WTC7: Did the fires burn long and hot enough?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
NCSTAR 1-A, page 21:

It is like a joke... They are guessing and in guessing they come up with a political science based conclusion designed to protect those in power... it is as simple as that.

They fully acknowledge that the temperatures are well below the temperatures considered in current practice for determining
fire resistance ratings associated with significant loss of steel strength

But it bothers them not one bit. If it is me that is wrong tell me in plain words how and why I am wrong.

Content from external source:

As the fires progressed, some of the structural steel began to heat. According to the generally accepted test standard, ASTM E-119, one of the criteria for establishing the fire resistance rating for a steel column or floor beam is derived from the time at which, during a standard fire exposure, the average column
temperature
exceeds 538 °C (1000 °F) or the average floor beam temperature exceeds 593 °C (1100 °F).

These are temperatures at which there is significant loss of steel strength and stiffness. Due to the
effectiveness of the SFRM, the highest column temperatures in WTC 7 only reached an estimated 300 °C
(570 °F), and only on the east side of the building did the floor beams reach or exceed about 600 °C

(1100 °F). The heat from these uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the
lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, primarily at or below 400 ºC (750 ºF), damaging the floor framing
on multiple floors.


The initiating local failure that began the probable WTC 7 collapse sequence was the buckling of
Column 79. This buckling arose from a process that occurred at temperatures at or below approximately
400 °C (750 °F), which are well below the temperatures considered in current practice for determining
fire resistance ratings associated with significant loss of steel strength.
When steel (or any other metal) is
heated, it expands. If thermal expansion in steel beams is resisted by columns or other steel members,
forces develop in the structural members that can result in buckling of beams or failures of connections.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
NCSTAR 1-A, page 21:

It is like a joke... They are guessing and in guessing they come up with a political science based conclusion designed to protect those in power... it is as simple as that.

They fully acknowledge that the temperatures are well below the temperatures considered in current practice for determining
fire resistance ratings associated with significant loss of steel strength

But it bothers them not one bit. If it is me that is wrong tell me in plain words how and why I am wrong.
Because it was not loss of steel strength that caused the collapse.

It was thermal expansion.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Because it was not loss of steel strength that caused the collapse.

It was thermal expansion.
So all these connections broke and stayed broken . . . not just weakened . . . that is the theory? Seems this would be easily recreated . . . using a real connection and heat . . . why not prove it . . . no simulation . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So all these connections broke and stayed broken . . . not just weakened . . . that is the theory?
Essentially, but it's complicated, there were varying levels of damage. It was the cumulative effect that resulted in a loss of lateral support. Then there was an initiating event that caused the buckling.

See the different damage levels below:



Back to the original point. The 911Research excerpt is claiming that 3.5 hours of heating at 400C. Really all that is needed is for the steel to get to 400C. Once it's at 400C, then it's expanded, and the damage to the connections is done.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Here's an explanation of the damage index (the damage level in the diagram above). Note there's horizontal and vertical damage levels (hence the two diagrams)

 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Here's an explanation of the damage index (the damage level in the diagram above). Note there's horizontal and vertical damage levels (hence the two diagrams)

OK let's prove it . . . as I said these connection can be tested not simulated . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
OK let's prove it . . . as I said these connection can be tested not simulated . . .
That's not the point here George. Read the first two posts again.

The point is that the 911Research excerpt is false. Do you agree that it is false?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
See above. 400C, about an hour. But actual events are quite complex.

Remember I'm trying to keep this focused on the claims in the first post here. Please look at that again, and my objections to it.
I never considered anything except the NIST Report . . . sorry didn't get the conflict until the last few posts . . . my bad . . . so I can say I understand the NIST Report better . . . as far as an attempt to misrepresent . . . possibly or just a misunderstanding . . . my issue is always simulations are hypothetical . . . show me the real thing . . . ;)
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Essentially, but it's complicated, there were varying levels of damage. It was the cumulative effect that resulted in a loss of lateral support. Then there was an initiating event that caused the buckling.

See the different damage levels below:

According to this diagram there were 24 connections severed. How they arrive at this is apparently deliberately unclear. Connections are steel and NIST itself states steel is not compromised at these temperatures (well below the temperatures considered in current practice for determining fire resistance ratings associated with significant loss of steel strength)

So NIST infer (although I cannot see exactly where they infer this, myself), thermal expansion at below 400 C applied sufficient force to sever 24 connections as the fire 'traveled around', so it made no difference that the steel subsequently cooled afterwards?

