Can fire with wind burn down modern cities?

That's an impressive photo of the fire outside Austin Texas.

Firefighters were describing it as "nothing they'd ever been in" before.

"Fire Tornadoes" were being produced which toss debris well beyond fire lines.

Texas had 30mph winds. You could conceivably have very rare windspeeds that almost never occur in anyone's lifetime. Or at least I don't see why not, since such scenarios seem to apply pretty well to other natural events. (not a meteorogist though)

No. Modern cities are built with lots of concrete and glass exteriors, as well as internal fire suppression systems. The materials will resist combustion unless the temperatures are extremely (like nuclear blast) high.

Crazy times in Texas with the extended drought. It is amazing how quickly a wildfire can erupt and spread under the right conditions.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/05/16/slave-lake-fire-evacuation.html

The Slave Lake fires wiped out almost half the town. Not a modern city, of course, but a firestorm can cause crazy damage.

Quote: Ayecarumba

No. Modern cities are built with lots of concrete and glass exteriors, as well as internal fire suppression systems. The materials will resist combustion unless the temperatures are extremely (like nuclear blast) high.

I was thinking along the lines of the Titanic not sinking and the Twin Towers were not suppose to be brought down either.

If a really unusual event occurred where burning items were blown in the city at a high constant rate -- perhaps there are enough items, gasoline filled cars, gas pipes, enclosed boxy items to explode and burn and destroy the integrity of the protection of concrete and steel. In high winds, fueled by whirlwinds, skyscraper windows have broken. Once the enclosure is breached it would be more susceptible.

Of course, I'm talking about an event that would take combined special circumstances that we've never really known of in modern times. (and perhaps, totally imaginary)

Quote: rxwine

I was thinking along the lines of the Titanic not sinking and the Twin Towers were not suppose to be brought down either.

The unsinkability of the Titanic was an invention of the media. The ship's designers and builders knew better. She could take in a lot of water and still float, but she could be sinked like any other ship ever made.

The Twin Towers were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, or at elast their design would allow such an impact without catastrophic failure. But 1) the planes that hit were bigger and likely flying faster, meaning more kinetic energy and 2) they carried a lot more fuel. Not o mentin they stroke a direct hit, rather than the more or less glancing blow a pilot trying not to crash would have.

Quote:

If a really unusual event occurred where burning items were blown in the city at a high constant rate -- perhaps there are enough items, gasoline filled cars, gas pipes, enclosed boxy items to explode and burn and destroy the integrity of the protection of concrete and steel. In high winds, fueled by whirlwinds, skyscraper windows have broken. Once the enclosure is breached it would be more susceptible.

Still unlikley. Concrete and glass don't burn. Asphalt does, but at very high temperatures. and streets are ver good fire-breaks.

Consider two real examples: Chicago and San Francisco. The Great Chicago Fire took place at a time where buildings were mostly wood. I don't know much about it, but as I recall a large part of the city burned, not al of it. In the 1989 earthquake several gas mains in SF were broken and burned for a few hours. The fires were cntained and didn't do much damage.

Or take purposeful action. Like the fire-bombing of Dresden and of Japanese cities in WWII. I dare say the Japanese fared worse because theys till rpeferred wood and paper over concrete and steel. Not that Dresden fared well. Dropping tons and tons of incendiary devices over wide areas is nasty. that way you could still burn down a city, though you'd be hard-pressed to assemble a bombing fleet to do so.

A nuke would do it, as has been pointed out. But for a whole city, even a small one, you'd need a megaton-range bomb detonated rather high, almost as high as you'd expect the bombs fireball to be wide. otherwise ther will be shadow and reflection effects from buildings, as the fireball comes before the shockwave. Of course the shockwave will level most of what doesn't burn, but there would be some shadows and reflactions there too.

I forgot to include Japan's recent tsunami. An example of being well prepared for 95% of everything, or whatever the percentage would be.

Nareed, I wouldn't think so either...normally. On the other hand, I was imagining very high winds being able to blow across concrete into breached windows. If you could blow burning items inside the buildings through broken windows, it certainly would increase the destructive aftermath.

Quote: rxwine

Nareed, I wouldn't think so either...normally. On the other hand, I was imagining very high winds being able to blow across concrete into breached windows. If you could blow burning items inside the buildings through broken windows, it certainly would increase the destructive aftermath.

You should write a screenplay about it. Disaster movies come and go out of fashion, and your idea is new and has Hollywood-level plausibility. Get a catchy title "Tornado of Fire," add two handsome leading men in a love triangle with the lovely leading lady and you're done. I'll even spot you a tagline: "They were prepared for every emergency. Or so they thought."

PS I may be cynical, but I am serious. It is a new idea.

Sort of an anti-"The Day After Tomorrow"?

Quote: Nareed

You should write a screenplay about it. Disaster movies come and go out of fashion, and your idea is new and has Hollywood-level plausibility. Get a catchy title "Tornado of Fire," add two handsome leading men in a love triangle with the lovely leading lady and you're done. I'll even spot you a tagline: "They were prepared for every emergency. Or so they thought."

PS I may be cynical, but I am serious. It is a new idea.

That's a natural for a Syfy movie-of-the-week plot. Now you just need a catchy name for it, something to rival "Mansquito" or "Sharktopus".

Syfy Original Movies

Quote: MathExtremist

That's a natural for a Syfy movie-of-the-week plot.

If he aimed for that, a good title would be "This Syfy Movie Doesn't Suck, Really, It Doesn't, I Swear It Doens't Suck."

Really, it seems to be the network where bad B-movies go to die. Not to mention they finished killing the Stargate Franchise.