Jump to content
HAIF - Houston's original social media

WTC7 - World Trade Center Building 7


Recommended Posts

I would like this discussion to be one of physics & engineering...not politics.

WTC7 had 47 floors and was 570 feet tall. Construction began in 1984 and opened in March 1987.

7 World Trade Center had 1,868,000 square feet of office space. It was a steel frame skyscraper.

It was more than 355 feet north of the World Trade Center North Tower(WTC1).

It was situated between the Verizon and Post Office skyscrapers.

Supposedly, debris from the collapsed North Tower created small fires on floors 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11 of WTC7.

The electrical power was supposedly shutoff at 09:59 AM. The sprinkler system didn't/couldn't activate.

The building was evacuated around 03:00 PM.

The building collapsed at 05:20 PM after the fires had burned for several hours.

I'm looking for scientific minds here, not emotional types.

Questions:

Could debris from WTC1 travel 355 feet to cause fires in WTC7...while the Verizon building only had minor damage & the Post Office building unscathed?

Could fires bring down a 47-story steel framed building?

Could fires bring down a 47-story steel frame building in a demolition style fall that didn't damage the Verizon and Post Office buildings?

Does the governments claim that "the unique design aspect of WTC7, that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 sq ft" realistically explain the collapse?

Were firefighters and citizens just imagining the sounds of explosives prior to all three of the World Trade Center building collapses?

Could a 47-story steel building fall in 8.2 seconds in a straight-down implosion style...without being imploded?

Was it a coincidence that WTC7 housed SEC documents related to approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cases (according to the Los Angeles Times)?

Was it a coincidence that Morgan Stanley had 3,500 employees in the WTC complex, the most of any single company?(most escaped death)

Am I pointing the finger at Goldman Sachs?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You use "supposedly" numerous time.

You bold key words to highlight your skepticism.

When your whole post reeks of conspiracy theory talk, its really hard to take your topic tagline seriously. - A Discussion of Physics & Engineering...Not Politics.

As far as the engineering is concerned. Of course fire can bring down a steel building. Seems there would be lot less conspiracy theories if the wackjobs understood that simple fact.

Edited by Highway6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Questions:

1. Could debris from WTC1 travel 355 feet to cause fires in WTC7...while the Verizon building only had minor damage & the Post Office building unscathed?

2. Could fires bring down a 47-story steel framed building?

3. Could fires bring down a 47-story steel frame building in a demolition style fall that didn't damage the Verizon and Post Office buildings?

4. Does the governments claim that "the unique design aspect of WTC7, that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 sq ft" realistically explain the collapse?

5. Were firefighters and citizens just imagining the sounds of explosives prior to all three of the World Trade Center building collapses?

6. Could a 47-story steel building fall in 8.2 seconds in a straight-down implosion style...without being imploded?

7. Was it a coincidence that WTC7 housed SEC documents related to approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cases (according to the Los Angeles Times)?

8. Was it a coincidence that Morgan Stanley had 3,500 employees in the WTC complex, the most of any single company?(most escaped death)

9. Am I pointing the finger at Goldman Sachs?

1. Yes.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

5. Yes. What was heard is the sound of the building.. about to come down.

6. Yes.

7. Yes. This has nothing to do with "engineering" ... why are you moving off topic?

8. Yes. This has nothing to do with "engineering" ... why are you moving off topic?

9. Only you can answer that. This has nothing to do with "engineering" ... why are you moving off topic?

This thread seems pretty useless.

Edited by BryanS
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You use "supposedly" numerous time.

You bold key words to highlight your skepticism.

When your whole post reeks of conspiracy theory talk, its really hard to take your topic tagline seriously. - A Discussion of Physics & Engineering...Not Politics.

As far as the engineering is concerned. Of course fire can bring down a steel building. Seems there would be lot less conspiracy theories if the wackjobs understood that simple fact.

Please name the building and hopefully include a video of the straightdownward total collapse. A frame that remains does not count.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Yes.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

5. Yes. What was heard is the sound of the building.. about to come down.

6. Yes.

7. Yes. This has nothing to do with "engineering" ... why are you moving off topic?

8. Yes. This has nothing to do with "engineering" ... why are you moving off topic?

9. Only you can answer that. This has nothing to do with "engineering" ... why are you moving off topic?

This thread seems pretty useless.

Thanks for answering the questions...sort of.

I meant to add an asterisk (*) to questions 7-9.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please name the building and hopefully include a video of the straightdownward total collapse. A frame that remains does not count.

How about we stick with just WTC 7:

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

Please read. It also has a "video analysis" that you've asked for. No need to discuss any further on here...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please name the building and hopefully include a video of the straightdownward total collapse. A frame that remains does not count.

I said that of course fire can fell a steel building... i said nothing about the other bullet points of your wackjob theory.