But there has never been a steel framed building brought down by this action either before or since.

On a 60 metre beam, assuming the whole beam attains 400 C you would be looking at approx 384 mm expansion... If that is enough to cause structural failure of the whole building then I suggest there is a serious design fault.

Back to the original point. The 911Research excerpt is claiming that 3.5 hours of heating at 400C. Really all that is needed is for the steel to get to 400C. Once it's at 400C, then it's expanded, and the damage to the connections is done.
And NIST makes this point clearly and unambiguously, where?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ron J

Active Member
I understand this is perhaps a little complicated, and difficult to communicate. But I think it's very importnat to drill down to these fundamental errors. Once you introduce an error into your argument, and then base other things upon it, then it's corrupted your entire argument. And yet the error then becomes so deeply enmeshed in your argument that it's difficult to back away from it.

Critics are deliberately making things difficult. The error of a controlled demolition is the lack of any credible evidence of a controlled demolition, apart from the oft repeated statement that it looks like a demo, which in itself is not true. WTC7 looks like a building collapsing, nothing more.

If a quote from a 9/11 research piece can be used to cast doubt on fire as a cause of the collapse, even if is contradicted by something else, the research report will endlessly be quoted over and over again by the critics, just as "no steel skyscraper ever totally collapsed prior to 9/11." That particular comment means absolutely nothing to the specifics of the 9/11 fires, but gets repeated over and over again as if it was concrete proof of something. The people who keep repeating the comment are not ignorant of the differences between the architecture of the Twin Towers and other steel buildings, nor of a large 767 jetliner plowing into each building, unlike happened in other high rise fires.

50 years after JFK was assassinated, i still read the false comment that the route was changed at the last minute to run past the book Depository. Stemmons Freeway was always the route from Main to the Trade Mart and the only entrance to Stemmons was from Elm Street, not Main. Critics love to point to a map in the local paper which did not show the one block zig zag and point to that as proof the route was changed. That Stemmons Freeway was on the map as the route out of Dealey Plaza was proof the route was not changed.

50 years from 9/11 critics will still be arguing that the Twin Towers could not have fallen the way they did unless it was a controlled demolition. They will still be saying the fires were not hot enough or the Towers fell too fast or that a shower of sparks from one window was evidence of thermate.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
According to this diagram there were 24 connections severed. How they arrive at this is apparently deliberately unclear. Connections are steel and NIST itself states steel is not compromised at these temperatures (well below the temperatures considered in current practice for determining fire resistance ratings associated with significant loss of steel strength)
They arrive at it through the results of the fire simulation.

So NIST infer (although I cannot see exactly where they infer this, myself), thermal expansion at below 400 C applied sufficient force to sever 24 connections as the fire 'traveled around', so it made no difference that the steel subsequently cooled afterwards?

But there has never been a steel framed building brought down by this action either before or since.

On a 60 meter beam, assuming the whole beam attains 400 C you would be looking at approx 384 mm expansion... If that is enough to cause structural failure of the whole building then I suggest there is a serious design fault.
One beam, maybe, but on multiple beams, on multiple floors, all pushing against basically immovable columns? And consider the key failure connection The Col 79 to Col 44 girder, look at the connection from above, it was a an angle, so an expansion of several inches would break the bolts and push it off its seat.



But again, the point I've been trying to make in this thread is that the 911Research's interpretation is entirely inaccurate. It's claiming that NIST says 3.5 hours of 400C is needed. NIST does not say that.

Thermal expansion with gradual heating is essentially instantaneous. I guess NIST did not spell that out because it's a basic science fact. In fact you can use thermal expansion as a way of measuring how hot something is.

 
Last edited:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
They arrive at it through the results of the fire simulation.



One beam, maybe, but on multiple beams, on multiple floors, all pushing against basically immovable columns? And consider the key failure connection The Col 79 to Col 44 girder, look at the connection from above, it was a an angle, so an expansion of several inches would break the bolts and push it off its seat.





Thermal expansion with gradual heating is essentially instantaneous. I guess NIST did not spell that out because it's a basic science fact. In fact you can use thermal expansion as a way of measuring how hot something is.

Except the dynamics are far more complex and there appears no account taken of thermal sagging in the beams which would compensate for the thermal expansion.

