Another Steel-Framed Building Collapses Due to Fire

[rwguinn]

nip excuses....

Of course it is not easy to match with the seismic data because the tripod and camera has its own resonance frequency, there might be a small time delay and er don't know how far the camera is and so on.

I just re-readed Greening's part and its very interesting, he says that the huge peaks is not the collapse but the debris falling on the ground and the intact block caving in. But if the tripod really shaked (that should be investigated) due to the events ongoing in the building then it has te be reviewed, the collapse itself doesn't let the camera shake but once the debris hits the ground is shakes again but with less amplitude. I think the peak is correlated with the camera shaking.

you're talking about milliseconds diffe4rence on a seismograph?
Hoo, boy. I really need to know the name of that pawnbroker...

 

[einsteen]

yeah I had to be sure... the pawnshop is called "Sir DumpALot's Grab Bag"

 

[Moving On]

Once again I find JREFers engaged in mockery without research.

You jump to a conclusion that "a steel building collapses from fire" and try to link it to WTC 7.

There is NO similarity to the warehouse fire in Enigma Business Park and WTC 7 or the towers. NONE!

First of all take the time to watch the video of the fire below. Once open, it gives you the option to open in a player. Do that and enlarge it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/...checkedMedia=ram&subtitles=hide&alreadySeen=1

By the end of the video you will see 100% involvement of the entire structure. Please show me one photo of any open flame at WTC 7 even remotely equivocating this.

The fire penetrates the roof which is 100% different in its effects than a lateral floor fire such as in a high-rise. A fully ventilated "heat up" fire creates draft and centralizes heating.

Notice the odd color smoke at different phases as well. Yellow toward the beginning.

Warehouses and such are under 100% different flammability regulations than an occupied office structure. All materials in the U.S. from the structure itself to the office contents are highly regulated for life safety. There is no comparison.

Note in the video the massive series of explosions at the beginning of the fire and some throughout. Ask yourself when your toilet paper ever exploded even after bad Mexican or Thai food?

Observe the white hot nature of the fire in certain locations throughout the video. Point me to a similar phenomenon at WTC 7.

Notice that the columns showing in the photo that started this thread are on the windward side of the building. They were therefore exposed to the least amount of heat. They were pulled over and not melted. They did not buckle and come straight down.

The building came down non symmetrically. The wind may have actually played a factor.

Here is another photo gallery of the fire.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/herefordandworcester/content/image_galleries/malvern_fire_gallery.shtml

Please study it and find ANY photo of WTC 7 that approximates it. For the purposes of this study we will only use WTC 7 as an example since it does not provide you the excuse of aircraft to magically explain it away.

As of now, over 5 years later the only official report we have on WTC 7 is that fire was the primary cause. Even the diesel fuel tanks there were given a "low probability" of being the source of the collapse.

Keep that in mind. It will apply to this fire and should generate a reasonable question for you to think about. If FEMA thought a diesel fuel tank at WTC 7 had a low probability of being the source of collapse, why is diesel fuel able to cause it 2 blocks away???

Now let's take a look at steel warehouse structures OK?

1) Standard Steel Buildings can be designed to look almost any way you can imagine, including stone, brick, slate and stucco.

2) Steel buildings as with most structures expand, and contract with temperature changes, causing a great deal of problems for most stucco products.

3) One of the great advantages of using steel warehouses is by using steel you can maintain a clear-span of up to 300 ft wide. Having a large space that is column-free you will gain the flexibility to satisfy even the most complex space design needs while still maintaining an obstacle free environment.

http://www.standardsteelbuildings.com/warehouse_buildings.html

Second opinion:
Rigid frame steel buildings are ideal for warehousing. Advantages include:

Clear span capabilities
Few if any interior columns
Thermally efficient
Durable
Predictable cost

http://www.steelbuildingsupplier.com/RapidsetBuildings/Warehouse.cfm

Please compare the above information to the following graphic of just one aspect of WTC 7. Also keep in mind the different grades of construction steel and thicknesses in a 47 story, occupied, high-rise office structure in downtown New York City and a two story pre-fabricated warehouse at a business park in the rural U.K..

If any of you want to learn more about that, then read chapter 5 of the FEMA report below annotated by true skeptics.

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm

Remember that chapter says in FEMA's own words, "The collapse of WTC 7 was different from that of WTC 1 and WTC 2, which showered debris in a wide radius as their frames essentially "peeled" outward. The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion."

and.......

"Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."

Remember the warehouse had fire from the ground up. WTC 7 did not.

Now let's look at the actual company that was involved in the fire. ESP - Manufacturers of Soft Tissue Products.

WEBSITE: http://www.es-p.co.uk/index.htm

Go to the "About Us" page page and click continue 3x to see the predominantly column free environment and their manufacturing floor.

