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

[westwall]

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.

 

[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.

Uhhh, OK, if you say so.

 

[westwall]

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.

Uhhh, OK, if you say so.

That's the whole point. I don't say so, physical laws do.

 

[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.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Even building demo experts sometimes fail to bring a building down correctly,yet all three fell into their own footprint.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There are simply no odds that a bunch of camel fuckers living in a cave in Pashtun conceived and carried out 911.

The cold war ended, we were on a glidepath to peace and prosperity, all our national debts would be retired by now, then all of a sudden, 911

 

[P F Tinmore]

There are simply no odds that a bunch of camel fuckers living in a cave in Pashtun conceived and carried out 911.

The cold war ended, we were on a glidepath to peace and prosperity, all our national debts would be retired by now, then all of a sudden, 911

Indeed, the military industrial complex had to come up with a new enemy to bolster their sagging profits.

 

[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.

 

[westwall]

Even building demo experts sometimes fail to bring a building down correctly,yet all three fell into their own footprint.

Sure, they screw up. Nothing is perfect. But completely natural fires as this one most recently in Teheran will bring towers down into their footprint as well. And this was a standard design of building. Not a tube with the floors suspended on pins effectively.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Domino theory

 

[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.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Even building demo experts sometimes fail to bring a building down correctly,yet all three fell into their own footprint.

Sure, they screw up. Nothing is perfect. But completely natural fires as this one most recently in Teheran will bring towers down into their footprint as well. And this was a standard design of building. Not a tube with the floors suspended on pins effectively.

I said a modern skyscraper. The middle east has somewhat of a reputation for poor building practices.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

Now I know you have never seen my video.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Even building demo experts sometimes fail to bring a building down correctly,yet all three fell into their own footprint.

Sure, they screw up. Nothing is perfect. But completely natural fires as this one most recently in Teheran will bring towers down into their footprint as well. And this was a standard design of building. Not a tube with the floors suspended on pins effectively.

Interesting how they fell over, not straight down.

 

[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.

 

[westwall]

Even building demo experts sometimes fail to bring a building down correctly,yet all three fell into their own footprint.

Sure, they screw up. Nothing is perfect. But completely natural fires as this one most recently in Teheran will bring towers down into their footprint as well. And this was a standard design of building. Not a tube with the floors suspended on pins effectively.

Interesting how they fell over, not straight down.

Facade (decorative brickwork) fell sideways. The actual structure of the building went straight down. Are you lying or do you not understand the difference between the two?

 

[westwall]

Even building demo experts sometimes fail to bring a building down correctly,yet all three fell into their own footprint.

Sure, they screw up. Nothing is perfect. But completely natural fires as this one most recently in Teheran will bring towers down into their footprint as well. And this was a standard design of building. Not a tube with the floors suspended on pins effectively.

I said a modern skyscraper. The middle east has somewhat of a reputation for poor building practices.

The Twin Towers were from the 1960's. And, a design that was never used again as far as I can tell.

 

[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.

Please give me a link supporting this theory.

 

[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.

Please give me a link supporting this theory.

It's in the engineering reports.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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