Examples. Let's have them.
And some crude youtube video with ominous music and ten words per minute of text doesn't count.
Printable View
Examples. Let's have them.
And some crude youtube video with ominous music and ten words per minute of text doesn't count.
Ok, since you want me to do your homework for you, how about you quote the section of the 9/11 Commission report for us that details the universal agreement on why the buildings collapsed.Quote:
Originally Posted by kedawa
The burden's on you, bucky.
It took me all of five minutes to browse through articles of all modern high rise fires and determine that there were none comparable to the situation at the WTC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shooting Love
I don't understand why it's so hard for people to wrap there heads around the idea that unprecedented situations sometimes have unprecedented results.
You're right about the 911 Commission Report, though. The analysis I was referring to was actually in the NIST report on the attacks. My mistake.
Empire State Building, B52 bomber crashed into it, significant fire and damage.
Los Angeles skyscraper, burned for 3 hours over 4 floors
Philadelphia skyscraper, burned 19 hours over 8 floors.
Venezuella skyscraper, burned 17 hours over 26 floors.
Madrid skyscraper, burned 24 hours, upper 10 floors fell, building did not collapse.
Yoshi 0+0 still equal zero does that satisfy your thirst for my font?
Right, and I suppose all of those buildings were exactly like the WTC.
There's a difference between smoldering while fire fighters spray water on them, and being abandoned entirely.
Look deeper than the basic premise and you'll find none of those was comparable to the WTC in terms of scale and construction.
You should ignore anything where the fire occurred in a building under construction.
Of course the buildings weren't exactly like the WTC.Quote:
Originally Posted by kedawa
"Smoldering while firefighters put water on them" not quite, but nice try.
I think it is you who needs to look deeper than the basic premise.
It isn't going to change my life one way of the another, so I don't care much.
But as a critical thinker, the varying and changing explanations of why 3 buildings fell directly onto themselves is very suspect.
Just look at the last two examples you posted.
In one case, a smaller, lighter building which suffered a cooler fire had a smaller section collapse, and in the other, a smaller, lighter building suffered a cooler fire and it was found that the metal substructure was on the verge of giving out.
Is it that hard to understand that a far heavier building burning far hotter would suffer a complete collapse?