Rammer Posted November 23, 2009 Author Share Posted November 23, 2009 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gooch Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 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! 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UrbaNerd Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtticaFlinch Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 I think it was the gunmen on the grassy knoll who took down the WTC 7. And then Cthulhu swooped down and ate all the survivors. Someone made a video about it and posted it on Youtube. It therefore must be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highway6 Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fringe Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 The best fire resistive building in America is a concrete structure which is why this could never happen to the Empire State Building. Uh oh, what's this? Plastic!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgriff Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highway6 Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rammer Posted November 23, 2009 Author Share Posted November 23, 2009 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 Demolitionhttp://www.ae911truth.org/downloads/29_Structural-Civil_Engineers_2009-06-17.pdfUse the magnifying glass to enlarge the text. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fringe Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgriff Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 Good post, Jgriff. That's the type of post I was hoping to see in this forum. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highway6 Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgriff Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 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 Demolitionhttp://www.ae911trut..._2009-06-17.pdfI 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtticaFlinch Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 There are plenty of other things in an office building that can cause fires hot enough to weaken steel.Like office romances. This is the number one reason so many companies ban them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryanS Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
new major on the block Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 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 Demolitionhttp://www.ae911truth.org/downloads/29_Structural-Civil_Engineers_2009-06-17.pdfUse 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fringe Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 ...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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryanS Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 29 Structural/Civil Engineers Cite Evidence of Controlled Explosive DemolitionWhat 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryanS Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 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. They do. And have, for decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highway6 Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 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?!?! One of those 29 experts.. McCoy.. just graduated in 07 with his BS in Civil Eng..... which made him about 15 at the time of the WTC collapse.How can you not trust such wisdom and experience ?!?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
new major on the block Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 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. Hey, come on its Empire, king Kong couldn't even take it down One of those 29 experts.. McCoy.. just graduated in 07 with his BS in Civil Eng..... which made him about 15 at the time of the WTC collapse. How can you not trust such wisdom and experience ?!?!?! Lol, its sarcasm. I'm intentionally making fun of it, not believing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highway6 Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 Lol, its sarcasm. I'm intentionally making fun of it, not believing it.As was I... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gto250us Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 Cheney ordered it done along with the levees in New Orleans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtticaFlinch Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 Cheney ordered it done along with the levees in New Orleans.I think this one goes well above Cheney. This was ordered by the Masons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gto250us Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 I think this one goes well above Cheney. This was ordered by the Masons.You might be right. The same folk who killed Kennedy and framed Pete Rose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
new major on the block Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 As was I...lol ah. I was gonna say don't group me in with mister topic starter lol. But to go along with your last post, I gratuated with my masters in architecture this past August, that doesn't necessarily make me an expert and a glorified architect to offer an expert opinion for people to take my word over a thousand others. I mean come on, the guy gratuated in 07? Really people, really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
new major on the block Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 I think this one goes well above Cheney. This was ordered by the Masons. Youre right, We should get Nicolas Cage to help solve this puzzle. After all he did find the national treasure that was hidden by those same conniving masons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fringe Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 They do. And have, for decades. Yeah right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.