A look at fire in two steel framed buildings with different results.
(Visited 34 times, 1 visits today)
WTC-7 Any Questions
You might also like:
Logging you in...
Well, there's different types of so called "fireproofing". This has been a
concern of the fire service. The NYC Building Code changed from a
Specification Code (1938 Code) to a Performance Code with the 1968 Code.
Whereas prior, structural steel would be encased in tile or concrete,
builders were now allowed to use a coat of spray-on materials instead. If
the steel was rusted, it didn't adhere properly, sometimes it was not
sprayed uniformly, or it got dislodged by other tradesmen.
concern of the fire service. The NYC Building Code changed from a
Specification Code (1938 Code) to a Performance Code with the 1968 Code.
Whereas prior, structural steel would be encased in tile or concrete,
builders were now allowed to use a coat of spray-on materials instead. If
the steel was rusted, it didn't adhere properly, sometimes it was not
sprayed uniformly, or it got dislodged by other tradesmen.
You refer to " space-age structures made of reinforced steel." Would you be
good enough to you me what Reinforced Steel is? I’m familiar with
Reinforced Concrete, where reinforcing steel is used within the concrete;
but what do they possibly reinforce steel with? I’ve never heard of such a
thing. Please share your knowledge with us. Reference source please?
good enough to you me what Reinforced Steel is? I’m familiar with
Reinforced Concrete, where reinforcing steel is used within the concrete;
but what do they possibly reinforce steel with? I’ve never heard of such a
thing. Please share your knowledge with us. Reference source please?
Excellent set of quotes about how steel can and does weaken in normal
office fires. All the conspiracy tards can do is express incredulity and
pretend to be experts in subjects in which they have absolutely no
experience.
office fires. All the conspiracy tards can do is express incredulity and
pretend to be experts in subjects in which they have absolutely no
experience.
Sounds like a plan in someone's top drawer. Miller time.
@ azul8811: "Please show me where I've mentioned WTC6" That was a typo. You
know I was referring to B#7. We could discuss # 6 if you like, as well as #
5. For instance, why didn't B#5 collapse seeing that it experienced the
same conditions that Mr.Brannigan described in his book?
know I was referring to B#7. We could discuss # 6 if you like, as well as #
5. For instance, why didn't B#5 collapse seeing that it experienced the
same conditions that Mr.Brannigan described in his book?
ye. only thing i dont understand is why WTC7 shown with fire in windows,
doesn't look even remotely close to WTC7 collapsing obvious demolition tho.
fools claim that it imploded and crumbled to its footpring symmetrically on
its own which never really happens IRL without ID workers
doesn't look even remotely close to WTC7 collapsing obvious demolition tho.
fools claim that it imploded and crumbled to its footpring symmetrically on
its own which never really happens IRL without ID workers
Not all buildings will have the same behavior during firing, but 10 hours
of difference is way too much. Somebody or something just helped them to
fall. WTC7 just ''drops'' perfectly. Go frame by frame on some videos of it
and you'll see some engineers pride exploding in a straight linear order,
maybe they can't explain all of that clearly. Maybe no one will never know,
but i already my opnion made on that subject. inside job, end of story
of difference is way too much. Somebody or something just helped them to
fall. WTC7 just ''drops'' perfectly. Go frame by frame on some videos of it
and you'll see some engineers pride exploding in a straight linear order,
maybe they can't explain all of that clearly. Maybe no one will never know,
but i already my opnion made on that subject. inside job, end of story
The plane's fuel was an incediary device, instantaneously spreading fuel on
much of the impact floors, almost an acre in area. Anyone who denies this
is an idiot.
much of the impact floors, almost an acre in area. Anyone who denies this
is an idiot.
Okay, so you misinterpreted what I said. Back to the WTC steel. Why would
they coat it with fireproofing if fire can't weaken it?
they coat it with fireproofing if fire can't weaken it?
The Pentagon issue is meant to divide the movement and sure, there will
always be people who buy into shit that isn't supported by documented
facts. Doesn't mean that the official story about the Pentagon is supported
by real facts, not at all. And of course u know, when u withold & destroy
evidence, people will start speculating, it's what YOU would do also. It's
the logical thing to do and of course, u also assume the worst case
scenario, considering what'ss happened in the aftermath of 9/11.
always be people who buy into shit that isn't supported by documented
facts. Doesn't mean that the official story about the Pentagon is supported
by real facts, not at all. And of course u know, when u withold & destroy
evidence, people will start speculating, it's what YOU would do also. It's
the logical thing to do and of course, u also assume the worst case
scenario, considering what'ss happened in the aftermath of 9/11.
