building actually reinforced the directionality of the collapse as well.

I have not seen any compelling evidence that shows building 7's collapse as nothing more than burn damage resulting from a natural sequence of events. Somehow a fuel (I'm not saying jet fuel) was ignited in that building, and after burning long enough it too came down. So then the question becomes what was the fuel? Diesel that was stored in underground tanks? Other types of oils that were being used in the mechanical rooms of the building? A tanker truck parked outside but in very close proximity to a storm drain that allowed the burning substance to enter into the foundation areas? I have no idea, but in a cataclysm of that magnitude there are MANY causes to bring the building down without having to resort to the amazing leap of faith that is required by the 9-11 truthers.

There are many, many possible causes for Building 7 to have come down that don't require a movie level of "willing suspension of disbelief" to accomplish through nefarious means.

Well no shit gravity was involved.
When you weaken one side of a structure it only stands to reason that "gravity" would dictate that it fell towards the weakened side,not straight down. Yet it happened twice.

Show me a modern skyscraper that was brought down by fire alone.

Like I said, the design of the Twin Towers magnified the effect of funneling. The floor weakened and pivoted around the pins that held the floors to the support beams. Then the remaining strong I beams channeled the top floors straight down.

There was a center column of steel that supported the overall structure but it still would have weakened one side over the other.

Steel loses integrity in a uniform way, it doesn't fail on one side of the column while the other side stays strong. That is simply not how metals function.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

While the fire in the trade centers may have been hot enough to weaken the steel to the point of failure where the fires actually were,I have a problem with how all three buildings came down in their own footprint. You'd think the top portion would have failed and toppled in the direction where the heat was more intense.

Especially when you consider building seven never had any jet fuel to fuel the fire yet the building still collapsed. Which of course is the claim for the towers failure....jet fuel.

I have no idea what the mechanism was for building seven. The two towers collapsed in on themselves because of gravity. It is the nature of large buildings to do that. As physical strength fails, the building tilts in the direction of the failure (easily seen in the videos of the collapse) but as the failures begin to overtake the ability of the building to remain upright and the failures become catastrophic the buildings then simply follow gravity. Which is straight down. The designs of the building actually reinforced the directionality of the collapse as well.

I have not seen any compelling evidence that shows building 7's collapse as nothing more than burn damage resulting from a natural sequence of events. Somehow a fuel (I'm not saying jet fuel) was ignited in that building, and after burning long enough it too came down. So then the question becomes what was the fuel? Diesel that was stored in underground tanks? Other types of oils that were being used in the mechanical rooms of the building? A tanker truck parked outside but in very close proximity to a storm drain that allowed the burning substance to enter into the foundation areas? I have no idea, but in a cataclysm of that magnitude there are MANY causes to bring the building down without having to resort to the amazing leap of faith that is required by the 9-11 truthers.

There are many, many possible causes for Building 7 to have come down that don't require a movie level of "willing suspension of disbelief" to accomplish through nefarious means.

Well no shit gravity was involved.
When you weaken one side of a structure it only stands to reason that "gravity" would dictate that it fell towards the weakened side,not straight down. Yet it happened twice.

Show me a modern skyscraper that was brought down by fire alone.

Like I said, the design of the Twin Towers magnified the effect of funneling. The floor weakened and pivoted around the pins that held the floors to the support beams. Then the remaining strong I beams channeled the top floors straight down.

There was a center column of steel that supported the overall structure but it still would have weakened one side over the other.

Steel loses integrity in a uniform way, it doesn't fail on one side of the column while the other side stays strong. That is simply not how metals function.

No steel does not lose integrity in a uniform fashion when exposed to heat.
As a 25 year job shop machinist/prototype machinist who welds as a hobby I promise you I know the reaction of heat when applied to steel far better than you do. In fact I've used that very theory to straighten everything from 40ft x 10in diameter shaft to something you can fit in your palm.

The world trade centers were built with a square central framework with outside supporting beams. Common sense tells me that the building would have toppled towards the side with the greatest heat.
And the fact that the planes did not hit dead center says it was impossible for the heating to be even across the structure.
Add to the fact that all three building fell into there own footprint screams bullshit.

