How Hot Could The WTC7 Fires Burned, and How Hot could the Steel be?

Mick West

Staff member

There's been a variety of threads here that (in part) discuss fire temperatures, but I thought it would be worthwhile to focus on WTC7 in the light of the Hulsey presentation, and the importance of fire spread and temperatures to the analysis of possible collapse sequences. This is largely information for context, and I draw no conclusions from it.

There's a large number of factors to consider when looking at fire temperatures. Of primary interest here are the "upper gas temperatures" which are the temperatures of the "air" (the gas in the room, a variable combination of normal air, smoke, carbon dioxide, water vapor, and other products of combustion) above the flames. Here's some numbers for context. I'll try to use °C throughout the thread for consistency.
"Flashover" is the point at which the room is full engulfed in fire, rather than local items in the room burning. It's the start of the "Fully Developed" fire, which will burn with maximum temperatures for some time.

The fires shows here appear to be fully developed with good ventilation.



This is reasonably consistent with NIST's simulation. (NCSTAR 1-9 page 384-5, pdf 450-1):
But there's also considerable variation on the simulation, just with a change to the ceiling tile system, we get at quite different fire pattern.

These are both simulations, not reality. However it seems quite reasonable that there would be areas of 900-1000°C upper gas temperatures for some time around the floor systems to the east and north of column 79.

Of course gas temperature is not steel temperature. There has to be a thermal transfer of the heat from the hot gas to the steel, often via the fire protection coating.


Senior Member.
Of course gas temperature is not steel temperature. There has to be a thermal transfer of the heat from the hot gas to the steel, often via the fire protection coating.
any idea of what a beam girder temp would be for different gas temps and time of exposure. for ex: girder a2001.

I found this formula but I cant tell if it has steel mass type variables in it. (Or what any of the other math is or how to embed the actual formula here.)


I've watched some of the UAF presentation by Prof Husley and I will add my thoughts on the issue of temperatures, flashover and the fire response of structural steel. I began at university as an engineering student, turned to the chemistry of materials, became a forensic scientist, and specialised as a fire investigator. I have a PhD in the inorganic chemistry of magnetic materials and just shy of 24 years in forensic chemistry with a long-term specialisation in fire and explosion investigation. Worked initially as a defence scientist on IRA, animal rights, islamic terror, multiple murder, arson, etc cases but for the past 20+ years I've been working for Insurers, lawyers, private corporations, government agencies, etc in Europe and Australasia in the field of fire/explosion investigation, associated litigation and the provision of expert advice and testimony.

Yes you can get pretty much what you want out of the many fire simulation models available and that's why there are dangerous instruments in the hands of those who don't understand them or how to interpret the results. Have used some very simple ones (the types that are used for design purposes for fire engineers) to get some "ball park" ideas of what might happen in single room or semi-enclosed fires. There are many variables and it is not surprising, to me at least, that the NIST models produced quite differing results depending upon how the ceilings were configured. The materials of construction of a compartment do influence the behaviour of a fire within it.

It is worth noting that not every compartment fire undergoes a flashover and you can do some simple tweaking of fire modelling software to demonstrate how flashover comes about or even using test rigs you can generate and stop a flashover or full room involvement event - I've seen it done on a variety of scales, one of which was the size of a doll's house. The mechanism of flashover is essentially down to a feedback process when the radiant heat flux from the hot gases at the ceiling is sufficient to cause ignition of the entire contents of the room (well everything that is in the line of sight at least) due to "spontaneous" (unpiloted) radiative ignition. This results in a very sudden change in the nature of the fire and is accompanied by a very rapid increase in heat output and sometimes can result in changes in pressure within the compartment. A so-called backdraft is one form of flashover event, just don't believe everything you see at the movies!

The key variables that determine if the fire will transition through flashover are to do with heat inputs, heat losses and ventilation. Too much or too little ventilation or too much in the way of heat losses then there will never be enough heat flux from the hot gas layer to cause the sudden change in fire behaviour.

Of these factors the heat release rate for a given fuel package or packages, will mainly determine what temperatures can be observed during a compartment fire that has undergone flashover, but again these "free burning" temperatures are also strongly correlated with ventilation.