Thats why we have fire codes, fire protection, fire ratings... because fire can destroy steel.

WTC 1 and 2 ultimately collapsed because of the fire's effect on the steel. There's your proof.

Also... as Bryan pointed out... your wackjob bullet points 7,8 and 9 have zero to do Physics and Engineering. They have everything to do with Politics and wackjob conspiracy theories.

Edited by Highway6
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

How about we stick with just WTC 7:

http://www.structure...lsanz-Nov07.pdf

Please read. It also has a "video analysis" that you've asked for. No need to discuss any further on here...

There's plenty of need to discuss further.

http://www.bcrevolution.ca/wtc_7.htm

Note the Windsor building in Madrid that burned for 28 hours without collapsing the frame.

Still waiting on the name of a steel skyscraper that totally collapsed (demolition style) due to a fire.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/3231

29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition in Collapses of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11

http://www.911blogger.com/node/20429

http://www.infowars.com/still-standing-the-building-that-proves-wtc-7-was-imploded/

I'm really looking for the opinions of architects(since this is an architectural site), engineers, scientists, physics professors, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's plenty of need to discuss further.

http://www.bcrevolution.ca/wtc_7.htm

Note the Windsor building in Madrid that burned for 28 hours without collapsing the frame.

1.) Still waiting on the name of a steel skyscraper that totally collapsed (demolition style) due to a fire.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/3231

29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition in Collapses of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11

http://www.911blogger.com/node/20429

http://www.infowars....7-was-imploded/

2.) I'm really looking for the opinions of architects(since this is an architectural site), engineers, scientists, physics professors, etc.

1.) It's called WTC 7. It had plenty of steel in it. And collapsed, due to fire. No need to find some other example...

2.) Screw the architects. They aren't engineers.

But I am.

Are you?

All I see with WTC 7, from people with your viewpoint, is a bunch of horse crap conspiracy theory. Which you blatantly tried to work into this "engineering" discussion.

For every link you provide, I could provide a corresponding link, debunking the horse crap.

But what point would that serve? There really is nothing to discuss... that has not already been discussed for the past 8 YEARS on this tired, useless topic.

Why argue it here... when you can do a simple google search for "WTC 7" - and wade through countless links and seas of information on this topic...

Edited by BryanS
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rammer..

Do you think that fire can weaken or melt steel ?

Steel is indeed very susceptible to weakening in extreme heat. People often misunderstand the nature of steel and incorrectly think it's indestructible. It's one of the first things I learned in my building engineering class back in college.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Steel is indeed very susceptible to weakening in extreme heat. People often misunderstand the nature of steel and incorrectly think it's indestructible. It's one of the first things I learned in my building engineering class back in college.

You're right about the common conception of the properties of steel. I found out earlier this year as I watched a 40-foot I-beam bow at either end when lifted from the middle. I'd figured that it'd be more rigid. And even then I should've known better, having witnessed steel rails being torn out of an old rail yard and twisting about like noodles.

---------

Rammer: pay attention to the following relevent chronology:

1) WTC 7 is evacuated.

2) WTC 1 collapses, unleashing a veritible tsunami of steel and other construction materials upon downtown NYC.

3) Emergency operations are instantly devastated.

4) Debris flow impacts the base of WTC 7, damaging structural members, damaging fire suppression and retardance systems, and setting several floors on fire.

5) Access to WTC 7 is blocked, preventing access by emergency crews, who aren't bothering with putting out the fire anyway because (to the extent that there's still an operation) they have more important issues to deal with than an already-evacuated building.

6) WTC 7 experiences a series of partial collapses leading up to a full-on collapse.

Compare all this to the Windsor tower in Madrid, where a fire broke out in a building with a reinforced concrete core and a functioning fire suppression and retardance system, at a time when there were no concurrent emergencies of that scope, and given that fire crews were not wiped out en masse and that they had easy access to the site. You can't! The events are not comparable.

Edited by TheNiche
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
I found out earlier this year as I watched a 40-foot I-beam bow at either end when lifted from the middle. I'd figured that it'd be more rigid.

Yes! And the steel gets much more flexy starting as low as 200F. You don't have to melt steel to weaken it tremendously.

Two types- tensioned members and compression members hold the building 'up' vertically. You only need very small distortions in compressed members and singular failue of a tension member to cause incipit collapse. Think of it this way for compressed members... you can stand on a soda can. But the minor distortion caused by plucking causes a complete instantaneous collapse. Building columns are similar. The structure relies on columns being both vertical and straight. Add some heat, and they are not only weakened but distorted by warping. Collapse requires little damage.