The first time around, if it wasn't for the 9/11 Family Steering Committee,
there wouldn't even have been an investigation AT ALL, do u realize that?
The govt. spent a few million dollars, not all that much 4 the biggest
atrocity on US soil in history. We can talk a lot more about who should
chair the next Commission, where the funds should come from etc etc. as
long as there is a decision 1st, that there will be a new impartial
investigation. The govt. cannot be trusted to investigate itself
there wouldn't even have been an investigation AT ALL, do u realize that?
The govt. spent a few million dollars, not all that much 4 the biggest
atrocity on US soil in history. We can talk a lot more about who should
chair the next Commission, where the funds should come from etc etc. as
long as there is a decision 1st, that there will be a new impartial
investigation. The govt. cannot be trusted to investigate itself
"since B#7 shares the same radius of impact with these other buildings,
that these also share a common source as to origin of impact." Not sure
what your point is but the fact is that WTC 7's collapse damaged buildings
outside its footprint. You've already had plenty of time to read about it.
Wait! Was it part of the nefarious plot to have people lie about the damage
caused by WTC 7 to other buildings?
that these also share a common source as to origin of impact." Not sure
what your point is but the fact is that WTC 7's collapse damaged buildings
outside its footprint. You've already had plenty of time to read about it.
Wait! Was it part of the nefarious plot to have people lie about the damage
caused by WTC 7 to other buildings?
Ah, I thought so! You're not paying attention! It looks like you are
confusing the two texts.
confusing the two texts.
@ azul8811, Reinforced Steel and Reinforced Concrete are the same things.
For a guy who is trying to downplay the Truth movement, this should be
basic knowledge. Reinforced concrete draws its strength from the steel rods
embedded in its cement mixture. This, coupled with the fire resistant
capabilities of the overall steel framework, adds the durability you say
does not exist.
For a guy who is trying to downplay the Truth movement, this should be
basic knowledge. Reinforced concrete draws its strength from the steel rods
embedded in its cement mixture. This, coupled with the fire resistant
capabilities of the overall steel framework, adds the durability you say
does not exist.
Okay, okay. Here's what happened. A model of Building 7 was demo'd on the
set where they faked the moon landings. They wanted people to look at how
it seemed to collapse and swallow the 9/11 conspiracy theories to distract
them from the real conspiracies. They threw patsy Silverstein into the mix
because you can't really have a believable conspiracy without da jooooz.
set where they faked the moon landings. They wanted people to look at how
it seemed to collapse and swallow the 9/11 conspiracy theories to distract
them from the real conspiracies. They threw patsy Silverstein into the mix
because you can't really have a believable conspiracy without da jooooz.
@ PoetryHound: "The answer is, how would I know what the factors are in a
given instance causing or preventing a total collapse?" So you were simply
lying and spreading disinfo when you wrote: "turns out it's not that
difficult to bring down a building" You can't say that without having all
the facts. If fire does indeed weaken 36 inch thick steel to the point of
causing buildings to free fall to the ground in less than 8 seconds, then
we should see such things happen more often.
given instance causing or preventing a total collapse?" So you were simply
lying and spreading disinfo when you wrote: "turns out it's not that
difficult to bring down a building" You can't say that without having all
the facts. If fire does indeed weaken 36 inch thick steel to the point of
causing buildings to free fall to the ground in less than 8 seconds, then
we should see such things happen more often.
Oh so you agree it was demolished to prevent it from falling on its own and
possibly hurting more people? if so then I misunderstood your take on it
possibly hurting more people? if so then I misunderstood your take on it
I agree with the government angle, but I also would not want any person
investigating the event who has written books, made DVDs, and otherwise
earned their living the past 13 years selling the conspiracy story.
investigating the event who has written books, made DVDs, and otherwise
earned their living the past 13 years selling the conspiracy story.
You are simply incorrect in your claim that fire has never caused a steel
building to collapse. I already provided a list of some of them and all you
could do was complain that in 2 cases they were partial collapses (although
a fire-driven partial collapse still contradicts your claim that fire can't
weaken steel at all). And no, WTC 7 didn't fall in its footprint. As I
already informed you, it damaged buildings OUTSIDE its footprint.
building to collapse. I already provided a list of some of them and all you
could do was complain that in 2 cases they were partial collapses (although
a fire-driven partial collapse still contradicts your claim that fire can't
weaken steel at all). And no, WTC 7 didn't fall in its footprint. As I
already informed you, it damaged buildings OUTSIDE its footprint.
The steel frame section of the first building did collapse. The concrete
reinforced steel did remain standing. WTC7 had no concrete reinforced steel
- fail.
reinforced steel did remain standing. WTC7 had no concrete reinforced steel
- fail.