 

[westwall]

I have no idea what the mechanism was for building seven. The two towers collapsed in on themselves because of gravity. It is the nature of large buildings to do that. As physical strength fails, the building tilts in the direction of the failure (easily seen in the videos of the collapse) but as the failures begin to overtake the ability of the building to remain upright and the failures become catastrophic the buildings then simply follow gravity. Which is straight down. The designs of the building actually reinforced the directionality of the collapse as well.

I have not seen any compelling evidence that shows building 7's collapse as nothing more than burn damage resulting from a natural sequence of events. Somehow a fuel (I'm not saying jet fuel) was ignited in that building, and after burning long enough it too came down. So then the question becomes what was the fuel? Diesel that was stored in underground tanks? Other types of oils that were being used in the mechanical rooms of the building? A tanker truck parked outside but in very close proximity to a storm drain that allowed the burning substance to enter into the foundation areas? I have no idea, but in a cataclysm of that magnitude there are MANY causes to bring the building down without having to resort to the amazing leap of faith that is required by the 9-11 truthers.

There are many, many possible causes for Building 7 to have come down that don't require a movie level of "willing suspension of disbelief" to accomplish through nefarious means.

Well no shit gravity was involved.
When you weaken one side of a structure it only stands to reason that "gravity" would dictate that it fell towards the weakened side,not straight down. Yet it happened twice.

Show me a modern skyscraper that was brought down by fire alone.

Like I said, the design of the Twin Towers magnified the effect of funneling. The floor weakened and pivoted around the pins that held the floors to the support beams. Then the remaining strong I beams channeled the top floors straight down.

There was a center column of steel that supported the overall structure but it still would have weakened one side over the other.

Steel loses integrity in a uniform way, it doesn't fail on one side of the column while the other side stays strong. That is simply not how metals function.

No steel does not lose integrity in a uniform fashion when exposed to heat.
As a 25 year job shop machinist/prototype machinist who welds as a hobby I promise you I know the reaction of heat when applied to steel far better than you do. In fact I've used that very theory to straighten everything from 40ft x 10in diameter shaft to something you can fit in your palm.

The world trade centers were built with a square central framework with outside supporting beams. Common sense tells me that the building would have toppled towards the side with the greatest heat.
And the fact that the planes did not hit dead center says it was impossible for the heating to be even across the structure.
Add to the fact that all three building fell into there own footprint screams bullshit.

Yes, it does. It'c called thermo dynamics and they are pretty much immutable.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Well no shit gravity was involved.
When you weaken one side of a structure it only stands to reason that "gravity" would dictate that it fell towards the weakened side,not straight down. Yet it happened twice.

Show me a modern skyscraper that was brought down by fire alone.

Like I said, the design of the Twin Towers magnified the effect of funneling. The floor weakened and pivoted around the pins that held the floors to the support beams. Then the remaining strong I beams channeled the top floors straight down.

There was a center column of steel that supported the overall structure but it still would have weakened one side over the other.

Steel loses integrity in a uniform way, it doesn't fail on one side of the column while the other side stays strong. That is simply not how metals function.

No steel does not lose integrity in a uniform fashion when exposed to heat.
As a 25 year job shop machinist/prototype machinist who welds as a hobby I promise you I know the reaction of heat when applied to steel far better than you do. In fact I've used that very theory to straighten everything from 40ft x 10in diameter shaft to something you can fit in your palm.

The world trade centers were built with a square central framework with outside supporting beams. Common sense tells me that the building would have toppled towards the side with the greatest heat.
And the fact that the planes did not hit dead center says it was impossible for the heating to be even across the structure.
Add to the fact that all three building fell into there own footprint screams bullshit.

Yes, it does. It'c called thermo dynamics and they are pretty much immutable.

You have an opinion I have experience.
When heating one side of a steel structure it will lean towards the heat,putting cooling temps on the other side of the heat will cause it to pull towards the cool side. Leave the heat on one side and it will collapse.

 

[westwall]

Like I said, the design of the Twin Towers magnified the effect of funneling. The floor weakened and pivoted around the pins that held the floors to the support beams. Then the remaining strong I beams channeled the top floors straight down.

There was a center column of steel that supported the overall structure but it still would have weakened one side over the other.

Steel loses integrity in a uniform way, it doesn't fail on one side of the column while the other side stays strong. That is simply not how metals function.