Think of tensioned members like a piece of fabric. Tension members are make up a lattice just like fibers in a fabric. Pull on a piece of fabric with a solid edge and it's very strong. Cut a small slit in the edge and pull again, and it rips easily. The WTC Tower collapses and they followed this ripping pattern, starting at the top and continuing until reaching the bottom. Floor-by-floor, lattice-by-lattice. Ripping down from the original small damage locus, pulling away to the sides slightly. Rember the mushroom-top shape of debris as they fell?

Collapse can occur quite slowly too. This it makes it look 'controled' and progressive. First one colum fails, which overloads its two neighbors. Those two neighbors hold for the moment, because we always design building "too" strong. But, eventually they fail because they are carrying the load of the first failed column. This overloads the 4 surrounding members which overloads 8, then 16, then 32, etc.. This is why it's an implosion, and the building doesn't fall over like a Jenga.

Note the Windsor building in Madrid that burned for 28 hours without collapsing the frame.

That's a far too simple comparison. Right off the top, the Windsor did not have parts of it's truss structure compromised by impact. (Remember the fabric & can examples) We don't know what factor-of-safety was used in the steel design loads; or how heavily the members were loaded. Lightly loaded beams would have more excess strength to lose due to heat before failing. We don't know what alloy of steel was used. Diffrent alloys = different heat effects. We also don't know what the truss/column structure design pattern was. The are certainly different. And different load paths will tolerate weakening/warping better than others. Tension members would survive heat better than compressed members for example. Were the colums O-shaped or I-shaped? That too would make a difference on how much distortion they could tolerate before failure. Gussets would also make a huge difference. Did either builing include them? Donno.

IOW there's a lot more to consider than they both had a fire and are both steel framed.

Edited by Gooch
Link to post
Share on other sites

Steel is indeed very susceptible to weakening in extreme heat. People often misunderstand the nature of steel and incorrectly think it's indestructible. It's one of the first things I learned in my building engineering class back in college.

Yes Cuda.... I know this. Niche knows this. You know this.All the smart people know this.

I'm questioning Rammer if he knows this... because like i said in my first response, "Of course fire can bring down a steel building. Seems there would be lot less conspiracy theories if the wackjobs understood that simple fact."

If Rammer in fact does not know this about steel, then we can correct and educate him.

If he's smart enough to realize that there is a reason for fire codes, fire protection, fire suppression, etc because steel is very susceptible to heat... then all of this is double the load of horse crap. If he's smart enough to know what heat can do to steal, yet still pushes the conspiracy theory crap, then that just proves he has an agenda further making this thread and reasonable dialogue pointless...

So Rammer.. I ask again... Are you aware that fire and heat can easily reduce the strength of steal ?/?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steel is indeed very susceptible to weakening in extreme heat. People often misunderstand the nature of steel and incorrectly think it's indestructible. It's one of the first things I learned in my building engineering class back in college.

Yes. And people tend to forget that steel... starts out as a molten liquid. And then solidifies.

...and that old metal... is melted down... and poured into new shapes.

...and if steel... was indestructible, or impervious to fire... then things like this would never work:

474093067_d9648bfc33.jpg

...fire cutting steel. AKA cutting torch. But the 9/11 crowd would have us to believe that these things don't work (because fire can't hurt steel). Riiiiight...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. And people tend to forget that steel... starts out as a molten liquid. And then solidifies.

...and that old metal... is melted down... and poured into new shapes.

...and if steel... was indestructible, or impervious to fire... then things like this would never work:

474093067_d9648bfc33.jpg

...fire cutting steel. AKA cutting torch. But the 9/11 crowd would have us to believe that these things don't work (because fire can't hurt steel). Riiiiight...

You know, I am not going to get into this political trolling thread, but you guys claiming that steel melts so easily while ignoring the burning temperature of the materials in the tower (fuel, paper, wood) don't sound too intelligent either. If you are going to smack down a troll, at least do it in a way that is not so easily refuted.

FTR, paper, wood and fuel burn at temps from 250 to 650 degrees, while steel generally fails at around 110 degrees, depending on carbon content.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FTR, paper, wood and fuel burn at temps from 250 to 650 degrees, while steel generally fails at around 110 degrees, depending on carbon content.

Are you talking celsius, fahrenheit, kelvin, or some combination of these?

Edited by TheNiche
Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I am not going to get into this political trolling thread, but you guys claiming that steel melts so easily while ignoring the burning temperature of the materials in the tower (fuel, paper, wood) don't sound too intelligent either. If you are going to smack down a troll, at least do it in a way that is not so easily refuted.

FTR, paper, wood and fuel burn at temps from 250 to 650 degrees, while steel generally fails at around 110 degrees, depending on carbon content.

And what temp does jet fuel burn at? Over 1000F? That would be significant enough to cause structural damage/warping, right?

Jet Fuel + Massive impact trauma (gross mass of jet plane * velocity in m/s) vs (Stationary object) that resulted in a total penetration of said jet + a few hours + Steel=FAIL. Especially if said impact occurred when the structure of the building is mostly external. This is in regards to the twin towers themselves, of course.