As a side note, some other fires that didn't exhibit flashover didn't get there as firefighting was commenced early enough to prevent the transition from developing to fully developed.

In this case the fires on several floors of WTC 7 were clearly burning in post flashover "fully developed" or "decay" stages before collapse occurred. The video evidence confirms this.

Estimating the likely temperatures that were attained in those offices prior to the collapse is difficult, particularly as there is no physical evidence remaining so the usual fire temperature indicators are not present. But the research in this field is consistent with the NIST models. Temperatures in excess of about 900C to 1100C being found in post-flashover fires, with some fires producing even higher post-flashover temperatures.

As I said, the likely post-flashover temperature is mainly dependent upon heat release rates (HRRs) of the fuels and the available ventilation. Indeed post-flashover fires are usually characterised as either fuel- or ventilation-controlled. As fuel is consumed then the fire may move from being ventilation-controlled (short of air) to being fuel-controlled, where there is sufficient air but the amount of fuel is diminishing. Fires may also die back if there is very limited air or if the air movement changes significantly due to a variety of factors. If air then enters again these quiescent, smouldering, fires may begin to flame again. In this manner uncontrolled fires within the WTC 7 building could move around the various floors and repeatedly die back and re-ignite when local ventilation conditions change.

The HRRs for fuels are determined experimentally using calorimeters and Vyto Baubrauskas ,"doctorfire" who you quote from, did a great deal of work developing calorimeters. He was the first person to obtain a PhD in fire protection engineering. Accurate and representative HRRs are probably the most important issue in getting accurate modelling of post-flashover temperatures and the nature of the contents of the floors involved in the fire will have a large bearing on the HRRs. Substantial quantities of soft furnishings and plastics will contribute to HRRs more than stacks of papers, books, etc or more cellulosic materials.

As far as testing of structural elements and materials is concerned then BS476 and ASTM E119 have similar time-temperature curves used to simulate real fires under test conditions. They have temperatures of about 900-950C at the 60 minute mark, 1000C to 1050C at 120 minutes, 1100C to 1150C at 240 minutes and 1260C at 480 minutes in their standard fire tests. These are rough figures as the tests can be carried out with a range of fuels and using a range of furnaces that have walls of varying emissivity (radiative ability). But they do show how structure fires are expected to develop over time.

Regarding the actual temperatures that the steel will "see" in a fire, there are lots of complex issues here. One is that the steel will not just feel hot gases around it and thereby absorb heat from convective (buoyant) flows of hot products of combustion, but it will also feel radiant heat from the emissive flames and other radiating objects in the room. So it may gain (or lose) heat by a variety of mechanisms, some conductive, some convective and some radiative. The emissivity of a radiant object is related to temperature in a T^4 relationship so the temperature of the radiating objects is very important and this will be factored into the NIST estimates of steel temperature/time relationships.

Other complicating issues include the thermal response of the steel to heat which depends on many factors such as it's geometry, dimensions, density, size/shape and how it was protected from fire attack and how that protection itself responded to fire. These issues are probably beyond even the majority of the fire investigation community and I find myself struggling to keep up with the mathematics involved in the response of these structural elements to fire. But I am familiar with how steel deflects and distorts during fires and how it can move significantly as a result of fires of much shorter duration and intensity than those in WTC 7. I have seen plenty of real world fires where steel joists have pushed out walls, pulled themselves off columns/hangers and where these structural elements have been radically altered by the heat from prolonged fire exposure.

