# Skyscrapers on fire, not collapsing
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [September 12, 2010, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541 "2010-09-12T22:53:57Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)
#### Post date: [September 12, 2010, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/1 "2010-09-12T22:53:57Z")
To be clear, I’m not making an argument here, just asking a question so I can procede in an argument I’m having with someone else here.
Apparently there have been a half a dozen to a dozen or so cases in which an entire skyscraper was on fire in a huge, hours-long conflaguration, even in many cases with accompanying structural damage, and yet the skyscraper didn’t collapse.
But if I understand correctly, the WTC towers collapsed for the most part because of fires.
What’s the difference between the WTC towers and these other various skyscrapers? Why did the WTC towers collapse and not, for example, this hotel in Spain a couple of years ago?
Is the explanation just to be found in the fact that the WTC buildings had been hit by missiles or debris from missile collisions? Any way I can corroborate that that’s sufficient to accout for the difference?
---
### Author:  [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)
#### Post date: [September 12, 2010, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/2 "2010-09-12T22:56:06Z")
First difference, most of those fires weren’t accelerated by jet fuel.
Second difference, the WTC towers were constructed differently from most skyscrapers.
Third difference, in addition to the fires, the WTC towers were also damaged mechanically by the impacts.
---
### Author:  [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)
#### Post date: [September 12, 2010, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/3 "2010-09-12T23:01:38Z")
Fourth difference, I don’t think any of the other buildings were even remotely comparable in size. The WTC towers were 110 stories each. How tall was the hotel in Spain or Pennsylvania or whichever one your truther is bringing up? 5? 10? Hell, 60? That would still only be half.
Fifth difference, the automatic fire suppressant systems in the WTC were severed on impact. They could have been taming the fires in the other cases, though I can’t swear to it.
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [September 12, 2010, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/4 "2010-09-12T23:06:52Z")
> [@Frylock](#):
>
> Is the explanation just to be found in the fact that the WTC buildings had been hit by missiles or debris from missile collisions? Any way I can corroborate that that’s sufficient to account for the difference?
Please clarify what you mean by “missiles”?
---
### Author:  [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)
#### Post date: [September 12, 2010, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/5 "2010-09-12T23:11:33Z")
Okay and what about this, a peer-reviewed article that says there is “thermitic material” at ground zero? (Couldn’t that be from something done during post-disaster rescue and recovery efforts?)
At the end of the article it says something about how this material “incorporated nanotechnology” which sounds all eerie but as far as I can tell isn’t given support in the article itself. (But then, the article is technical and I didn’t read a lot of its text.) Any ideas what to say here?
---
### Author:  [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)
#### Post date: [September 12, 2010, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/6 "2010-09-12T23:12:33Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> > [@Frylock](#):
> >
> > Is the explanation just to be found in the fact that the WTC buildings had been hit by missiles or debris from missile collisions? Any way I can corroborate that that’s sufficient to account for the difference?
>
> Please clarify what you mean by “missiles”?
I’m referring to the two planes.
---
### Author:  [@appleciders](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/appleciders)
#### Post date: [September 12, 2010, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/7 "2010-09-12T23:17:27Z")
> [@Frylock](#):
>
> Okay and what about this, a peer-reviewed article that says there is “thermitic material” at ground zero? (Couldn’t that be from something done during post-disaster rescue and recovery efforts?)
>
> At the end of the article it says something about how this material “incorporated nanotechnology” which sounds all eerie but as far as I can tell isn’t given support in the article itself. (But then, the article is technical and I didn’t read a lot of its text.) Any ideas what to say here?
Got a link? It’s hard to comment out of context.
---
### Author:  [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)
#### Post date: [September 12, 2010, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/8 "2010-09-12T23:17:47Z")
Thermitic material? You mean like aluminum and iron oxide? What article is this you speak of?
---
### Author:  [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)
#### Post date: [September 12, 2010, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/9 "2010-09-12T23:18:47Z")
> [@Frylock](#):
>
> Okay and what about this, a peer-reviewed article that says there is “thermitic material” at ground zero? (Couldn’t that be from something done during post-disaster rescue and recovery efforts?)
>
> At the end of the article it says something about how this material “incorporated nanotechnology” which sounds all eerie but as far as I can tell isn’t given support in the article itself. (But then, the article is technical and I didn’t read a lot of its text.) Any ideas what to say here?
You want people to comment on an article that may or may not exist, that you purport to have barely read, which you don’t claim to understand, and where the only information we have about its contents come from you? :dubious:
As to the OP:
I give one human peanut butter. That human lives. I give another human peanut butter. That human suffers a massive allergic reaction and dies. Does this prove that I didn’t _really_ give peanut butter to one of the two subjects?
---
### Author:  [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)
#### Post date: [September 12, 2010, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/10 "2010-09-12T23:19:15Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#):
>
> Thermitic material? You mean like aluminum and iron oxide? What article is this you speak of?
Sorry, forgot the link!
[Here](http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM) it is.
---
### Author:  [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)
#### Post date: [September 12, 2010, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/11 "2010-09-12T23:20:35Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#):
>
> > [@Frylock](#):
> >
> > Okay and what about this, a peer-reviewed article that says there is “thermitic material” at ground zero? (Couldn’t that be from something done during post-disaster rescue and recovery efforts?)
> >
> > At the end of the article it says something about how this material “incorporated nanotechnology” which sounds all eerie but as far as I can tell isn’t given support in the article itself. (But then, the article is technical and I didn’t read a lot of its text.) Any ideas what to say here?