Here's a few quotes from their site if you don't have time to research:

1) "ESP trades from a 25,000 sq ft purpose built factory set on a 2 1/2 acre site on the prestigious Enigma Business Park."

2) "With over 30,000 cases in stock at any time....... With over 150 tonnes of Mother reels in stock......"

So we have 25,000 sq feet of space with primarily prefab thickness external steel columns stuffed full of heavy flammables.

What other products do they carry and/or manufacture?

1) Dispensers (plastic)
2) Hygiene
3) Roll-a-soap
4) Washroom
5) Wiping

Lets look at just one of those products.

"ESP is pleased to announce the launch of its new product range M-BOSS. This revolutionary new product is manufactured using tissue plies that are Glued, Embossed and Laminated together."

Who knows what other chemicals and in what quantities may have been stored there? Or what quantities of their plastic products. Depending on what phase of the paper processes they are involved in, many other chemicals could be present. Watch the video again and listen to the explosions and watch the white hot fires.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/...checkedMedia=ram&subtitles=hide&alreadySeen=1

So what we have is actually a manufacturing plant that is almost 2/3 of an acre stuffed with various flammables, chemicals and equipment. It is a 2 story pre-fabricated structure that has external columns as its primary support structure. The columns you do see are not melted but only pulled over from the weight of the collapse.

You have 100% total involvement of a top ventilated fire. You have no knowledge of the temperatures achieved by the potential chemicals and combinations thereof even if it can be demonstrated that steel melted.

You also have a building that is known to expand and contract significantly in reaction to heat and cold because of its nature.

That nature is radically different than a 47 story high-rise office building.
Do you still want to compare it to WTC 7 in proof that 9/11 is not a conspiracy????

JREF is about as "fair and balanced" as FOX News.

 

[Minadin]

Please. The Only parallels that people are drawing here are in response to the CT claim that "on Sept 11th, 2001, 3 steel buildings failed due to fire, they are the only steel buildings ever to fail from fire, before or since."

Steel buildings are very vulnerable to fires. They always have been. Not so much to burning as to failing structurally. This is something that a lot of CT'ers don't seem to be able to grasp. The folks here are just making a point. Steel buildings can and do fail because of fires. The specifics of the structure mean less than you apparently think - if a fire is hot enough, if the steel is compromised by being unprotected, or there are nearby members that fail, no structure is well-equipped to weather that.

 

[uk_dave]

Christ Russell, lighten up.

No one here suggested that a steel portal frame warehouse was comparable to the steel frame multistorey office building.

For one thing the loo paper warehouse hadn't had a huge tower collapse in close proximity to it!

(see what I'm getting at there?)

Oh and BTW, you might want to look into the UK building regulations if you want to make claims about fire proofing being '100%' different between these types of buildings.

You might also want to check some of the fire testing that has been carried out at the Cardington LBTF

 

[Moving On]

First, it should be acknowledged that the American population has been well served by the design and construction industry regarding fire safety in high-rise structural steel buildings exposed to historical threats. As was noted in the workshop and was highlighted in the Engineering News Record article that covered the workshop (February12, 2004, p. 15), in recorded history only seventeen buildings of four stories or taller have suffered structural damage from fire. And of these only two had structural steel frames.​

During the past 75 years, these prescriptive approaches have been successful. In the NIST report, six occurrences of collapse in steel framed structures were cited. Four of these six were at the World Trade Center site. It would appear this performance has resulted from a balance of redundancy in structural design and the conservatism in the assessment of fire test data.​

​

​

The huge risk associated with a singular event such as the collapse of the World Trade Center needs to be somehow combined with what may be a minimal risk based upon the historical record.​

http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/pdf/GCR04_872.pdf​

 

[Moving On]

Christ Russell, lighten up.

No one here suggested that a steel portal frame warehouse was comparable to the steel frame multistorey office building.

For one thing the loo paper warehouse hadn't had a huge tower collapse in close proximity to it!

(see what I'm getting at there?)

Oh and BTW, you might want to look into the UK building regulations if you want to make claims about fire proofing being '100%' different between these types of buildings.

You might also want to check some of the fire testing that has been carried out at the Cardington LBTF

Dave,

Good point. I did not actually check regulations in the UK. I just looked at the grades and thicknesses of steel here.

I am emailing that fire department for info on the estimated temperatures and the chemicals involved.

Russell

 

[uk_dave]

Russell,

I hesitate to post this link because I know how easily a few of the comments therein can be taken out of context, but here goes...

They tested a steel frame structure at cardington to see the effects of a 'normal' office fire on protected and unprotected structural steel. The point open to misinterpretation (within the context of WTC7) is that the structural steel performed better than expected. However, it still suffered from massive deflection and distortion.

In the context of WTC7 one would need to add an element of structural damage, not caused by the fire itself.

