• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

construction worker killed in pancake collapse

A W Smith said:
No. Im Implying a building cannot arrest a progressive collapse.
Click to expand...


And this one example proves nothing. Just because this building doesnt arrest the collapse doesnt prove the assertion for all cases.

The wtc did not suffer a pancake collapse and its construction bears no relation to this building whatsoever.
 
This is a 6 storey unfinished building that suffered a collapse mechanism that wtc didn't. This is the worst comparison i've seen since you guys compared building 7 to that toilet roll warehouse. :rolleyes:
 
Aphelion said:
And this one example proves nothing. Just because this building doesnt arrest the collapse doesnt prove the assertion for all cases.

The wtc did not suffer a pancake collapse and its construction bears no relation to this building whatsoever.
Click to expand...

the above example was a collapse that was initiated by a single 23 foot x 4 foot slab. Are you saying the tops of the towers above the impact point weighed less that that single slab?
 
A W Smith said:
the above example was a collapse that was initiated by a single 23 foot x 4 foot slab. Are you saying the tops of the towers above the impact point weighed less that that single slab?
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges. That building wasn't even finish. It proves absolutely nothing.

Its like me producing a plane crash with lots of debris and saying "oh look, because this crash had debris, flight 93 couldn't have crashed."
 
Aphelion said:
This is a 6 storey unfinished building that suffered a collapse mechanism that wtc didn't. This is the worst comparison i've seen since you guys compared building 7 to that toilet roll warehouse. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The only thing absent below the point of collapse in the above example was the non load bearing curtain wall assembly and the interior partitions and mechanicals. The structural components of the building itself were complete up to that point.
 
A W Smith said:
The only thing absent below the point of collapse in the above example was the non load bearing curtain wall assembly and the interior partitions and mechanicals. The structural components of the building itself were complete up to that point.
Click to expand...

yeah, what he said
 
Aphelion said:
This is a 6 storey unfinished building that suffered a collapse mechanism that wtc didn't. This is the worst comparison i've seen since you guys compared building 7 to that toilet roll warehouse. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Guess you missed the apple fire vs the orange fire paper the fire experts did.

Fire destroys buildings, even the apple and orange buildings. Both apple and orange building can fail in uncontrolled fires. Examples are there if you have the brains to figure it out. If not a trip to Oz could help the straw-man in you.

 
Aphelion said:
Apples and oranges. That building wasn't even finish. It proves absolutely nothing.

Its like me producing a plane crash with lots of debris and saying "oh look, because this crash had debris, flight 93 couldn't have crashed."
Click to expand...



Are you saying UA93 had no debris?

-Gumboot
 
Aphelion said:
And this one example proves nothing. Just because this building doesnt arrest the collapse doesnt prove the assertion for all cases.

The wtc did not suffer a pancake collapse and its construction bears no relation to this building whatsoever.
Click to expand...

And just because, according to you lot, a steel framed building has never collapsed from fire (which wasn't the only thing hitting these buildings), doesn't mean it couldn't happen. Nice "logic".
 
Okay help me untangle this

Now the building collapse in Yonkers is an apple. It is an interesting apple, but a one of a kind example so doesn't count

The Twin Tower collapses are oranges, possibly more interesting than our apple, but certainly no less than a one of a kind. But this example counts :boggled:

Is this an oxymoron, or am I just having an eggshell blonde momment?
 
I'm thinking it's more of a chalk and cheese type thing. They are both chock full of calcium though.
 
Aphelion said:
And this one example proves nothing. Just because this building doesnt arrest the collapse doesnt prove the assertion for all cases.

The wtc did not suffer a pancake collapse and its construction bears no relation to this building whatsoever.
Click to expand...

But the one example of a steel framed building in Madrid is good enough when it suits you?
 
This is a real pancake collapse

http://iisee.kenken.go.jp/quakes/kocaeli/photos/fukuda/fuku10.jpg

Aphelion,

Progressive collapse is not really defined, it is all the chaos that happened after collapse initiation, but the only way to explain it (without other energy sources) is a momentum transfer theory in which each floor pancaked, not something that we observed. In fact the progressive collapse theory is an ennobled pancake collapse.
 
einsteen said:
...but the only way to explain it (without other energy sources) is a momentum transfer theory in which each floor pancaked, not something that we observed.
Click to expand...


And this is exactly the point of this new example. Why did it collapse right down to the ground under only the effect of gravity? Why didn't it need some explosive assistance to "overcome the resistance" of the structure below?

We've had twoofers in here asserting that such collapses cannot happen without such assistance, and this is simply one more example of that not being true. Sure, the scale is much smaller than the Towers, but we can't really go out and reproduce those exact conditions at will, so we have to extrapolate from what we have.

So, maybe just possibly, structures can fail due to dynamic loads, even if they were designed to support similar static loads. Maybe. Just possibly?
 
Major differences

This example is worthless. Both collapses were caused by different things. All the steel remained upright and did not break into pieces. No fires. The structure was not complete, the slab was being placed when it fell according to the Chief in the video. I don't get what this proves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom