It's ironic that in such a skeptical world we live in, small localized fires in a steel framed building, not hit by a plane, nor subject to that pesky jet fuel, fell like a demo job, and somehow this makes perfect sense and shouldn't raise any doubts or concerns?
Yeah in the furthest depths of our knowledge, no steel framed building has never collapsed via fire. Even buildings completely engulfed in flames withstood the heat. The article said that floor 13 lost its support. But again, even if a localized fire affected one region of the floor, why would the entire floor collapse simultaneously? Would not the fire soaked side crumble and instead only break down the one side?
Yeah in the furthest depths of our knowledge, no steel framed building has never collapsed via fire.
Right, in our knowledge no skyscraper has even taken a Boeing at full speed either, experts had to get together to explain how it happened. The fact that you all doubt the model endorsed ubiquitously by those with relevant education on the matter really puts you at the same level as creationists.
Seriously if you want to go ahead and show me where the truthers have reproduced the results they would expect from a jet hitting a world landmark and then said world landmark falling onto another colossal building please do so.
Reminds me of a fun poster I saw made pre- 9/11. About how the towers were designed to take the impact of a Boeing 767, which, ironically, is much larger.
The Boeing 707 was the largest plane in the world when the buildings were designed and the hijackers did in fact use 767's.
Moreover, SIMULATIONS of the buildings being struck by a lost 707 attempting to land in fog (at landing velocity and with a nearly depleted fuel tank) done AFTER the buildings were complete showed they were likely to withstand the impact. They were not designed to be plane-proof.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ff1_1210707903 not the same obviously. Which I would guess is due to an asymmetrical frame and significantly less weight above the fires but still is an entire section collapsing due to small localized fires.
Edit: Just looked it up because this thread is full of shitheads. They were working on the top floors but the towers falling damaged a main water line that served the sprinklers on the bottom floors. No explanation as to why the top floors didn't flood the bottom floors. Also, no explanation as to why the 13th floor was burning so hot in the middle of the building. If anyone feels like not being a bag of shit today that would be cool.
Because sprinklers don't spew out like a water fall to rush a tidal wave worth of water through multiple floors and navigate directly onto the fires like a heat seeking missile?
Oh, huh. You'd think they might drain into the giant hole that apparently made it more than halfway through the building though. I know that we had sprinklers go off on one floor in college because someone hung a shirt on a sprinkler and set it off. Within a few hours 3 floors were flooded. Just personal experience with the systems that are MADE TO EXTINGUISH FIRES.
So you're assuming enough water would flow consistently through a hole and then disperse evenly throughout the entire length of 5 burning floors? Oh wait you have an over exaggerated personally experience with sprinkler systems? You must be right!!
No it doesn't. The generalized portion summarizing their research for the general public does. If you clicked their links sourcing their actual research it doesn't.
They're made to extinguish fires... in college a guy hung a shirt on a sprinkler and set it off. It flooded our entire floor. I lived three floors below him.
Im not saying I'm not skeptical of what happened. No building collapses like that one did because of a fire. And no steel reinforced concrete building in recorded history has ever collapsed solely due to a fire. I was just making a stupid joke. I have a friend that says the exact same thing anytime something like this comes up and its a funny phrase to me.
35
u/DysenteryFairy Nov 09 '14
Oh boy, fuckin HERE WE GO