But again, the point I've been trying to make in this thread is that the 911Research's interpretation is entirely inaccurate. It's claiming that NIST says 3.5 hours of 400C is needed. NIST does not say that.
I think regarding that, it is a question of interpretation. NIST's wording is extremely bad and misleading. I think lawyers could argue over it for some time, if it was politically acceptable to do so.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Except the dynamics are far more complex and there appears no account taken of thermal sagging in the beams which would compensate for the thermal expansion.
The beams would only sag at temperatures (over 600C) higher than after they have expanded and done the damage to the connections (400C).

I think regarding that, it is a question of interpretation. NIST's wording is extremely bad and misleading. I think lawyers could argue over it for some time, if it was politically acceptable to do so.
I'm sure if you go through a thousand pages of reports you will always be able to find some poorly worded language. But the point here is that the 911Research excerpt is clearly dead wrong.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
One thing to consider is that even if the fire moved from one area to another, the beam was already hot. The fire would continue to keep it hot.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
The beams would only sag at temperatures (over 600C) higher than after they have expanded and done the damage to the connections (400C).
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...&sa=X&ei=PvOGUZf6MciCOLemgdAN&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAA

Fundamentals of Fire Fighter Skills - Page 169

Admittedly this is a 2003 paper but it offers an interesting viewpoint.
http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/1216

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110902133055.htm

Would you agree, if they are seeking to find out how the connections perform after extreme heat... that logically means the connections have not failed previously due to thermal expansion?
I realise this is off topic but I include it because it demonstrates the bona fide expertise in this field as well as the 'thinking' of these engineers. This is supposed to reassure people of the safety of new nuclear power stations... it doesn't reassure me. They are dealing with incredible temperatures and claiming safety when 'conventional wisdom' (post 9/11) poses thermal loss of integrity in steel and concrete in very short time at low temperature in both as 'highly likely'.

And then we have the effects of fire on concrete... not very resilient

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_degradation

 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I have included following for comparison/context purposes.

http://www.aisc.org/DynamicTaxonomyFAQs.aspx?id=1996

http://www.workingfire.net/misc3.htm

 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I have included following for comparison/context purposes.

http://www.aisc.org/DynamicTaxonomyFAQs.aspx?id=1996

http://www.workingfire.net/misc3.htm

So Oxy . . . can you summarize your point . . . seems you think the connections would or would not fail? . . . instead the beams would sag or twist . . .? While Mick thinks they (beams) were not hot enough to sag or twist . . . seems the answer is in the connections . . . so NIST has to have the connections fail before the beams sag . . . how can you simulate that? As I have said over and over . . . This needs to be tested with the real materials . . . !!!!!!
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So Oxy . . . can you summarize your point . . . seems you think the connections would or would not fail? . . . instead the beams would sag or twist . . .? While Mick thinks they (beams) were not hot enough to sag or twist . . . seems the answer is in the connections . . . so NIST has to have the connections fail before the beams sag . . . how can you simulate that? As I have said over and over . . . This needs to be tested with the real materials . . . !!!!!!
I don't know if they were hot enough to sag and twist. I suspect some were. The point was more that they would expand first, and what happened after they had expanded would be mostly irrelevant in this case, as the damage would be done.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Would you agree, if they are seeking to find out how the connections perform after extreme heat... that logically means the connections have not failed previously due to thermal expansion?
Yes, but I think that was in reference to WTC1&2 - rather different structures.

Different building respond differently. in WTC1&2 the floor trusses first expanded, and then sagged. The sagging ultimately pulled in the outer columns (as seen on video).

And some of the WTC7 spans undoubtably DID sag.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I don't know if they were hot enough to sag and twist. I suspect some were. The point was more that they would expand first, and what happened after they had expanded would be mostly irrelevant in this case, as the damage would be done.
Research indicates otherwise.

Fundamentals of Fire Fighter Skills - Page 169

Content from external source:

A steel beam exposed to a fire will stretch (elongate) ; if it is restrained so that it cannot elongate, it will sag, warp, or twist.
Content from external source:

The aim of the research is to learn precisely what happens to the connections between a floor's steel beams and the building columns. Extreme heat causes the beams to sag. "When it starts sagging, the question is, how do the connections perform? This has been a big question for the industry," Varma said. The researchers analyzed critical joints after a floor system was subjected to extreme heat in a special oven at Michigan State University. Results will be used to help researchers create a model of the steel-concrete floor system
These are impeccable sources and I suggest the only deduction possible is that, it would be 'entirely unusual', (unheard of?), that significant thermal expansion acts independently as a precursor to sagging/warping.

