|
Post by feelfree222 on Mar 8, 2007 17:50:28 GMT -4
I don't see anything in his last few sentences that would limit his argument to skyscrapers. For what it's worth, where he goes wrong in that argument is in ignoring the ten-fold difference in kinetic energy between the design case of an airliner at typical approach speed and the actual cruise-speed impact, with consequently greater structural damage including damage to the fireproofing on the steel beams. But he take this into consideration .... I resume some previous conversations about the following quote(s) made by Rice “The subsequent 2006 repackaged documentary Building on Ground Zero explained that the connectors held, but that the columns failed, which is also unlikely.” He doesn’t say why this is unlikely.I try an explanation Because that suppose that the weldings whose fixed the connectors to the steel columns have not broken under the weight and pressure of the broken floors debris falling onto the floor they support.----------------------------------- Here the quote "Let’s assume the unlikelihood that these fires could weaken all of the columns to the same degree of heat intensity and thus remove their structural strength equally over the entire floor, or floors, in order to cause the top 30-floor building segment (South Tower WTC #2) to drop vertically and evenly onto the supporting 79th floor. The 30 floors from above would then combine with the 79th floor and fall onto the next level down (78th floor) crushing its columns evenly and so on down into the seven levels below the street level. The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This violates Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases. Even if Newton’s Law is ignored, the prevailing theory would have us believe that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed upon itself crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor while maintaining a free-fall speed as if the 100,000, or more, tons of supporting structural-steel framework underneath didn’t exist.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 8, 2007 18:18:45 GMT -4
"If a structural steel building could collapse because of fire, it would do so slowly as the various steel members gradually relinquished their structural strength. However, in the 100-year history of structural-steel framed buildings, there is no evidence of any structural steel framed building having collapsed because of fire."
Structrual Steel framed buildings have collapsed because of fire, what part of this can't you see?
He did not say no 107 storey high, he didn't say no skyscrappers, he said "ANY Structural Steel Framed Buildings". The one that is re-interpreting his words is you because you are saying he meant something other then what he said. What he said is wrong, plain and simple, attempting to twist what he said to meet your own goal post shifting just makes you look dumb.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Mar 8, 2007 22:38:01 GMT -4
all the examples you cite are not about Other High Rise Steel Framed Skyscraper Fires
I expected you to say that, and that too has been hashed over at length, but I have a question -
there is no evidence of any structural steel framed building having collapsed because of fire.
He didn't say "skyscraper". He said "building".
Why can you not simply admit that this statement, as written, is wrong?
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Mar 8, 2007 23:56:49 GMT -4
"If a structural steel building could collapse because of fire, it would do so slowly as the various steel members gradually relinquished their structural strength. However, in the 100-year history of structural-steel framed buildings, there is no evidence of any structural steel framed building having collapsed because of fire."Structrual Steel framed buildings have collapsed because of fire, what part of this can't you see? But when he talk about no evidence of any structural steel framed building having collapsed because of fire.he mean complete collapse right? Because many examples you and other cite concerns only partial collapse. edited to add. Oh! I forget . A partial collapse is the demonstration that his claim is right."If a structural steel building could collapse because of fire, it would do so slowly as the various steel members gradually relinquished their structural strength. [
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Mar 9, 2007 1:37:51 GMT -4
Because many examples you and other cite concerns only partial collapse. [emphasis mine] 1 (one) single, solitary structural steel frame building collapsing because of fire at any time in the last 100 years is enough to render his claim false. [Edit to add:] From part 2 of this article, linked previously by PhantomWolf: Despite the fire-fighters' efforts, Building One collapsed completely at approximately 5:14 p.m. [emphasis mine] No other evidence need be presented. Rice's claim is demonstrably and unquestionably false.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Mar 9, 2007 1:45:27 GMT -4
Because many examples you and other cite concerns only partial collapse. [emphasis mine] 1 (one) single, solitary structural steel frame building collapsing because of fire at any time in the last 100 years is enough to render his claim false. Ok cite one with reference and pictures showing it have totally collapsed because of fire and i give up...after discussing the validity of the case of course. Oh! and remember A partial collapse is the demonstration that Rice claim is right."If a structural steel building could collapse because of fire, it would do so slowly as the various steel members gradually relinquished their structural strength. [
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Mar 9, 2007 1:58:55 GMT -4
Oh! and remember A partial collapse is the demonstration that Rice claim is right.No, a partial collapse does not back up his claim that steel structures cannot rapidly fail.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Mar 9, 2007 2:06:17 GMT -4
Oh! and remember A partial collapse is the demonstration that Rice claim is right.No, a partial collapse does not back up his claim that steel structures cannot rapidly fail. Why?
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Mar 9, 2007 2:15:47 GMT -4
No, a partial collapse does not back up his claim that steel structures cannot rapidly fail. Why? For one, because what happens in one case is not applicable to all cases. For another, because partial collapse does not indicate gradual collapse.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Mar 9, 2007 2:24:54 GMT -4
For one, because what happens in one case is not applicable to all cases. For another, because partial collapse does not indicate gradual collapse. Interesting So the following example should apply to the discussion. Do you know why the steel framed section of The Windsor Building hotel failed and collapsed? Read the details here 911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.htmlThe Windsor Building fire demonstrates that a huge building-consuming fire, after burning for many hours can produce the collapse of parts of the building with weak steel supports lacking fire protection. It also shows that the collapse events that do occur are gradual and partial.Estimated time frame of collapsesTime Collapse Situation 1:29 East face of the 21st floor collapsed 1:37 South middle section of several floors above the 21st floor gradually collapsed 1:50 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed 2:02 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed 2:11 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed 2:13 Floors above about 25th floor collapsed Large collapse of middle section at about 20th floor 2:17 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed 2:47 Southwest corner of 1 ~ 2 floors below about 20th floor collapsed 2:51 Southeast corner of about 18th ~ 20th floors collapsed 3:35 South middle section of about 17th ~ 20th floors collapsed Fire broke through the Upper Technical Floor 3:48 Fire flame spurted out below the Upper Technical Floor 4:17 Debris on the Upper Technical Floor fell down Edited to fix quote
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Mar 9, 2007 2:36:34 GMT -4
Do you know why the steel framed section of The Windsor Building hotel failed and collapsed? Yes, it collapsed due to fire.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Mar 9, 2007 2:45:55 GMT -4
Do you know why the steel framed section of The Windsor Building hotel failed and collapsed? Yes, it collapsed due to fire. There is more you should know about it and why that partial collapse of an outside steel framed section have nothing comparable with WTC .. Because if all the Windsor hotel was made only with a steel framed structure rather than reinforced concrete and an -outside- steel structure it would have not even partly collapsed. You have all to gain by lurking the reasons why ....dont be affraid. 911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Mar 9, 2007 2:59:01 GMT -4
Because if all the Windsor hotel was made only with a steel framed structure rather than reinforced concrete and an -outside- steel structure it would have not even partly collapsed. A claim which is unsupported. Completely steel framed structures do collapse because of fire.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Mar 9, 2007 3:05:01 GMT -4
Because if all the Windsor hotel was made only with a steel framed structure rather than reinforced concrete and an -outside- steel structure it would have not even partly collapsed. A claim which is unsupported. Completely steel framed structures do collapse because of fire. As i have asked in a previous post(« Reply #50 ), Ok cite one with reference and pictures showing it have totally collapsed because of fire and i give up...after discussing the validity of the case of course
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Mar 9, 2007 3:18:19 GMT -4
As i have asked in a previous post(« Reply #50 ) See my post immediately preceding that one which I was editing as you were replying.
|
|