Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shankz
Actually from what I read, they based all that thinking on Tower #7 which happened 9-11-2001, so you can't really use that as an argument. Not to mention, the building you mentioned burned for like 29 hours. What do you mean if it had gone "unchecked"? 29 hours of burning couldn't bring it down because the fire couldn't get hot enough to melt steel. It pretty much proves something was different with Tower 7 to me unless you got something else.
|
At last a sensible comment. I understand that the Madrid fire did melt the steel support columns but the design also had concrete support which were lower down and fared better which prevented immediate collapse. The structure was declared unsafe and demolished (or is in the process of being demolished).
In essence though I simply challenged the statement that it was impossible for a modern skyscraper to be destroyed by fire yet the Madrid building was destroyed by fire.
The fact is though that the Madrid building and Tower 7 were of different height/design/construction and were subject to different trauma so comparisons between the two events are meaningless. In fact this argument is far better than screaming at me that the Madrid building was not destroyed by fire when it patently was but there you go. It adds to the fun!