Undoubtedly 7's slender long beams were firmly secured at each end,(save for isolated impact damage areas), which means most (inc 79) cannot elongate. Thus thermal expansion cannot act purely as a ram

Instead they will sag, warp, or twist
which would automatically impact favourably on the survival time of the connections and would preclude easy 'forcing of beams, off of support connections.

That logically means the connections have not failed previously due to thermal expansion, as previously inferred in the thread.

Logically, either NIST is incorrect or has been mis interpreted.

These findings are not specific to any building but are the well established and researched principles used in design and construction of all steel and concrete mid to high rise office blocks, inc wtc's 1,2 and 7.

Cairenn, I do not see the relevance of your question but yes I have worked cutting steel with oxy-acetelene but that is not the issue. The issue here is one of research and the application of pure logic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I asked because it seems that many have a limited understanding of how metal responds to heat. Not only have I worked silver, copper and brass, I have also worked iron in a coal fired forge. I have also made my own tools where I had to soften, then harden then temper the steel.

When the beams expand, I can see them pushing out the facade. That would explain the bulge that the firefighters noticed, nothing else does, says logic.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I asked because it seems that many have a limited understanding of how metal responds to heat. Not only have I worked silver, copper and brass, I have also worked iron in a coal fired forge. I have also made my own tools where I had to soften, then harden then temper the steel.

When the beams expand, I can see them pushing out the facade. That would explain the bulge that the firefighters noticed, nothing else does, says logic.
But extensive research says that sagging and twisting is an integral factor in the equation. So far I have not seen this issue addressed in the NIST report, which appears to be an extremely serious ommision and flaw.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I don't know if they were hot enough to sag and twist. I suspect some were. The point was more that they would expand first, and what happened after they had expanded would be mostly irrelevant in this case, as the damage would be done.
Would not the connections become more pliable and expand with heat as well and tend to maintain their integrity . . . .?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Would not the connections become more pliable and expand with heat as well and tend to maintain their integrity . . . .?
Perhaps if the entire building was suspended in space, composed of one material, and heated evenly at every point, yes.

But you have individual beams pushing against much stronger (and much cooler) columns that are anchored in place by the beams (and more importantly the rigid concrete slab) in the floors above and below.

Something has to give. As Oxy points out this can lead to the beam itself bending. However in order to do that it has to put sufficient force on the connection to bend the beam. That amount of force is not what the connection was designed to withstand, so it can fail. In some cases the beams are not at right angles to the column.

This is all in the report. Example:

Look at the diagram in conjunction with the text there. Especially the top down view (Section A-A in fig 8-21) which shows the angle.

Note also that the only thing holding the girder on the plate was the erection bolts, which were not designed to take any structural load.

Girder expands, bolts break, end of the girder gets pushed off the seat.

This is just one mode of failure, but a key one. Other connections would fail in different ways.

And tying this all back to the original point - all that is needed for this particular failure is the heating of the beam up to 400C. Once it's at 400C it's either bent, or the bolts are broken, and the end of the girder has been pushed off the seat. If does not require 3.5 hours at 400C, as 911 research claims. It does not even require the connection itself to be heated.
 
Last edited:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I have quite a bit to say about this thread but for the moment, I would pose these few questions.

Bearing in mind the red highlited...How does NIST validate the boldened statement below... Do they have the beams, girders, connections... are there photos of same.

Do 7's plans call for welding of beams to seats... if not why not

Do nist provide dimensions for seats and plates....

In a seated connection, the beam or girder was supported by the seat, which was welded to the column.
Bolts were installed that fasten the beam or girder to the seat for erection purposes. These erection bolts
did not carry any gravity load; rather, they were installed to insure that the beam or girder was held in
place during erection. NIST found no evidence that the girders or beams in WTC 7 were welded to the
seats.
In a similar way, an angle or plate was bolted to the top flange to prevent the beam or girder from
twisting, but there was little restraint to bending in the plane of the beam.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Maybe they have the building specifications? Where there is no mention of welding them in place? Welding is not always a good idea, because it makes a rigid structure, instead of a slightly flexible one. Buildings need some flexibility.