One other factor that is worth noting is that the temperature of the steel will lag behind the ambient temperature and whatever radiant heat fluxes it it exposed to. So the maximum temperature within the body of the steel will occur some time after the fire began to die back from the maximum post-flashover levels.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Oxymoron WTC7: Did the fires burn long and hot enough? 9/11 340
S NIST's Response to AE911Truth's WTC7 Girder Objection 9/11 73
Oystein Final Report: Hulsey/AE911Truth's WTC7 Study 9/11 26
Joe Hill WTC7: Does This "Look Like" a Controlled Implosion? 9/11 45
Mick West TFTRH #25 - Jason Bermas: Producer of Loose Change, Shade, Invisible Empire Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
Mick West Sept 3, 2019 release of Hulsey's WTC7 draft report: Analysis 9/11 183
Pepijn van Erp WTC7: Determining the Accelerations involved - Methods and Accuracy 9/11 41
Mick West A wider perspective on the WTC7 collapse 9/11 2
Mick West Some New-ish WTC7 Photos (and video?) Corner Damage 9/11 6
Mick West Debunked: NIST's Lack of Explanation for WTC7 Freefall [They Have One - Column Buckling] 9/11 38
Jedo Debunked: WTC7 was the only building not on the WTC block that had a fire on 9/11 9/11 0
Mick West WTC7 South Side Photos 9/11 2
Mick West WTC7 Smoke Movement Before and After Penthouse Collapse 9/11 7
John85 How could the interior collapse in WTC7 Move West Without More Visible Exterior Damage 9/11 63
Mick West WTC7: Is AE911's (and NIST's) Focus on A2001 Justified if it Was Not "Key" in NIST's Global Model? 9/11 181
Mick West WTC7 Penthouse Falling Window Wave 9/11 65
Jeffrey Orling The Role of Diesel Fuel in WTC7 9/11 12
Mick West First Interstate Tower Fire - Comparison with WTC Towers and WTC7 9/11 5
Mick West Kai Kostack's WTC7 Collapse Simulation using BCB and Blender 9/11 10
Mick West Have You Actually READ the NIST Report on Building 7? 9/11 12
gerrycan Did NIST examine Steel from WTC7? 9/11 16
gerrycan Movement of Column 79 as Expressed in WTC7 UAF Presentation 9/11 13
Mick West Debunked: UAF Study Shows WTC7 Could Not Have Collapsed from Fire 9/11 43
Mick West Debunked: CIA Agent Confesses On Deathbed: ‘We Blew Up WTC7 On 9/11’ [HOAX] 9/11 12
Whitebeard Tehran Plasco Highrise Fire And Collapse - 9/11 WTC7, WTC1&2 Comparisons 9/11 84
Cube Radio What is this woman hearing as WTC7 collapses behind her 9/11 40
Mick West How Buckling Led to "Free Fall" acceleration for part of WTC7's Collapse. 9/11 129
benthamitemetric Other WTC7 Investigations: Aegis Insurance v. 7 World Trade Company Expert Reports 9/11 39
Oystein Debunked: "WTC7 Sound Evidence of Explosions" by Chandler/AE911T 9/11 31
Oystein AE911 Truth's WTC7 Evaluation Computer Modelling Project 9/11 1340
Cube Radio Sulfur at WTC7: how could it come from gypsum as the BBC claimed? 9/11 75
jaydeehess Why little to no analysis of steel from WTC7? 9/11 45
gerrycan AE911 Letter to Inspector General Claims NIST WTC7 Report is Provably False 9/11 161
Ron J WTC7 Firefighting 9/11 48
gerrycan WTC7 - Can YOU Spot The Difference? 9/11 52
Cairenn The plausibility of demolishing WTC7 with explosives on 9/11 9/11 429
Oxymoron How much of the Smoke Around WTC7 actually from WTC7? 9/11 20
Mick West What would a new WTC7 Collapse Investigation look like? 9/11 127
mynym WTC7 and other Buildings, the Significance of Sheer Studs 9/11 1
Representative Press WTC7 Fire Temperatures and effects on the East Floor System 9/11 58
Representative Press Significance of WTC7 9/11 36
ColtCabana FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro's statement on WTC7 9/11 135
gerrycan Critical Errors and Omissions in WTC7 Report Uncovered 9/11 841
Alchemist How could WTC7 Possible have fallen like it did? 9/11 319
Josh Heuer The Uniqueness of the WTC7 Collapse 9/11 528
Oxymoron WTC4 fire photo labeled as WTC7 on 911 memorial timeline site. 9/11 60
Mick West Debunked: WTC7 vs. Chechnya's Tallest Building Fire (Grozny-City Complex) 9/11 24
Mick West Does NIST not testing for explosives and not testing WTC7 steel invalidate everything 9/11 246
Mick West Debunked: AE911Truth's WTC7 Explosive Demolition Hypothesis 9/11 175
Related Articles

Related Articles