You then have a stressed structure, which may be perfectly capable of standing long enough to enable repair, but once fire is added to the damage the remaining steel is going to be weakened beyond it's ability to withstand disproportionate collapse.

http://guardian.150m.com/fire/small/SCI.htm

 

[uk_dave]

The point about my previous post is that you would have to compare historic examples of steel framed structures which suffered structural damage as well as fire.

Most examples of fires in multi storey steel structures are the result of mishaps and faults within the services, such as electrical or gas.

The effect of structural damage and fire is something we saw on 9/11

 

[Moving On]

The point about my previous post is that you would have to compare historic examples of steel framed structures which suffered structural damage as well as fire.

Most examples of fires in multi storey steel structures are the result of mishaps and faults within the services, such as electrical or gas.

The effect of structural damage and fire is something we saw on 9/11

.....in recorded history only seventeen buildings of four stories or taller have suffered structural damage from fire. And of these only two had structural steel frames.

http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/pdf/GCR04_872.pdf

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Wrong. This building is a piece of positive evidence that fire can cause structural steel to fail.

Here is an analogy to show why it can be used in the manner we have presented it, but not in the manner you have:
A corpse is found with a small hole in one side of its head and a large hole in the other side.
Upon examining all available evidence we conclude that the person was shot in the head and that this was the cause of death, probably by a large caliber firearm.
You conclude something else (doesn't matter what) caused the hole and that it was not the cause of death (you think they died from a heart attack or something).
We provide a specific example of someone who has been shot in the head, but it is with a smaller caliber firearm and there is no exit wound. We state, "Here is an example of someone who died from a gunshot wound to the head."
You reply, "And this proves that the corpse we found didn't die from a gunshot wound to the head, because the example you showed me doesn't have an exit wound."

This would be a good analogy if the person, in addition to having the two holes in his head, had also mostly disintegrated. Suppose 99% of his non-bone mass was turned into dust, and a good 80% of his bone was as well. If you tried to blame this on a gun shot, I would tell you that you are divorced from reality. I would say this whether or not you could provide evidence of another person with a gunshot wound.

Yes, intense fires can soften steel. Gradually. Assymmetrically. If enough loss of strength occurs, some sort of structural failure can occur. It is debatable whether that happened on 9/11. It's mostly beside the point.
We did not observe "structural failures" or "collapses" on 9/11. We observed two 110 story skyscrapers being obliterated in seconds.

 

[Moving On]

This would be a good analogy if the person, in addition to having the two holes in his head, had also mostly disintegrated. Suppose 99% of his non-bone mass was turned into dust, and a good 80% of his bone was as well. If you tried to blame this on a gun shot, I would tell you that you are divorced from reality. I would say this whether or not you could provide evidence of another person with a gunshot wound.

Yes, intense fires can soften steel. Gradually. Assymmetrically. If enough loss of strength occurs, some sort of structural failure can occur. It is debatable whether that happened on 9/11. It's mostly beside the point.
We did not observe "structural failures" or "collapses" on 9/11. We observed two 110 story skyscrapers being obliterated in seconds.

It was 4 buildings.

Please read this.

.....in recorded history only seventeen buildings of four stories or taller have suffered structural damage from fire. And of these only two had structural steel frames.

During the past 75 years, these prescriptive approaches have been successful. In the NIST report, six occurrences of collapse in steel framed structures were cited. Four of these six were at the World Trade Center site.


http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/pdf/GCR04_872.pdf

 

[uk_dave]

It was 4 buildings.

Please read this.

.....in recorded history only seventeen buildings of four stories or taller have suffered structural damage from fire. And of these only two had structural steel frames.


http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/pdf/GCR04_872.pdf

Russell,

Look at it this way:

We can both agree that on 9/11 three steel frame structures collapsed.

The two towers suffered damage from being impacted by passenger jets.

WTC7 may have suffered massive damage, moderate damage or no damage at all, depending on the emphasis you place on various eyewitness accounts.

We KNOW that fire causes structural damage. The only question is, how much additional structural damage was caused to WTC7 by the collapse of the adjacent towers.

You believe it was very little, based upon the eyewitness accounts you accept.

I believe it was alot, based upon the fact that the building collapsed.

I would suggest that my evidence is stronger than yours.

The only way you can reconcile your belief that the fires alone could not have brought down WTC7 is to accept that some other mechanism was employed.

I believe that other mechanism was the collapse of a massive structure in close proximity to WTC7. Certainly the evidence of fire in WTC7 suggests that the collapse impacted upon that building.

For you to arrive at an alternative mechanism you have to believe in a conspiracy without means or motive.

Why is the simplest answer so unacceptable to you?