I once managed to stake a pavilion down in such a way, that when it collected water in a rain, instead of a small area collapsing, the entire 10 x20 ft frame buckled and fell, There were 6 uprights and 16 poles in the roof, not a single one was not damaged.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I have quite a bit to say about this thread but for the moment, I would pose these few questions.

Bearing in mind the red highlited...How does NIST validate the boldened statement below... Do they have the beams, girders, connections... are there photos of same.

Do 7's plans call for welding of beams to seats... if not why not

Do nist provide dimensions for seats and plates....
The diagrams say "based on fabrication shop drawing", and then I suppose the "found no evidence" bit means that they found no indication that the girder would be welded. I think they discuss it more in the report.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
The diagrams say "based on fabrication shop drawing", and then I suppose the "found no evidence" bit means that they found no indication that the girder would be welded. I think they discuss it more in the report.
I am researching some of NIST's previous (and contradictory) reports but it would be helpful if you can come up with any leads on this, (from your cia computer :)), especially any physical test results that they may have undertaken.

Also I would like to try to clarify why there was 'no evidence' that the connections were welded. If there was 'no evidence', it appears something of a leap to conclude they were not. Also any dimensions of the support plates would be interesting to work out how much movement would be necessary to unseat the beams would also be helpful.

I am a bit pushed for time at the mo so you will likely have some respite from me for awhile :)... Enjoy it while it lasts lol.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'm a bit pushed myself. I think the diagrams above are to scale though, so you should be able to figure it out from some measurement in the NCSTAR 1-9

And I assume it's probably just from standard practice not to weld seated joins if they are not indicated in the shop drawings.

You should read about seated vs. shear vs. moment connections. Interesting stuff.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
The following link is a pdf which sets out the scientific case describing the fatal 'errors' and contradictions in NIST's reports.

http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/Ryan_Hartford_2.pdf

Eye opening stuff...

And more here:

http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20080911073516447

Interesting that on page 46 of ae911 pdf, it states;
Especially when you consider that evacuations were happening 12 to 1pm, due to expected collapse of 7

Happy debunking :)
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Once steel has been heated to the point it softens, it's structure changes. Rapid cooling can then make it brittle.

I have made tools from steel blanks, and you have to soften the steel so you shape it, then harden it to it doesn't easily deform, then you have to temper it, because the hard version is brittle and will break easily.

It is quite possible, to me, that the heat softened the steel. That softening did not go away when the heat did. In some areas, where they tried to fight the fire, some rapid cooling could have occurred, making that steel brittle.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Once steel has been heated to the point it softens, it's structure changes. Rapid cooling can then make it brittle.

I have made tools from steel blanks, and you have to soften the steel so you shape it, then harden it to it doesn't easily deform, then you have to temper it, because the hard version is brittle and will break easily.

It is quite possible, to me, that the heat softened the steel. That softening did not go away when the heat did. In some areas, where they tried to fight the fire, some rapid cooling could have occurred, making that steel brittle.
Anything is possible . . . as everyone likes to say . . . :)
Except there was no water to fight the fires on the floors in question and the firefighters had been "Pulled."
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
If the steel got to the softening temperature, then it stayed soft and deformable.

One of the reasons that 'Damascus' sword blades where valued, was their combination of hard steel that will hold an edge well and softer steel that doesn't break easily. There were some Viking blades that were braided from hard and softer steel. Most sword blades in medieval Europe were not good at cutting, most of the damage they did was from crushing. Japanese blades however, were able to be sharp and flexible.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Overview... What is comparable or classified as a 'Major Event

http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415557337/

So whilst recognising there are differences... it seems pretty clear that these events are not 'apples and oranges' or 'grapes and watermelons' but are indeed highly comparable on many levels.

The Cardigan Fire Tests

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm
Some results from the Cardigan and Broadgate Fire Tests

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/cardington.htm







Windsor Torre Building in Madrid in February 2005

http://www.newsteelconstruction.com/wp/steel-in-fire-the-latest-news/?print=1



Now such a statement naturally inspires the question of, 'If this is the case why was 7 expected to fall, even before major fires were observed', and 'Why did it actually fall in such a spectacular fashion, resembling a demolition' when even NIST admit "while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7."

It is acknowledged and documented that the SFRM (fire protection), was in excellent condition and undamaged (bar small areas directly around impact damage) and well exceeded specifications.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
If the steel got to the softening temperature, then it stayed soft and deformable.

One of the reasons that 'Damascus' sword blades where valued, was their combination of hard steel that will hold an edge well and softer steel that doesn't break easily. There were some Viking blades that were braided from hard and softer steel. Most sword blades in medieval Europe were not good at cutting, most of the damage they did was from crushing. Japanese blades however, were able to be sharp and flexible.
Analogies are nice but a sword blade is not a high rise office building . . .
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Analogies are nice but a sword blade is not a high rise office building . . .
Exactly, lets try to keep it on topic. "Did the fires burn long and hot enough"

Well not according to the above and not according to this:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/spain_fire_9-11.html

 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Exactly, lets try to keep it on topic. "Did the fires burn long and hot enough"

Well not according to the above and not according to this:


In the Windsor Building fire, the fire is thought to have started on
the 21st floor late on Saturday night, Feb. 12. The upper floors were
consumed by intense fire for at least 18 hours. The fire moved down
the building and burned the entire structure. The fire is reported to
have burned temperatures of at 800 degrees Celsius, or nearly 1,500
degrees Fahrenheit.


There was a partial collapse of parts of the top 10 floors as the
trusses, which went from the core columns to the outside walls,
appear to have failed
. It is important to note, however, that the
lower floors did not collapse and the core section is still standing
with a construction crane on the roof.

I thinks its funny that you point to the Windsor fire as somehow evidence for your argument. Indeed the your quote is misleading to say the least. The FACTS are that fire in the Windsor DID cause an almost complete collapse of several floors...and this fire induced collapse took place after only 2.5hrs of burning. It was the design of the building that prevented further collapse

http://www.concretecentre.com/online_services/case_studies/windsor_building,_madrid.aspx

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...Study/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm


Clearly, this fires demonstrates that fire can cause structural failure of steel columns in a relatively short amount of time.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I thinks its funny that you point to the Windsor fire as somehow evidence for your argument. Indeed the your quote is misleading to say the least. The FACTS are that fire in the Windsor DID cause an almost complete collapse of several floors...and this fire induced collapse took place after only 2.5hrs of burning. It was the design of the building that prevented further collapse

http://www.concretecentre.com/online_services/case_studies/windsor_building,_madrid.aspx

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...Study/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm

Clearly, this fires demonstrates that fire can cause structural failure of steel columns in a relatively short amount of time.

Thanks SR, Good repost. Seems it is nowhere near as cut and dried as that though. The steel was not like the WTC giant steel columns with very good fire protection... they were very lightweight which is vulnerable to fire but on top of that it had no SFRM on the floors which collapsed, (Which is still a partial collapse of the whole).

So in short we have
Building being renovated
Unprotected (NO Fireproofing on collapse areas) and very lightweight steel.
Raging inferno for 18 hours.
Steel crane sat on roof, (structurally undamaged)

Then we have

Below floor 17 the lightweight steel was protected by fireproofing (SFRM), which is an extremely important factor in why even the lightweight steel did not collapse in these areas.

I highly recommend reading the whole report as I have left out lots of interesting info to keep it short.

http://www.newsteelconstruction.com/wp/lessons-from-madrid/?print=1

Jazzy, please take note of above.

NB.. Classic means, old, well known, tried and tested. And yes The WTC's had them.


And they should know

So in short, 7 was

better fireproofed,

had stronger columns

although open plan flooring, 7 was infinitely better compartmentalised between floors.

much smaller fires (which moved every 20mins or so)

burned for very short times

collapsed spectacularly in a few seconds

straight down, like a demolition. (not bits falling off here and there and then half hour later another bit falling off, even the odd floor collapsing or a section... no straight down in seconds... gone!).
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
So in short we have
Building being renovated
Unprotected (NO Fireproofing on collapse areas) and very lightweight steel.
Raging inferno for 18 hours.
Steel crane sat on roof, (structurally undamaged)

So, in short- you have structural steel failure and collapse after only 2.5 hrs of burning.

and the design of of the building ie; concrete core and frame and "strong" floors prevented further collapse.

thanks Oxy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West How Hot Could The WTC7 Fires Burned, and How Hot could the Steel be? 9/11 2
Oystein Final Report: Hulsey/AE911Truth's WTC7 Study 9/11 24
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. 9/11 127
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
Tazmanian Debunked: 9/11 Melted cars near WTC7 9/11 79
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top