As for WTC7, do remember that some other buildings nearby suffered damage, including one of the IFCs, if I am not mistaken.

Furthermore, there was significant damage to the subsurface levels under the whole WTC site, which could have caused a failure of the WTC 7 foundation.

Edited by UrbaNerd
Link to post
Share on other sites

And what temp does jet fuel burn at? Over 1000F? That would be significant enough to cause structural damage/warping, right?

Jet Fuel + Massive impact trauma (gross mass of jet plane * velocity in m/s) vs (Stationary object) that resulted in a total penetration of said jet + a few hours + Steel=FAIL. Especially if said impact occurred when the structure of the building is mostly external.

We're talking about WTC 7, not the twin towers.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I am not going to get into this political trolling thread, but you guys claiming that steel melts so easily while ignoring the burning temperature of the materials in the tower (fuel, paper, wood) don't sound too intelligent either. If you are going to smack down a troll, at least do it in a way that is not so easily refuted.

FTR, paper, wood and fuel burn at temps from 250 to 650 degrees, while steel generally fails at around 110 degrees, depending on carbon content.

This is misleading....

110 degrees... F? would imply that vehicles in Phoenix, AZ would all "fail" in August.

Steel melts ("fails" completely) at 2500 deg F...

Steel begins to lose strength in the range of your paper/wood range in deg F, but not necessarily "fail" - initially.

Jet A fuel burns at about 550 deg F.

Eviscerating a building's structural support system/members followed by heating the remaining support members will reduce the factor of safety of the design to zero, followed by complete structural failure.

But despite this simple factual explanation, that is not enough for the flat earthers. 8 years is just not enough time for them to process this information...

We're talking about WTC 7, not the twin towers.

They all failed the same way: blunt structural damage, followed by fire, weakening the remaining structure, until complete failure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
FTR, paper, wood and fuel burn at temps from 250 to 650 degrees, while steel generally fails at around 110 degrees, depending on carbon content.

I'm sure 110 degrees is a typo.smile.gif Two samples of temperature de-rating tables regularly in use. They are for tubulars, but the stress formula are based on tensile strength of the material.

1) http://www.controlan...4200TS-0604.pdf Scroll to Page 3, Table 8. Steel loses roughly 30% of its design strength by 650F. By 800F it's lost 40%, and it falls offf a cliff after that so fast as to be unrecommended.

2) You can go to http://www.cycla.com...s_GRI000076.pdf Scroll to Page 33, Table 4.3. Roughly same values in the ASME code.

If my somelady wasn't calling me to spoon duty I could come up with more... It's not like it's a big secret.

You simply can't say steel generally fails around any specific temperature. Failure temperature will depend on how it's loaded. And every beam is loaded differently. If the beam is strong enough to sacrifice 20% of its load it would fail somwhere around 700F. If the beam were designed with 30% extra capacity it could endure to about 1000F.

Typically in my industry, we designed for ~50% safety margin. But if a beam were distorted by... say... an aircraft or debris impact... the remaining neighboring beams would be carrying the failed beam's load with no safety margin. Meaning you could see heat induced failure as low as 2-300F.

Perhaps someone can confirm, do building structural engineers typically analyse for damaged columns, beams and trusses? I suspect they don't...

Edited by Gooch
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes! And the steel gets much more flexy starting as low as 200F. You don't have to melt steel to weaken it tremendously.

Two types- tensioned members and compression members hold the building 'up' vertically. You only need very small distortions in compressed members and singular failue of a tension member to cause incipit collapse. Think of it this way for compressed members... you can stand on a soda can. But the minor distortion caused by plucking causes a complete instantaneous collapse. Building columns are similar. The structure relies on columns being both vertical and straight. Add some heat, and they are not only weakened but distorted by warping. Collapse requires little damage.

Think of tensioned members like a piece of fabric. Tension members are make up a lattice just like fibers in a fabric. Pull on a piece of fabric with a solid edge and it's very strong. Cut a small slit in the edge and pull again, and it rips easily. The WTC Tower collapses and they followed this ripping pattern, starting at the top and continuing until reaching the bottom. Floor-by-floor, lattice-by-lattice. Ripping down from the original small damage locus, pulling away to the sides slightly. Rember the mushroom-top shape of debris as they fell?

Collapse can occur quite slowly too. This it makes it look 'controled' and progressive. First one colum fails, which overloads its two neighbors. Those two neighbors hold for the moment, because we always design building "too" strong. But, eventually they fail because they are carrying the load of the first failed column. This overloads the 4 surrounding members which overloads 8, then 16, then 32, etc.. This is why it's an implosion, and the building doesn't fall over like a Jenga.