Really... it that the best response you have? Try this you fucking Hack.
Why did Bidg 7 fall? Answer that you maggot shill. Give me your pathetic
regurgitated spineless lies that hold no water.
Why did Bidg 7 fall? Answer that you maggot shill. Give me your pathetic
regurgitated spineless lies that hold no water.
@ PoetryHound: "You are simply incorrect in your claim that fire has never
caused a steel building to collapse." Never happened and you will never
offer an example. That's the reality you have to face everytime you come
here and rear your ugly head. And I will be most happy to oblige.
caused a steel building to collapse." Never happened and you will never
offer an example. That's the reality you have to face everytime you come
here and rear your ugly head. And I will be most happy to oblige.
@ azul8811: "At this temperature, steel members may fail, bringing about a
collapse of the building." Since you have the book at hand, tell us where
does the author draw this conclusion from? What examples of buildings
containing steel-framed trusses (note: not hollow structures like
warehouses and hangars) does he provide? It better not be B#7 or the two
towers because the evidence was hauled away from the general pubic killing
any chances for the administering of forensic testing it deserved.
collapse of the building." Since you have the book at hand, tell us where
does the author draw this conclusion from? What examples of buildings
containing steel-framed trusses (note: not hollow structures like
warehouses and hangars) does he provide? It better not be B#7 or the two
towers because the evidence was hauled away from the general pubic killing
any chances for the administering of forensic testing it deserved.
"the baseless assumption that fire weakens steel" And yet you already
agreed with me that fire caused steel portions of the Windsor to collapse.
agreed with me that fire caused steel portions of the Windsor to collapse.
@ azul8811: "Would you be good enough to you me what Reinforced Steel is?
I’m familiar with Reinforced Concrete." You just answered yourself. The two
phrases are interchangeable. Shows how much you really know about the
subject.
I’m familiar with Reinforced Concrete." You just answered yourself. The two
phrases are interchangeable. Shows how much you really know about the
subject.
Comments by IntenseDebate
Loading IntenseDebate Comments...
Well, there's different types of so called "fireproofing". This has been a
concern of the fire service. The NYC Building Code changed from a
Specification Code (1938 Code) to a Performance Code with the 1968 Code.
Whereas prior, structural steel would be encased in tile or concrete,
builders were now allowed to use a coat of spray-on materials instead. If
the steel was rusted, it didn't adhere properly, sometimes it was not
sprayed uniformly, or it got dislodged by other tradesmen.
You refer to " space-age structures made of reinforced steel." Would you be
good enough to you me what Reinforced Steel is? I’m familiar with
Reinforced Concrete, where reinforcing steel is used within the concrete;
but what do they possibly reinforce steel with? I’ve never heard of such a
thing. Please share your knowledge with us. Reference source please?
Excellent set of quotes about how steel can and does weaken in normal
office fires. All the conspiracy tards can do is express incredulity and
pretend to be experts in subjects in which they have absolutely no
experience.
Sounds like a plan in someone's top drawer. Miller time.
@ azul8811: "Please show me where I've mentioned WTC6" That was a typo. You
know I was referring to B#7. We could discuss # 6 if you like, as well as #
5. For instance, why didn't B#5 collapse seeing that it experienced the
same conditions that Mr.Brannigan described in his book?
ye. only thing i dont understand is why WTC7 shown with fire in windows,
doesn't look even remotely close to WTC7 collapsing obvious demolition tho.
fools claim that it imploded and crumbled to its footpring symmetrically on
its own which never really happens IRL without ID workers
Not all buildings will have the same behavior during firing, but 10 hours
of difference is way too much. Somebody or something just helped them to
fall. WTC7 just ''drops'' perfectly. Go frame by frame on some videos of it
and you'll see some engineers pride exploding in a straight linear order,
maybe they can't explain all of that clearly. Maybe no one will never know,
but i already my opnion made on that subject. inside job, end of story
The plane's fuel was an incediary device, instantaneously spreading fuel on
much of the impact floors, almost an acre in area. Anyone who denies this
is an idiot.
Okay, so you misinterpreted what I said. Back to the WTC steel. Why would
they coat it with fireproofing if fire can't weaken it?
The Pentagon issue is meant to divide the movement and sure, there will
always be people who buy into shit that isn't supported by documented
facts. Doesn't mean that the official story about the Pentagon is supported
by real facts, not at all. And of course u know, when u withold & destroy
evidence, people will start speculating, it's what YOU would do also. It's
the logical thing to do and of course, u also assume the worst case
scenario, considering what'ss happened in the aftermath of 9/11.
The first time around, if it wasn't for the 9/11 Family Steering Committee,
there wouldn't even have been an investigation AT ALL, do u realize that?
The govt. spent a few million dollars, not all that much 4 the biggest
atrocity on US soil in history. We can talk a lot more about who should
chair the next Commission, where the funds should come from etc etc. as
long as there is a decision 1st, that there will be a new impartial
investigation. The govt. cannot be trusted to investigate itself
"since B#7 shares the same radius of impact with these other buildings,
that these also share a common source as to origin of impact." Not sure
what your point is but the fact is that WTC 7's collapse damaged buildings
outside its footprint. You've already had plenty of time to read about it.
Wait! Was it part of the nefarious plot to have people lie about the damage
caused by WTC 7 to other buildings?
Ah, I thought so! You're not paying attention! It looks like you are
confusing the two texts.
@ azul8811, Reinforced Steel and Reinforced Concrete are the same things.
For a guy who is trying to downplay the Truth movement, this should be
basic knowledge. Reinforced concrete draws its strength from the steel rods
embedded in its cement mixture. This, coupled with the fire resistant
capabilities of the overall steel framework, adds the durability you say
does not exist.
Okay, okay. Here's what happened. A model of Building 7 was demo'd on the
set where they faked the moon landings. They wanted people to look at how
it seemed to collapse and swallow the 9/11 conspiracy theories to distract
them from the real conspiracies. They threw patsy Silverstein into the mix
because you can't really have a believable conspiracy without da jooooz.
@ PoetryHound: "The answer is, how would I know what the factors are in a
given instance causing or preventing a total collapse?" So you were simply
lying and spreading disinfo when you wrote: "turns out it's not that
difficult to bring down a building" You can't say that without having all
the facts. If fire does indeed weaken 36 inch thick steel to the point of
causing buildings to free fall to the ground in less than 8 seconds, then
we should see such things happen more often.
Oh so you agree it was demolished to prevent it from falling on its own and
possibly hurting more people? if so then I misunderstood your take on it
I agree with the government angle, but I also would not want any person
investigating the event who has written books, made DVDs, and otherwise
earned their living the past 13 years selling the conspiracy story.
You are simply incorrect in your claim that fire has never caused a steel
building to collapse. I already provided a list of some of them and all you
could do was complain that in 2 cases they were partial collapses (although
a fire-driven partial collapse still contradicts your claim that fire can't
weaken steel at all). And no, WTC 7 didn't fall in its footprint. As I
already informed you, it damaged buildings OUTSIDE its footprint.
The steel frame section of the first building did collapse. The concrete
reinforced steel did remain standing. WTC7 had no concrete reinforced steel
– fail.
Really… it that the best response you have? Try this you fucking Hack.
Why did Bidg 7 fall? Answer that you maggot shill. Give me your pathetic
regurgitated spineless lies that hold no water.
@ PoetryHound: "You are simply incorrect in your claim that fire has never
caused a steel building to collapse." Never happened and you will never
offer an example. That's the reality you have to face everytime you come
here and rear your ugly head. And I will be most happy to oblige.
@ azul8811: "At this temperature, steel members may fail, bringing about a
collapse of the building." Since you have the book at hand, tell us where
does the author draw this conclusion from? What examples of buildings
containing steel-framed trusses (note: not hollow structures like
warehouses and hangars) does he provide? It better not be B#7 or the two
towers because the evidence was hauled away from the general pubic killing
any chances for the administering of forensic testing it deserved.
"the baseless assumption that fire weakens steel" And yet you already
agreed with me that fire caused steel portions of the Windsor to collapse.
@ azul8811: "Would you be good enough to you me what Reinforced Steel is?
I’m familiar with Reinforced Concrete." You just answered yourself. The two
phrases are interchangeable. Shows how much you really know about the
subject.
II. Now I’d also mention that perhaps you’ve been confusing Flame Spread
Ratings with Fire Resistance ratings. The first concerns the rate at which
fire spreads over the surface of a material, the latter term is concerned
with the length of time a particular building assembly will continue its
structural and/or barrier function, measured in a standard fire test. Also
you may want to see the 1968 NYC Building Code Reference Standards for some
context.
@ PoetryHound: "I don't know the factors in a FIRE that determine whether a
building fully collapses or partially collapses." But yet you go on trying
to convince readers that the collapse of steel framed buildings due to fire
is readily explainable and provable.
Answer the Question. Did it fall on its own (Bldg 7) or was it demo'd? its
a Yes or No thing. You cant even do that, because your goal is to dance
around and try to misdirect. Was it Demo'd ? Yes or No
I'm starting to lose track of your falsehoods. So let's do a quick review
of your false claims. 1. Fire can't weaken structural steel. FALSE. 2. Fire
therefore cannot cause partial, let alone full collapses of steel
buildings. FALSE. 3. No steel building besides WTC 7 has ever fallen from
fire. FALSE. 4. WTC 7 fell in its footprint. FALSE. 5. The entire WTC 7
building collapsed at the same time. FALSE. Your record isn't too good.
Inside job all day long
@ PoetryHound: "So it turns out you're being disingenuous when you
intentionally confuse 2 different things I said." Not at all. You said it's
really not that hard for fire to BRING DOWN steel framed buildings. I've
been asking for more examples besides building # 7. You have not provided a
single one.
@ loosechangeexposed: "every wtc building because there was a tunnel
network connecting them all" If this is true, why didn't the others fall?
If this is true, why did the city begin construction on those sites without
solving the "underground" risk first? If this true, why did the city begin
to construct there at all?
If 911 can't teach you that the state is nothing more nor less than a
bandit gang writ large nothing ever will, it's impossible for it to ever
get any easier than that. The more killing criminals do the sloppier they
get and 911 is very sloppy. I would define sheeple as people who either
think the government would not kill them or brainwash them or think the
government is there protecting them and their interest. My 911 truth link
is still in my profile, the criminals can't stop the internet
@PoetryHound: "WTC 7 didn't fall in its footprint. As I already informed
you, it damaged buildings OUTSIDE its footprint" How do you know the damage
was not that initially made by the two towers? How can you tell when the
whole thing was covered with so much dust and debris? When the evidence was
all hauled away, the area not receiving protection deserving of a crime
scene for inspection sake?
And yes u actually DO dismiss evidence out of hand. 2.25 seconds of FFA is
not something u can ignore as evidence, it changes everything,
unfortunately for u and all the other fools who still buy and support the
official crap.
And who denied such a thing? Pay attention.
Just making a point regarding the absurdity of an office fire induced
collapse of a major, steel framed building.
You forgot Larry "pull it" Silverstein
I already answered your WTC 5 question. The answer is I don't know because
I'm not a fire protection engineer or forensic engineer so I don't know why
fire causes a particular steel building to fully collapse while another one
only partially collapses.
@ PoetryHound: "I don't know why fire causes one building to fully collapse
and another one to partially collapse" How come you are all of a sudden in
the dark concerning this? All along you've been standing behind your
explanation that "fire weakens steel." If fire does indeed weaken steel,
then we should see this phenomenon throughout. If it can't be reproduced,
as science demands, then you're theory is wrong.
Pools of molten steel in the remains. OCT supporters deny it and get very
nervous. This is a smoking gun. Such molten steel cannot be explained
through burning jet fuel or known building contents so this critical
evidence must be denied — along with massive oxidation of steel columns.
NIST did not look for incendiary evidence in the remains that would blow
the doors off the OCT — what a surprise. That fact alone would make any
second-rate arson investigator fall off of his chair laughing.
"And they were soundly refuted." No they weren't. You objected that in just
a couple of cases that they were only partial collapses. You utterly failed
to refute the rest. In fact, you didn't say a word about them. Even the
hangar is indeed a case of a steel building that collapsed as a result of
fire. No one except you says the Windsor's steel didn't collapse. You're
simply wrong.
So why do they coat thick structural steel with fireproofing if fire can't
weaken it?
III. Handbook of Fire Protection (14th Ed.) Section 6, Ch7, pg. 6-52,
Structural Steel Integrity During a Fire: “Steel is noncombustible & does
not contribute fuel to a fire. These properties have often provided a false
sense of security with regard to it’s durability in a fire because they
overshadow the fact that steel loses strength when subjected to
temperatures easily attained in a fire.”
By paying attention, you'd notice that the video and ensuing commentary
regards WTC 7, the Solomon Brothers building.
It fell because they Demo'd it. Greenstien said it himself. who the fuck is
saying it was fire related??? Everyone knows thats total bullshit.
"What does that have to do with anything?" It has to do with the fact that
you claimed WTC 7 fell in its footprint. And that's incorrect.
@ PoetryHound: "Why would they coat it with fireproofing if fire can't
weaken it?" You don't fireproof what's already fireproof. Pretty hard to
melt or weaken 36 inch thick steel. Seems like you're not aware of the
basics. The fireproof, like I've mentioned many times already, is done on
the material that will drape the steel, like wood, cement, wall panels,
paint, etc.
No, you've never answered the question and you still haven't. Putting
fireproofing directly on the steel does not protect other materials. Why is
fireproofing applied to the steel if it's unnecessary in your opinion?