Buildings don't fall down just because they're on fire pt911

Status
Not open for further replies.
ProfessionalMackem said:
Okay let's stay with your analogy mate. How can you say so confidently that fire finished them off? When most of the buildings (I'd say for the two towers it's was 80% and wt7 95%) unneffected by fire. Experience and common sense tells us that fire could not have destroyed those buildings the way they did with them temperatures and duration of fires. We would have seen the tops of the buildings collapse asymmetrically whilst most of the buildings would have survived. They were hardcore steel and concrete structures.

I might be one of the few people who remember you or your mate back in the day posting on this subject. You were on my side back then. Come back full circle marra. Trust your gut.
Click to expand...

Once a partial collapse occurred by fire, the weight would be above limit on any reinforcement below it, causing a collapse down.
 


ProfessionalMackem said:
Okay let's stay with your analogy mate. How can you say so confidently that fire finished them off? When most of the buildings (I'd say for the two towers it's was 80% and wt7 95%) unneffected by fire. Experience and common sense tells us that fire could not have destroyed those buildings the way they did with them temperatures and duration of fires. We would have seen the tops of the buildings collapse asymmetrically whilst most of the buildings would have survived. They were hardcore steel and concrete structures.

I might be one of the few people who remember you or your mate back in the day posting on this subject. You were on my side back then. Come back full circle marra. Trust your gut.
Click to expand...

The weight of the floors above couldn't be supported by each floor beneath as it fell.

It didn't free fall iirc, and parts of the building fell away, as opposed to into its own foot print.

I was never ever on the side of it being suss or an inside job :lol:
 
Jardin said:
Once temperatures in a fire increase beyond the melting point of the core metal infrastructure, the fucker is coming down. Sustained fire damage can obliterate virtually any structure. Even a tincan in a campfire will lose its structural integrity if stress is applied whilst still hot. As the metal was the reinforcement structure I can't understand why anyone would find it a mystery that intense fire brought them down.
Click to expand...

So why don't they use this tried and tested way of burning buildings to bring them down in demolition jobs? Save a lot of money on explosives that does.

Could you also provide us with evidence of buildings burning for a hour or two and coming down at near free fall speed into its own footprints please? Would love to know why you speak with such confidence that fire can do such things
 
dangermows said:
The weight of the floors above couldn't be supported by each floor beneath as it fell.

It didn't free fall iirc, and parts of the building fell away, as opposed to into its own foot print.

I was never ever on the side of it being suss or an inside job :lol:
Click to expand...

:lol:
Dinnet lie marra. I remember these things. You made a great show of changing sides. You can change again mate. Nee bosh.

Why couldn't they support it? They weren't made of paper.
 
Last edited:
ProfessionalMackem said:
So why don't they use this tried and tested way of burning buildings to bring them down in demolition jobs? Save a lot of money on explosives that does.

Could you also provide us with evidence of buildings burning for a hour or two and coming down at near free fall speed into its own footprints please? Would love to know why you speak with such confidence that fire can do such things
Click to expand...

Cause I studied physics and have a brother in law who is a metallurgist. Much in the same way we know about "work-hardening" of metals (produces a tougher, less giving metal, that is also permanently closer to its elastic limit, thus being less prone to bending but being more prone to snapping), we have also studied thermal effects on metals. All it would take is the thermal energy reaching melting point of a key structural element and gravity would do the rest.

In practise, such a method is variable - which part of the structure hits melting point would affect the fall. A collapse could not be guaranteed as opposed to a topple so it would not be suitable (or economically viable in comparison to explosives - it takes some power to reach the MP of hardened steel) for demolition purposes.
 
JL1985 said:
9/11 is bullshit. It's 11/9, we're British not American.
Click to expand...

All dates should be in the format 2017-01-19 otherwise they do not appear in numeric order, anyone that dates anything with the day before the month or year is a moron and deserves to be shot with shit. 9/11 is correct.
 
Jardin said:
Cause I studied physics and have a brother in law who is a metallurgist. Much in the same way we know about "work-hardening" of metals (produces a tougher, less giving metal, that is also permanently closer to its elastic limit, thus being less prone to bending but being more prone to snapping), we have also studied thermal effects on metals. All it would take is the thermal energy reaching melting point of a key structural element and gravity would do the rest.

In practise, such a method is variable - which part of the structure hits melting point would affect the fall. A collapse could not be guaranteed as opposed to a topple so it would not be suitable (or economically viable in comparison to explosives - it takes some power to reach the MP of hardened steel) for demolition purposes.
Click to expand...

Not going disagree with pretty much all that but I will say that what you posted and I posted can still be both true.

The bold bit. I agree wholeheartedly that it's not guaranteed to collapse properly due to fire. Id go further and say that's why we've never one in the past or since. Fire just doesn't bring down buildings in that fashion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top