That's a far too simple comparison. Right off the top, the Windsor did not have parts of it's truss structure compromised by impact. (Remember the fabric & can examples) We don't know what factor-of-safety was used in the steel design loads; or how heavily the members were loaded. Lightly loaded beams would have more excess strength to lose due to heat before failing. We don't know what alloy of steel was used. Diffrent alloys = different heat effects. We also don't know what the truss/column structure design pattern was. The are certainly different. And different load paths will tolerate weakening/warping better than others. Tension members would survive heat better than compressed members for example. Were the colums O-shaped or I-shaped? That too would make a difference on how much distortion they could tolerate before failure. Gussets would also make a huge difference. Did either builing include them? Donno.

IOW there's a lot more to consider than they both had a fire and are both steel framed.

Don't forget the one simple fact that the fireproof insulation that surrounded the steel supports was blown away in two of the towers that exposed it to the fires. One has to assume that the same thing happened to WTC7 when the debris crashed into the side of the building. Produce enough shock to a surface and all sorts of things are bound to be shaken loose.

Even a small house fire can produce a substantial amount of heat if there is enough fuel inside.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And what temp does jet fuel burn at? Over 1000F? That would be significant enough to cause structural damage/warping, right?

Jet Fuel + Massive impact trauma (gross mass of jet plane * velocity in m/s) vs (Stationary object) that resulted in a total penetration of said jet + a few hours + Steel=FAIL. Especially if said impact occurred when the structure of the building is mostly external. This is in regards to the twin towers themselves, of course.

As for WTC7, do remember that some other buildings nearby suffered damage, including one of the IFCs, if I am not mistaken.

Furthermore, there was significant damage to the subsurface levels under the whole WTC site, which could have caused a failure of the WTC 7 foundation.

Keep in mind, WTC7 was not hit by a jet plane.

I have found one reference that steel melts at 2500 degrees farenheit...but it depends on the alloy of steel.

From the AISC website: In common circumstances, the maximum temperature of a fully developed building fire will rarely exceed 1800°F.

(The average gas temperature in a fully developed fire is not likely to reach 1500°F. Temperatures of fires that have not developed to post-flashover stage will not exceed 1000°F)

(More science, less namecalling please. Pretend you are Spock explaining it to Captain Kirk.)wink.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
Note the Windsor building in Madrid that burned for 28 hours without collapsing the frame.

Something else I thought about... the Windsor didn't have two massive collapsing buildings adjacent to it. We think of buildings as static and immovable. They are not. The WTC1 and WTC2 collapse no doubt shook the crraapp out of WTC7. Given that earthquakes are not common in NYC, the building likely wasn't designed for this type of motion.

Edited by Gooch
Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind, WTC7 was not hit by a jet plane.

I have found one reference that steel melts at 2500 degrees farenheit...but it depends on the alloy of steel.

From the AISC website: In common circumstances, the maximum temperature of a fully developed building fire will rarely exceed 1800°F.

(The average gas temperature in a fully developed fire is not likely to reach 1500°F. Temperatures of fires that have not developed to post-flashover stage will not exceed 1000°F)

(More science, less namecalling please. Pretend you are Spock explaining it to Captain Kirk.)wink.gif

What was it hit by though? I am guessing debris from a gigantic building right next to it that also fell into the ground.

...and for some reason... in your mind... you cannot comprehend that metals lose strength when heated.

They do not have to be heated to cutting torch temperatures (2500+deg F) in order to "fail."

Link to post
Share on other sites

(More science, less namecalling please. Pretend you are Spock explaining it to Captain Kirk.)wink.gif

Even Spock was half human. I'd suspect that if Spock initially claimed that some particular theory was illogical, it probably was intended as a mixed up interspecies equivalent of, "Yo mamma so fat..."

EDIT: Oh, wait...apparently Spock has something to say about a similar matter. Let's watch, shall we:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL5Yu3Ub9nA

Edited by TheNiche
Link to post
Share on other sites

Steel generally loses its strength at 1100 degrees F.

Unfortunately, that's misleading to some folks that can't (or won't) read a table. Steel doesn't suddenly lose its strength at this magic temperature. It's strength slowly degrades with increasing temperature starting as low as 250F (4% loss) By 800F it's lost 40% and by 1100F it has no practical elastic strength. It's plastic.

Edited by Gooch
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ynfortunately, that's misleading to some folks that can't (or won't) read a table. Steel doesn't suddenly lose its strength at this magic temperature. It's strength slowly degrades with increasing temperature starting as low as 250F (4% loss) By 800F it's lost 40% and by 1100F it has no practical elastic strength. It's plastic.

And plastic is made from oil, and the Saudis control lots of oil, and most of the hijackers were Saudi. And this guy, Osama Bin Laden, he was also a Saudi...and his family owns a huge construction company. OH MY GOD, IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW! It was Bin Laden after all. And he must've masterminded the construction of WTC 7 when it was built in 1983 with plastic structural members so that it could be brought down 18 years later. It's so obvious! Why didn't anybody think of this before?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What was it hit by though? I am guessing debris from a gigantic building right next to it that also fell into the ground.

...and for some reason... in your mind... you cannot comprehend that metals lose strength when heated.

They do not have to be heated to cutting torch temperatures (2500+deg F) in order to "fail."

Anything is possible. This is an open discussion.

In case some couldn't pull up the earlier clip:

It reminds me of the implosions I've seen in Las Vegas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And plastic is made from oil, and the Saudis control lots of oil, and most of the hijackers were Saudi. And this guy, Osama Bin Laden, he was also a Saudi...and his family owns a huge construction company. OH MY GOD, IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW!

biggrin.gif NICE!! Actually, plastic doesn't refer to the material substance. In engineering terms plastic is any material that when bent, stretched, etc. doesn't return ( 'spring back' elastically) to it's original shape. At those temps if you bend steel... it won't bend back... thus it has no substantive strength...

Edited by Gooch
Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything is possible.

No, not everything is possible. The Bin Laden construction company did not construct WTC 7 out of plastic structural members. That was a joke.

It reminds me of the implosions I've seen in Las Vegas.

What do you think, the outside walls are strong and fiberous like a tree, and when the walls of one side of the building are compromised, the building is going to fall along the fulcrum (which would be the remaining wall) directly over on its side with a 90-degree arc? NO. Steel frameworks do not act like scaled-up trees.

EDIT: Actually, having watched the video you posted, it looks to me like the building did tend to lean towards the impacted side as it fell. Not by much, but just a wee bit. There's nothing at all in that video that fails to make intuitive sense. Even the image of Satan in the cloud of dust that erupts forth is perfectly rational...Saddam Hussein did it with smoke bombs suspended by parachutes which were deployed from a scud missile launched from an old Russian sub that was in New York harbor at the time. He also torpedoed the Staten Island Ferry later that night, but that was OK...he likes it rough.

Edited by TheNiche
Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind, WTC7 was not hit by a jet plane.

I said that it was the WTC 1 and 2, if you read the entire post. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I am not going to get into this political trolling thread, but you guys claiming that steel melts so easily while ignoring the burning temperature of the materials in the tower (fuel, paper, wood) don't sound too intelligent either.

I disagree. Rammer has yet to acknowledge that he believes the following basic concept to be true - Steel can be weakened by fire.. period.

Its a Simple concept. Baby steps are required.

Once he acknowledges that basic concept, then you can hit him up with more details like burning temperatures.

His opening remarks leads me to believe that he thinks steel buildings are 100% invincible against fire.

Until he can get past that sticking point.. details wont matter.

Edited by Highway6
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Steel buildings are often more dangerous than any other type of construction. Especially the use of light weight steel which is predominate in high rise buildings. That is why it's required to be protected in this type of construction. Many times it's a spray on fire protection that has been shown to be very inadequate.  It's really only protected when encased in masonry but that adds weight. 

The best fire resistive building in America is a concrete structure which is why this could never happen to the Empire State Building. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm working on a project right now that involves a lot of structural steel. I wish I could show a screenshot of the fireproofing around all the steel but the client would not be happy with me showing the world what they are building. All of the fireproofing is known to only slow down the weakening of the steel until fire crews can arrive.

I work on this kind of stuff all the time. I have to create drawings that show what parts of the structure should have fireproofing. If steel structures couldn't be brought down by fire then I wouldn't be paid good money to decide where to put fireproofing. WTC7 was not designed to stand up to a prolonged unfought fire. It was also not designed to remain standing when major support steel had been compromised. It is possible to design a building that will stand when major portions of the steel have been compromised. It is not financially feasible though.

A structure like WTC7 is designed with larger steel at the bottom. The members get smaller as you go up. The steel at the bottom is designed to be just strong enough to hold all the steel above it up along with a safety margin. When that safety margin is breached all the steel above it can fall. You wind up with a big rubble pile that looks exactly like what happened to WTC 1,2 and 7.

Example: Almost all of the destruction at the federal building in the OK City bombing was caused by one beam that was vaporized by the bomb. That building was almost completely destroyed and there wasn't even a prolonged fire. A prolonged, unfought fire would probably have brought down the rest of it. The bomb was not nearly powerful enough to cause all the destruction by itself. The kinetic energy in the building that was released due to one beam failing caused most of the damage.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Steel buildings are often more dangerous than any other type of construction. Especially the use of light weight steel which is predominate in high rise buildings. That is why it's required to be protected in this type of construction. Many times it's a spray on fire protection that has been shown to be very inadequate. It's really only protected when encased in masonry but that adds weight.

The best fire resistive building in America is a concrete structure which is why this could never happen to the Empire State Building.

Concrete structural systems are much more prevalent in the south. While there were some very low rise buildings built with concrete structures before the 30s, concrete structural systems were nowhere near far along enough to be implemented in a building as tall as Empire State back in the 30s.

Concrete structure buildings over 20 stories weren't seen till the 60s.

One Shell Plaza here in Houston was built in 1970 and is little over half the ht of the Empire State Bldg (52 stories) ... yet its is widely recognized as a landmark building representing what heights were possible with a concrete structure.

However... you are right about the dangers of steel buildings....

Steel buildings use to fail all the time.. hence one of the reasons concrete structural systems for tall buildings came about.

When first designed, tremendous city fires around the world had destroyed numerous steel tall buildings. The steel literally became ribbons when subjected to high heat, which concerned many at the time. Concrete was proving itself to be an excellent fire-resistant material through its use in factories and providing sustenance during fires in those facilities. - http://www.ejse.org/...01/20010101.htm

Edited by Highway6
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm working on a project right now that involves a lot of structural steel. I wish I could show a screenshot of the fireproofing around all the steel but the client would not be happy with me showing the world what they are building. All of the fireproofing is known to only slow down the weakening of the steel until fire crews can arrive.

I work on this kind of stuff all the time. I have to create drawings that show what parts of the structure should have fireproofing. If steel structures couldn't be brought down by fire then I wouldn't be paid good money to decide where to put fireproofing. WTC7 was not designed to stand up to a prolonged unfought fire. It was also not designed to remain standing when major support steel had been compromised. It is possible to design a building that will stand when major portions of the steel have been compromised. It is not financially feasible though.

A structure like WTC7 is designed with larger steel at the bottom. The members get smaller as you go up. The steel at the bottom is designed to be just strong enough to hold all the steel above it up along with a safety margin. When that safety margin is breached all the steel above it can fall. You wind up with a big rubble pile that looks exactly like what happened to WTC 1,2 and 7.

Example: Almost all of the destruction at the federal building in the OK City bombing was caused by one beam that was vaporized by the bomb. That building was almost completely destroyed and there wasn't even a prolonged fire. A prolonged, unfought fire would probably have brought down the rest of it. The bomb was not nearly powerful enough to cause all the destruction by itself. The kinetic energy in the building that was released due to one beam failing caused most of the damage.

Good post, Jgriff. That's the type of post I was hoping to see in this forum.

Urbanerd, I saw 'jet fuel' in your comment....that's why I said 'Keep in mind, WTC7 was not hit by a jet plane.'

While the jet that hit WTC1 had 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, there was no such amount of fuel that entered WTC7.

Only saturated debris that flew a football field away and crashed through WTC7's windows...causing small ordinary fires.

29 Structural/Civil Engineers Cite Evidence of Controlled Explosive Demolition

http://www.ae911truth.org/downloads/29_Structural-Civil_Engineers_2009-06-17.pdf

Use the magnifying glass to enlarge the text.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Concrete structural systems are much more prevalent in the south. While there were some very low rise buildings built with concrete structures before the 30s, concrete structural systems were nowhere near far along enough to be implemented in a building as tall as Empire State back in the 30s.

Concrete structure buildings over 20 stories weren't seen till the 60s.

One Shell Plaza here in Houston was built in 1970 and is little over half the ht of the Empire State Bldg (52 stories) ... yet its is widely recognized as a landmark building representing what heights were possible with a concrete structure.

I'm speaking of predominately concrete. The Empire State building was a 60/40 ratio of concrete versus steel. Most high rises these days are just the opposite. The steel in the Empire State building is very well protected. Plus there is no lightweight bar joists used that typically fail in 5 or 10 minutes of exposure to fire. 

"The empire state building has exterior Indiana limestone exterior wall, 8 inches thick. The floors are also 8 inches thick consisting of one-inch cement over 7 inches of cinder and concrete. All columns, girders and floor beams are solid steel covered with 1 to 2 inches of brick terracotta and concrete. There is virtually no opening in the floors. And there are no air ducts of a HVAC heating cooling and venting system penetrating fire partitions, floor, and ceilings. Each floor has its own HVAC unit. The elevators and utility shafts are masonry enclosed. And for life safety there is a 4-inch brick enclosed so-called “smoke proof stairway”.

If all buildings were built this way than we would never have to worry about another 9/11.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you like my post do you believe that a steel building can be brought down by fire now? That's something we can all agree on, correct?

Nope... Judging from his last comment, I'm willing to bet he only believes a steel bldg can be brought down by a jet fuel fire.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post, Jgriff. That's the type of post I was hoping to see in this forum.

Urbanerd, I saw 'jet fuel' in your comment....that's why I said 'Keep in mind, WTC7 was not hit by a jet plane.'

While the jet that hit WTC1 had 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, there was no such amount of fuel that entered WTC7.

Only saturated debris that flew a football field away and crashed through WTC7's windows...causing small ordinary fires.

29 Structural/Civil Engineers Cite Evidence of Controlled Explosive Demolition

http://www.ae911trut..._2009-06-17.pdf

I stopped reading after they started talking about unnatural symmetry in the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. There was nothing unnatural or symmetrical about those collapses.

It doesn't matter if no jet fuel entered building 7. There are plenty of other things in an office building that can cause fires hot enough to weaken steel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm speaking of predominately concrete. The Empire State building was a 60/40 ratio of concrete versus steel. Most high rises these days are just the opposite. The steel in the Empire State building is very well protected. Plus there is no lightweight bar joists used that typically fail in 5 or 10 minutes of exposure to fire.

"The empire state building has exterior Indiana limestone exterior wall, 8 inches thick. The floors are also 8 inches thick consisting of one-inch cement over 7 inches of cinder and concrete. All columns, girders and floor beams are solid steel covered with 1 to 2 inches of brick terracotta and concrete. There is virtually no opening in the floors. And there are no air ducts of a HVAC heating cooling and venting system penetrating fire partitions, floor, and ceilings. Each floor has its own HVAC unit. The elevators and utility shafts are masonry enclosed. And for life safety there is a 4-inch brick enclosed so-called “smoke proof stairway”.

If all buildings were built this way than we would never have to worry about another 9/11.

...No design of any building... of any material... can ever withstand forces imposed upon it, outside of its design limits and safety margins. Concrete has excellent compressive strength but easily fails in tension; you're swapping one problem for another. And I'm no so sure the Empire state building would be standing after a 767 impact. And if not 767, perhaps 747. And if not 747, then surely A380. And if not A380, something else. You can't design for the unknown. You can design to make it 50%, 5x, 10x times stronger... but, if you exceed that margin... it's history - no matter what.

Speaking of failures... Rammer has still failed to answer the simple question: can heat/fire weaken steel? Does he believe in cutting torches? At what point does he believe that heat can actually compromise steel? Nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post, Jgriff. That's the type of post I was hoping to see in this forum.

Urbanerd, I saw 'jet fuel' in your comment....that's why I said 'Keep in mind, WTC7 was not hit by a jet plane.'

While the jet that hit WTC1 had 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, there was no such amount of fuel that entered WTC7.

Only saturated debris that flew a football field away and crashed through WTC7's windows...causing small ordinary fires.

29 Structural/Civil Engineers Cite Evidence of Controlled Explosive Demolition

http://www.ae911truth.org/downloads/29_Structural-Civil_Engineers_2009-06-17.pdf

Use the magnifying glass to enlarge the text.

OMG!!! So i should take the words of 29 people over actual evidence to the contrary because we all know that these 29 guys have no possible political agenda whatsoever?!?!

Its hard to use logic and facts to explain events to people who are gullible to such opinions. These people tend to believe that there has to be something fishy that caused this because appearantly its totally impossible for 9/11 to have happened the way it did. To them, it restores some evidence of sanity in their minds while they exist and live in an insaine world.

I've had the same discussion with two members of my family about this and they still believe in this fallacy of "controlled demolition", and it being an "inside job". They have to want to analyze it themselves to actually understand the facts, not just have it spoon fed to them. "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink" pretty much sums up most people who buy into the conspiracies.

Edited by new major on the block
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

...No design of any building... of any material... can ever withstand forces imposed upon it, outside of its design limits and safety margins. Concrete has excellent compressive strength but easily fails in tension; you're swapping one problem for another. And I'm no so sure the Empire state building would be standing after a 767 impact. And if not 767, perhaps 747. And if not 747, then surely A380. And if not A380, something else. You can't design for the unknown. You can design to make it 50%, 5x, 10x times stronger... but, if you exceed that margin... it's history - no matter what.

Speaking of failures... Rammer has still failed to answer the simple question: can heat/fire weaken steel? Does he believe in cutting torches? At what point does he believe that heat can actually compromise steel? Nothing.

I agree. Nothing is perfect but I would say concrete is definitely better than steel when exposed to heat extremes. By the way, the empire state building has had planes run into it including a B25 bomber. But I'm not suggesting any building be built to specifically hold up to a plane crash. Would be nice though if engineer/architects would research the effects of fire on structural components when designing a structure. If they did there would be no such thing as things like lightweight truss construction. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

29 Structural/Civil Engineers Cite Evidence of Controlled Explosive Demolition

What garbage. So I guess... according to your research methods... if there's an internet, or a.m. radio, reference it must be gospel.

There is a strong, silent super majority of credible civil/mechanical/aerospace engineers... that if presented with the facts... and forced to render an analysis... would absolutely crush the position of these wack jobs and people perpetuating such lunacy.

What is your background, again? Who are we arguing with?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...