No steel does not lose integrity in a uniform fashion when exposed to heat.
As a 25 year job shop machinist/prototype machinist who welds as a hobby I promise you I know the reaction of heat when applied to steel far better than you do. In fact I've used that very theory to straighten everything from 40ft x 10in diameter shaft to something you can fit in your palm.

The world trade centers were built with a square central framework with outside supporting beams. Common sense tells me that the building would have toppled towards the side with the greatest heat.
And the fact that the planes did not hit dead center says it was impossible for the heating to be even across the structure.
Add to the fact that all three building fell into there own footprint screams bullshit.

Yes, it does. It'c called thermo dynamics and they are pretty much immutable.

You have an opinion I have experience.
When heating one side of a steel structure it will lean towards the heat,putting cooling temps on the other side of the heat will cause it to pull towards the cool side. Leave the heat on one side and it will collapse.

You are talking about a very controlled laboratory type situation. Please explain how you can get differential heating in a conflagration.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

There was a center column of steel that supported the overall structure but it still would have weakened one side over the other.

Heat reacts to steel the same no matter the scale.
Go ahead and question me.




Steel loses integrity in a uniform way, it doesn't fail on one side of the column while the other side stays strong. That is simply not how metals function.

No steel does not lose integrity in a uniform fashion when exposed to heat.
As a 25 year job shop machinist/prototype machinist who welds as a hobby I promise you I know the reaction of heat when applied to steel far better than you do. In fact I've used that very theory to straighten everything from 40ft x 10in diameter shaft to something you can fit in your palm.

The world trade centers were built with a square central framework with outside supporting beams. Common sense tells me that the building would have toppled towards the side with the greatest heat.
And the fact that the planes did not hit dead center says it was impossible for the heating to be even across the structure.
Add to the fact that all three building fell into there own footprint screams bullshit.

Yes, it does. It'c called thermo dynamics and they are pretty much immutable.

You have an opinion I have experience.
When heating one side of a steel structure it will lean towards the heat,putting cooling temps on the other side of the heat will cause it to pull towards the cool side. Leave the heat on one side and it will collapse.

You are talking about a very controlled laboratory type situation. Please explain how you can get differential heating in a conflagration.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Well no shit gravity was involved.
When you weaken one side of a structure it only stands to reason that "gravity" would dictate that it fell towards the weakened side,not straight down. Yet it happened twice.

Show me a modern skyscraper that was brought down by fire alone.

Like I said, the design of the Twin Towers magnified the effect of funneling. The floor weakened and pivoted around the pins that held the floors to the support beams. Then the remaining strong I beams channeled the top floors straight down.

There was a center column of steel that supported the overall structure but it still would have weakened one side over the other.

Steel loses integrity in a uniform way, it doesn't fail on one side of the column while the other side stays strong. That is simply not how metals function.

No steel does not lose integrity in a uniform fashion when exposed to heat.
As a 25 year job shop machinist/prototype machinist who welds as a hobby I promise you I know the reaction of heat when applied to steel far better than you do. In fact I've used that very theory to straighten everything from 40ft x 10in diameter shaft to something you can fit in your palm.

The world trade centers were built with a square central framework with outside supporting beams. Common sense tells me that the building would have toppled towards the side with the greatest heat.
And the fact that the planes did not hit dead center says it was impossible for the heating to be even across the structure.
Add to the fact that all three building fell into there own footprint screams bullshit.

Yes, it does. It'c called thermo dynamics and they are pretty much immutable.

Did you miss that point on purpose?

 

[P F Tinmore]

My first thought when I saw those buildings fall is that they cannot collapse like that. That would be impossible.

And you would be wrong. Heat the steel I beams up to 1400 degrees and they lose 60% of their strength. Down it all comes.

So you are going to critique an hour and a half video after 3 minutes.

May I assume that you did not watch it.

Nope. I watched it long ago. It's not factually correct.

OK, my experience says they are correct. The same people who fed us this line are the ones who lied us into Iraq.

Just sayin'.

Doesn't matter who says what. All that matters is that the laws of physics are not being breached. They aren't. Everything that happened to the Twin Towers is fully in accordance with engineering and physical laws. I have watched every video about the so called conspiracy and they are all long on opinion, short on fact, and ignore the laws of physics in their entirety.

There is a lot of straw man stuff out there in an attempt to smokescreen the issues.