>
> You want people to comment on an article that may or may not exist, that you purport to have barely read, which you don’t claim to understand, and where the only information we have about its contents come from you? :dubious:
Jesus Christ dude. :dubious::dubious:
> [@](#):
>
> I give one human peanut butter. That human lives. I give another human peanut butter. That human suffers a massive allergic reaction and dies. Does this prove that I didn’t _really_ give peanut butter to one of the two subjects?
It’s nice to be able to account for the difference.
---
### Author:  [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)
#### Post date: [September 12, 2010, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/12 "2010-09-12T23:30:38Z")
> [@Frylock](#):
>
> Okay and what about this, a peer-reviewed article that says there is “thermitic material” at ground zero?
> **[forthardknox.com is a custom short domain](http://forthardknox.com/2009/07/20/april-09-thermite-paper-not-peer-reviewed-published-in-journal-with-questionable-reputation/)**
---
### Author:  [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)
#### Post date: [September 13, 2010, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/13 "2010-09-13T00:13:35Z")
OK, they found iron oxide particles on aluminum flakes. Iron oxide is often found in coatings and paint; 100 nm is within the range of particle sizes used for this purpose. Iron oxide is often used to coat aluminum flakes in color-effect paints; iron oxide is also used to produce pigmented aluminum structural panels, including those which incorporate iron sulfide; iron oxide has also been used as a wear coating for cast aluminum engines. There are many legitimate sources for these materials, and no reason to believe their presence at ground zero had anything to do with the use of the thermite reaction.
---
### Author:  [@Mozart1220](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mozart1220)
#### Post date: [September 13, 2010, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/14 "2010-09-13T01:37:36Z")
> [@Chronos](#):
>
> First difference, most of those fires weren’t accelerated by jet fuel.
>
> Second difference, the WTC towers were constructed differently from most skyscrapers.
>
> Third difference, in addition to the fires, the WTC towers were also damaged mechanically by the impacts.
The buildings were designed to withstand airpcraft impacts, and 90% of the jet fuel burned in the initial explaosions.
Even NY firefighters can be heard saying “It was like one of those controlled explosions, you heard pop, pop, pop, as the buildings came down”.
If you watched ANY of the several docs shown yesterday you had to have seen that clip.
---
### Author:  [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)
#### Post date: [September 13, 2010, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/15 "2010-09-13T01:43:01Z")
> [@Mozart1220](#):
>
> > [@Chronos](#):
> >
> > First difference, most of those fires weren’t accelerated by jet fuel.
> >
> > Second difference, the WTC towers were constructed differently from most skyscrapers.
> >
> > Third difference, in addition to the fires, the WTC towers were also damaged mechanically by the impacts.
>
> The buildings were designed to withstand airpcraft impacts, and 90% of the jet fuel burned in the initial explaosions.
>
> Even NY firefighters can be heard saying “It was like one of those controlled explosions, you heard pop, pop, pop, as the buildings came down”.
>
> If you watched ANY of the several docs shown yesterday you had to have seen that clip.
Jesus merciful fuck, when did every uneducated guy on the street become an expert in skyscraper demolitions. :rolleyes:
---
### Author:  [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)
#### Post date: [September 13, 2010, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/16 "2010-09-13T01:51:25Z")
> [@Mozart1220](#):
>
> [
>
> The buildings were designed to withstand airpcraft impacts,
At lower speeds.
> [@](#):
>
> and 90% of the jet fuel burned in the initial explaosions.
a) you know this figure how, exactly?
b) the jet fuel just had to start the other stuff in the building burning - all at once.
> [@](#):
>
> Even NY firefighters can be heard saying “It was like one of those controlled explosions, you heard pop, pop, pop, as the buildings came down”.
Ask any member of the FDNY if they think the WTC was controlled demolition. Go on. I’ll wait.
> [@](#):
>
> If you watched ANY of the several docs shown yesterday you had to have seen that clip.
So what?
---
### Author:  [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)
#### Post date: [September 13, 2010, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/17 "2010-09-13T01:52:05Z")
> [@Mozart1220](#):
>
> The buildings were designed to withstand airpcraft impacts, and 90% of the jet fuel burned in the initial explaosions.
Cite?
> [@](#):
>
> Even NY firefighters can be heard saying “It was like one of those controlled explosions, you heard pop, pop, pop, as the buildings came down”.
So what? Just because they relate it to a more familiar type of building destruction does not mean they actually think it was a planned implosion. Their is an enormous leap between “looks like” and “definitely is”.
---
### Author:  [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)
#### Post date: [September 13, 2010, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/18 "2010-09-13T01:54:07Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#):
>
> > [@Frylock](#):
> >
> > Okay and what about this, a peer-reviewed article that says there is “thermitic material” at ground zero?
>
> [forthardknox.com is a custom short domain](http://forthardknox.com/2009/07/20/april-09-thermite-paper-not-peer-reviewed-published-in-journal-with-questionable-reputation/)
And that says it all about that ‘paper’. Years and years of alleged ‘research’ and the truth movement still has to use a ‘pay to publish’ journal.
The fun was when someone set up a program to write a scientific paper that was entirely random scientific word gibberish. Bentham accepted it for publication (pending the check clearing).
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [September 13, 2010, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/19 "2010-09-13T02:16:12Z")
Has it actually been long enough to pretend that we haven’t done this many times before?
---
### Author:  [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)
#### Post date: [September 13, 2010, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/20 "2010-09-13T02:20:55Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> Has it actually been long enough to pretend that we haven’t done this many times before?
Who’s asking anyone to pretend anything?
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541.md?page=2)