Former conspiracy believer here

[Bell]

If WTC7 was brought down by explosives and could not have collapsed from the fires and damage, then why suspend the rescue operations at Ground Zero?

 

[RedIbis]

If WTC7 was brought down by explosives and could not have collapsed from the fires and damage, then why suspend the rescue operations at Ground Zero?

I'm working with you here brother, but could you rephrase that question or be more specific? Seriously, I'll take a shot at it if I understand your question correctly.

 

[Architect]

Can I ask a question first?

Red, do you accept that failure of steel structures due to fires is not just possible per se but is an accepted fire engineering risk, or are you only talking about WTC?

 

[Bell]

I'm working with you here brother, but could you rephrase that question or be more specific? Seriously, I'll take a shot at it if I understand your question correctly.

I don't know where Architect is going, but per his request, I'll wait clarifying until you answer his post. Thanks.

 

[RedIbis]

Can I ask a question first?

Red, do you accept that failure of steel structures due to fires is not just possible per se but is an accepted fire engineering risk, or are you only talking about WTC?

What do you mean, "only talking about WTC"?

I sincerely apologize for answering a question with a question, but the original question should always be, why did WTC 7 collapse?

Can we agree that we don't have an answer yet?

 

[Architect]

Red

I'm trying to establish the common ground, inasmuch I once ended up with an argument not as to the structure of WTC (and hence susceptibility to failure) but rather the general performance of steel within normal fire loadings as the correspondent understood steel to be inherrently and excessivley resistant to the effects of fire.

So to put it another way, do you accept that normal fire loadings can and do cause failure in steel structures, albeit that other issues such as extant passive fire protection may mitigate such issues?

 

[RedIbis]

Red

I'm trying to establish the common ground, inasmuch I once ended up with an argument not as to the structure of WTC (and hence susceptibility to failure) but rather the general performance of steel within normal fire loadings as the correspondent understood steel to be inherrently and excessivley resistant to the effects of fire.

So to put it another way, do you accept that normal fire loadings can and do cause failure in steel structures, albeit that other issues such as extant passive fire protection may mitigate such issues?

Please provide the instances when "normal fire loadings [...] caused failure in steel structures."

And if I may, please make sure the collapses are total or consistent with what occured to WTC 7, not simply partial or local collapse.

 

[Bell]

Please provide the instances when "normal fire loadings [...] caused failure in steel structures."

And if I may, please make sure the collapses are total or consistent with what occured to WTC 7, not simply partial or local collapse.

You forgot to add the part about debris of a 110 story skyscraper collapsing into the building.

 

[Architect]

Please provide the instances when "normal fire loadings [...] caused failure in steel structures."

And if I may, please make sure the collapses are total or consistent with what occured to WTC 7, not simply partial or local collapse.

Red

Am I to take it from your comments that you do not accept that normal fire loadings can cause failure in steel structures generally? Or is there a WTC7-specific issue?

 

[RedIbis]

Red

Am I to take it from your comments that you do not accept that normal fire loadings can cause failure in steel structures generally? Or is there a WTC7-specific issue?

I shouldn't expect such examples, I guess.

 

[Architect]

Answer the question so that we can get started on the discussion proper. Are you disputing that normal fire loadings can cause failure in steel structures generally?

 

[Bell]

I shouldn't expect such examples, I guess.

There are plenty examples of steel structures collapsing due to fire. Most fortunaly though, all those didn't have debris from a 110 story building collapsing into them.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Red

Am I to take it from your comments that you do not accept that normal fire loadings can cause failure in steel structures generally? Or is there a WTC7-specific issue?

Red does have a legit question. The fire loading for a steel structure manufacturing wood pallets stacked 8 feet high is different than the loading for an (primarily) office building like the WTC's. Both might be considered "normal".

 

[Architect]

Skinny

You misunderstand. There is a small minority of Truthers who seem to believe that steel per se is inherrently fire resistant. I'm seeking to establish whether Red is part of this group and hence whether we have to cover the actual perfornamce of the material prior to turning to the specifics of WTC7.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Skinny

You misunderstand. There is a small minority of Truthers who seem to believe that steel per se is inherrently fire resistant. I'm seeking to establish whether Red is part of this group and hence whether we have to cover the actual perfornamce of the material prior to turning to the specifics of WTC7.

Architect,

I don't misunderstand at all, and in fact, almost posed that same question to RedIbis, but decided to let you lead that discussion.

I'm a former fire protection engineer that worked for the engineering division a major insurance mutual. I've seen what fire can do to steel.

I just felt Red ask a legit question that you should qualify in response to his question.

Trying to hold "Us" to the same standard we would like to see from "Them" is all.

 

[Architect]

So just to summarise, if Red is claiming that all steel is inherrently fire resistant then we can address that...on the other hand if there is an building-specific issue at WTC 7 (for example the fire protection system or location of fires) rather than a generic issue then we can look at the detailed point in hand.

Fair enought?

 

[Mr. Skinny]

So just to summarise, if Red is claiming that all steel is inherrently fire resistant then we can address that...on the other hand if there is an building-specific issue at WTC 7 (for example the fire protection system or location of fires) rather than a generic issue then we can look at the detailed point in hand.

Fair enought?

Seems fair to me, but if you'll allow me, Architect, I'll try to be more specific.

RedIbis,

Do you believe that all steel is inherrently fire resistant, i.e. that fire cannot cause a steel framed building to collapse? or;

Do you believe that the fires in WTC7 could not burn hot enough to cause the steel frame to collapse? or;

Some other reason?

 

[RedIbis]

Answer the question so that we can get started on the discussion proper. Are you disputing that normal fire loadings can cause failure in steel structures generally?

No, I'm not disputing that they can. I'm asking if they did.

 

[RedIbis]

Seems fair to me, but if you'll allow me, Architect, I'll try to be more specific.

RedIbis,

Do you believe that all steel is inherrently fire resistant, i.e. that fire cannot cause a steel framed building to collapse? or;

Do you believe that the fires in WTC7 could not burn hot enough to cause the steel frame to collapse? or;

Some other reason?

I think I just answered this above. To clarify further, of course I don't think that all steel is inherently fire resistant.

To rephrase your second question so that my answer is more accurate, I'm not questioning whether the fires "could" have burned hot enough. I'm questioning whether they did burn hot enough.

 

[Bell]

I think I just answered this above. To clarify further, of course I don't think that all steel is inherently fire resistant.

To rephrase your second question so that my answer is more accurate, I'm not questioning whether the fires "could" have burned hot enough. I'm questioning whether they did burn hot enough.

Allright, lemme see if I understand you right?

WTC7 could have collapsed the way it happened if the fires burned hot enough?