It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Photo of Madrid skyscraper fire (still standing)

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Hmmm. Thanks you, conspiracy theorists, for making Google a totally useless tool for searching about information in relation to structural collapses due to fire. I gave up after several pages of parroting websites.

How the hell did you find that, man?




posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Please, someone debunk this fact for me.

Never in the entire history of high rise steel buildings, has a building collapsed completely or imploded upon itself, due to a fire, no matter how severe.

[edit on 13-2-2005 by Indigo_Child]


This is probably true, actually collapses of High rise buildings are rare for any circumstance.. But again, I say no one factor
alone can be responsible for structural failure of any building.. it is always a series of events... and
structural engineering flaws (a shot at myself) and poor construction standards are usually the underlying cause.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Please, someone debunk this fact for me.

Never in the entire history of high rise steel buildings, has a building collapsed completely or imploded upon itself, due to a fire, no matter how severe.

The first person who debunks this will get a thousand points from my own total. Do it, it will be arranged.



[edit on 13-2-2005 by Indigo_Child]


Here you go

One New York Plaza- Aug. 5 1970 it was 50 stories and collapse due to a fire.

Can I have my points now


Theres more on the list but that was the highest
www.haifire.com...


you didn't even bother reading your own link did you? See the summary at the end. No points there! Try again.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Wait they wanted a total collapse im not sure if that one was. By the way how many stories before a building is considered a Highrise.

Theres also a 21 story building with a full height core collapse. The CESP,sede 2 in Sao Palo Brazil.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Romeo
you didn't even bother reading your own link did you? See the summary at the end. No points there! Try again.


What are you talking about?



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Theres also a Total collapse of a 19 story building in St Petersburg, Russia on the list.

This one wins I think.

The cutoff between high-rise and low-rise buildings is 35 meters. So that building is a highrise with a total collapse due to a fire.





[edit on 13-2-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 11:35 PM
link   
The WTC didn't collapse soley due to a fire, so the question is pointless.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Ah, Romeo, I see what you meant.

Those buildings weren't steel. The steel buildings on the list were only partial collapses, not total ones.

Then again, none of those buildings had airplanes crashing into them, so such a comparison IS pointless, as was already stated. Nothing like 9/11 had ever happened before, so we're really comparing apples and oranges here.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Actually most collapses occur during construction phases due to inadequate
shoring and bracing.

Most collapses occur on completed projects due to the failure of critical
connections. Proper engineering of Column to Beam connections is the
single most critical area of structural engineering.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 11:42 PM
link   
The Twin Towers also had a very unique design with a center steel core and an outer steel frame and no intervening supporting columns. This design had a huge effect on the way the building was damaged and how it collapsed.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica
Ah, Romeo, I see what you meant.

Those buildings weren't steel. The steel buildings on the list were only partial collapses, not total ones.

Then again, none of those buildings had airplanes crashing into them, so such a comparison IS pointless, as was already stated. Nothing like 9/11 had ever happened before, so we're really comparing apples and oranges here.


Attention to detail is important in any debate. I think the initial remark remains undebunked.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Did you edit in the 'steel' into your debunk this statement. I dont remember that.

According to your orginal statement a high-rise has infact had a total collapse due to a fire

[edit on 13-2-2005 by ShadowXIX]

[edit on 13-2-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Romeo
Attention to detail is important in any debate. I think the initial remark remains undebunked.

Which is why you should have written an extra sentence explaining what you meant. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone on ATS has psychic powers


Shadow-
IC did say steel high-rise buildings. But that's like asking how many cities were totally destroyed by a single bomb the day after Hiroshima, and using that as some sort of proof the attack never happened. Now, if we had an airliner crashing into a skyscraper before and then something else happening, the comparison might be valid...



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The Twin Towers also had a very unique design with a center steel core and an outer steel frame and no intervening supporting columns. This design had a huge effect on the way the building was damaged and how it collapsed.


True, this building was engineered before progressive collapse was completely
understood. Now virtually all moment framed buildings are designed to alleviate
this.

Essentially, you can remove a column or two and the building will still be
standing. The key is to distribute the loading equally among the members.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 11:55 PM
link   
I think someone got sneaky with the edit button


I dont think it would prove anything though buildings can be so different in structure that one building might collapse in a earthquake while another across the street might stand.

They both got hit by the same force but they are so many factors when they are not the same design.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I think someone got sneaky with the edit button


I dont think it would prove anything though buildings can be so different in structure that one building might collapse in a earthquake while another across the street might stand.

They both got hit by the same force but they are so many factors when they are not the same design.


I actually copied the quote from IC's post and it's still in my clipboard. This was only a few minutes before you posted (but not necessarilly since you last read the quote-

Never in the entire history of high rise steel buildings, has a building collapsed completely or imploded upon itself, due to a fire, no matter how severe.

The steel part was in there when I read it.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Now, if we had an airliner crashing into a skyscraper before and then something else happening, the comparison might be valid...


The airliner did not make a difference, other than providing the means of fire. The steel frames were built to withstand the impact. Another steel building that was struck by a plane and suffered intense fires was the Empire state building. No it did not fall either.

WTC-7, that fell exactly the same way as WTC-1 and WTC-2, was not hit by anthing. Therefore, if the fact is true that in the entire history of high-rise steel buildings, no steel highrise building has ever collapsed, no matter how severe the fires, then why WTC-7?

[edit on 14-2-2005 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 12:12 AM
link   
The steel frames of the towers were completely severed on the side of impact and severe damage also occured to some of the core steel beams, it is completely ludicrous to say they were unharmed by the plane's impact. This weakened the structure so when the fire further weakened the remaining steel, the buildings collapsed. It's quite obvious.

The WTC7 building's foundation was damaged due to the other falling buildings as well as may have had damage from falling debris on the building. Again combined with the heat of the fire, it caused a devestating weakening of the structure.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The steel frames of the towers were completely severed on the side of impact and severe damage also occured to some of the core steel beams, it is completely ludicrous to say they were unharmed by the plane's impact. This weakened the structure so when the fire further weakened the remaining steel, the buildings collapsed. It's quite obvious.


The official explanation is that the fires caused the buildings to collapse. That is probably because molten steel was found. No, the plane could not have caused the building to collapse, as the steel frames were build to withstand impact, and I don't know which physics course you did, but the impact of a plane does not lower the melting point of steel.


The WTC7 building's foundation was damaged due to the other falling buildings as well as may have had damage from falling debris on the building. Again combined with the heat of the fire, it caused a devestating weakening of the structure.


LOL



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

Now, if we had an airliner crashing into a skyscraper before and then something else happening, the comparison might be valid...


The airliner did not make a difference, other than providing the means of fire. The steel frames were built to withstand the impact. Another steel building that was struck by a plane and suffered intense fires was the Empire state building. No it did not fall either.


[edit on 14-2-2005 by Indigo_Child]


They were never designed to take a impact of a plane that size because there was none that big at the time the towers were built. And a huge plane impacting a buildings does make a difference because it can shear off protective coatings on the steel.Also water lines that supplied the fire sprinklers were severed by the plane impact

The plane that struck the empire state building was not nearly the size.


[edit on 14-2-2005 by ShadowXIX]




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join