 

[uk_dave]

The Windsor Tower or Torre Windsor (officially known as Edificio Windsor) was a 32-storey concrete building with a reinforced concrete central core. A typical floor was two-way spanning 280mm deep waffle slab supported by the concrete core, internal RC columns with additional 360mm deep steel I-beams and steel perimeter columns. Originally, the perimeter columns and internal steel beams were left unprotected in accordance with the Spanish building code at the time of construction

The building featured two heavily reinforced concrete transfer structures (technical floors) between the 2nd and 3rd Floors, and between the 16th and 17th Floors respectively. The original cladding system was fixed to the steel perimeter columns and the floor slabs. The perimeter columns were supported by the transfer structures at the 17th and 3rd Floor levels.

................................


The Damage

The Windsor Tower was completely gutted by the fire on 12 February 2005. A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed (see Figure 1). It was believed that the massive transfer structure at the 17th Floor level resisted further collapse of the building.

The whole building was beyond repair and had to be demolished. The estimated property loss was €72m before the renovation.

Based on the footages of available media filming, Table 2 summarises the estimated time frame for the structural collapses of the Windsor Tower.

http://tinyurl.com/cmggl

Steel structure failed through fire alone, Russell.

Just FIRE

 

[Gravy]

Russell,

I hesitate to post this link because I know how easily a few of the comments therein can be taken out of context, but here goes...

They tested a steel frame structure at cardington to see the effects of a 'normal' office fire on protected and unprotected structural steel. The point open to misinterpretation (within the context of WTC7) is that the structural steel performed better than expected. However, it still suffered from massive deflection and distortion.

In the context of WTC7 one would need to add an element of structural damage, not caused by the fire itself.

You then have a stressed structure, which may be perfectly capable of standing long enough to enable repair, but once fire is added to the damage the remaining steel is going to be weakened beyond it's ability to withstand disproportionate collapse.

http://guardian.150m.com/fire/small/SCI.htm

The point about my previous post is that you would have to compare historic examples of steel framed structures which suffered structural damage as well as fire.

Most examples of fires in multi storey steel structures are the result of mishaps and faults within the services, such as electrical or gas.

The effect of structural damage and fire is something we saw on 9/11

Well said. Another JREF "Dave," Dave_46, is recently retired from a career in (I believe) the fire protection business, and was present at two of the Cardington tests mentioned above. His posts are always worthy of attention. An excerpt from one:

The construction of the building used for the Cardington experiments was more modern than the WTC towers. It was specifically built to test modern construction techniques. The horizontal beams in this building are more substantial than my understanding of the WTC floor supports. The reason that the Cardington building did not collapse was due to load sharing as the individual components weakened and distorted. The building suffered severe local damage, and access to parts of the building was restricted after the tests due to the damage. To state the obvious, the structural integrity of the building had not been compromised by a severe impact.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1541819&postcount=796

 

[Gravy]

We KNOW that fire causes structural damage. The only question is, how much additional structural damage was caused to WTC7 by the collapse of the adjacent towers. (snip)

I don't know that that's the only question that needs to be answered, and I suspect that's one reason that NIST's investigation into WTC 7 is a very challenging one.

Would WTC 7 have stood if it it had not been as badly damaged but had burned uncontrolled? The building had structural idiosyncracies such as the transfer trusses over the ConEdison substation that, if not unique, were not common. In terms of high-rise fires, it is sui generis. AFAIK, the role that diesel fuel may have played in the fire remains unknown. (FEMA's relatively brief study assigned the diesel a "low probability" as a cause of collapse.) The severity of the fires will never be precisely known.

In an ideal world more steel from WTC 7 would have been preserved, and a multitude of experts would have unlimited time to try to separate the steel that was fire-damaged in the standing building from steel that was fire-damaged while in the pile, and to examine every element for damage. In the real world, there were much, much more pressing concerns and demands.

 

[Moving On]

Not to be rude, but do you guys have any other examples for me to compare?

 

[Moving On]

Jump back and forth a couple of times.

Here is an article on the complicated process involved to actually bring the Windsor Tower to the ground.

"City authorities entrusted the construction company Construcciones Ortiz with the deconstruction of the tower, which was initially expected to take 11-12 months."

"Different demolition techniques were used at this stage".

http://www.pdworld.com/default_article.asp?categoryID=17&pageID=438

 

[uk_dave]

Reinforced concrete, russell

Reinforced concrete.

The steel structure failed within 90 minutes

 

[uk_dave]

In fact, in your post showing the fire in madrid, there seems to be quite alot of the structure already missing.

That fire burned for 18 to 20 hours, and yet the steel failed within 90 minutes.

Think about it.

As for Gravy's comment ragarding the WTC7 structure, I totally agree that the cantilevered design at the base of the building was going to be the most vulnerable. Cantilevers have much less scope for redundancy and (since they pivot around the point of support) provide a whole different set of stresses on the remaining structure than a conventional beam supported at either end.