• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Fire and Steel

bofors said:
Obviously these are not always equivalent, but in the case at bar the effectively are. I mean, steal-framed buildings can not globally collapsed under possible fire conditions and this is proved by the fact that they have not.

As far as the application of abestos and such, I think it primarily has to do with preventing trusses from sagging, the framing itself (I-beams, H beams and such) does not need it (or get it).
Click to expand...
You think? The beams in the WTC had to be covered with fire protection to meet code. You are not even close on your statements about anything 9/11.

Steel is not like a heat sink, Al is used as a heat sink. Go ahead and melt your CPU, install a steel heat sink.

Concrete protects the steel from heat. Who is telling you the false information you have been posting. You seem like you fell into a swam of 9/11 truth lies and been brainwashed you to repeat random junk about 9/11.

Thousands of steel frame structures have failed in fire; you are not very good at this.

Steel has to have fire protection or it fails in fire very quickly; much quicker than structural wood in certain cases. Like steel fails quickly in fire you have quickly failed to produce correct facts about steel.
 
FramerDave said:
Back in June there was a horrible fire at a furniture store in Charleston, SC. Sadly, nine firefighters were killed.

I passed by it when I was visiting in early July and one could very clearly see substantial metal beams that had been part of the structure on top of the debris, bent and twisted like taffy. So we have a steel framed structure, collapsed in a fire fed by furniture, in which steel beams can clearly be shown to have softened, lost their strength, deformed and collapsed. Sound like any other incident we've seen in the last, oh, six years or so?

I'll be in Charleston again in November. If it's all still there and if I don't feel too ghoulish I'll try to get some pictures.

Here's a link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19301684/ In the picture you can clearly see the collapse of the roof, showing why firefighters hate trussed systems like that.
Click to expand...

It's worth pointing out that those trusses were hardly holding up anything. just the froof... that's it. Nowhere near the kind of loads the WTC structural members were holding up when they failed.

The "fuel" for that fire wasn't any different from the fuel in the WTC either. Just furniture... lots and lots of furniture. Just like what you see packed into a modern "cubicle farm" office layout.
 
uruk said:
I think there is an article out there about a ware house that stored toilet paper collapsing due to a fire.
Click to expand...

HERE YOU GO

conclusion. fire weakens steel, causes collapse.

ETA excellent footage of this fire HERE

i wonder why the firemen seemed relunctant to tackle this blaze? could it possibly be because the structure was steel-framed and that it might collapse? hmmmmm.

ETA 2 looking at it again though the power lines crossing directly over the fire may have had a bearing on the use of water there ooops.

BV
 
Last edited:
If fire (heat) can't weaken steel, how do they smelt it?

-Gumboot
 
Alferd_Packer said:
One Meridian Plaza: much smaller building, masonry reinforced core area.
Click to expand...


It's worth pointing out that despite the concrete and masonry in the building, and the evenly spaced structural columns (rather than focused at the core and perimeter like with WTC1, 2 and 7), and despite floors supported by heavy horizontal beams rather than just lightweight truss assemblies, photos in the report on the One Meridian Plaza fire indicate these beams sagged by as much as three feet between columns due to heat.

-Gumboot
 
Minadin said:
He claims to be a member of AE911, the Richard Gage farce of a conspiracy theorist group among alleged building design profesionals:

Same old conspiracy arguments we get from the ones who admit they have no expertise. And seriously, steal? Did you rob a Wal-Mart? Yet, it's not an isolated typo, as you can see:
Click to expand...

How comfortable would you be working in a building designed by an architect who can't spell "steel"?

I'm amazed this man has a job.
 
Obviously these are not always equivalent, but in the case at bar the effectively are. I mean, steal-framed buildings can not globally collapsed under possible fire conditions and this is proved by the fact that they have not.
Click to expand...

Minadin said:
Not only is this patently false, but apparently, in Bofors' world, absense of evidence is evidence of absense. Neat logic.
Click to expand...

It's worse than that. He's actually using circular logic, if you examine the claim closely enough:

Claim: WTC did not collapse due to fire.

Evidence (tier 1): Steel buildings cannot collapse due to fire
Evidence (tier 2): No steel building has ever collapsed due to fire

However, the WTC itself was a steel building. This would refute the tier 2 evidence. So to counter this claim we must tack on a third tier of evidence:

Evidence (tier 3): The WTC did not collapse due to fire.

Basically, his proof that the WTC didn't collapse due to fire, is that it didn't collapse due to fire.

And if you think about it, this really applies to ALL Truthers making the "first time in history" argument. They're ALL using circular logic.
 
I always personally loved the "first time in history" arguments. By that brand of logic, no one on the planet could have been born. Goofiness.
 
TheRedWorm said:
I always personally loved the "first time in history" arguments. By that brand of logic, no one on the planet could have been born. Goofiness.
Click to expand...

Extend the Truther logic, and you eventually get: The entire Universe does not exist. Try it.
 
Anecdotal curiosa, I'm an ex surface engineer working as a smithy. Steel portions of a building caught in flames can, do and have collapsed due to fire. They bend, twist and curve without much force during intense office fires. There just isn't any sound professional nor halfwitted reason to oppose this well know and established fact, let alone for a multi-faceted and multi-portioned steel building like the WTC's were.

It's not exactly one large solid hunk of metal structure, rather it can be likened to a proportionate and paralleled steel-puzzle... and as so, the pieces of the puzzle are dependant on the in-between integrity (which at a few hundred degrees alone suffers notably).

No offense to americans, but why do so many conspiratorial views turn into such overblown and fantastical movements? Perhaps that is not even true, allthough it's an impression I keep getting.
 
WhiteLion said:
Anecdotal curiosa, I'm an ex surface engineer working as a smithy. Steel portions of a building caught in flames can, do and have collapsed due to fire. They bend, twist and curve without much force during intense office fires. There just isn't any sound professional nor halfwitted reason to oppose this well know and established fact, let alone for a multi-faceted and multi-portioned steel building like the WTC's were.

It's not exactly one large solid hunk of metal structure, rather it can be likened to a proportionate and paralleled steel-puzzle... and as so, the pieces of the puzzle are dependant on the in-between integrity (which at a few hundred degrees alone suffers notably).

No offense to americans, but why do so many conspiratorial views turn into such overblown and fantastical movements? Perhaps that is not even true, allthough it's an impression I keep getting.
Click to expand...
The truth movement has such a small following. Only handfuls out of millions of professionals; and those can be considered nut cases on 9/11 topics. They are such a small group no one knows about them. They are a news item due to their nut case status of stupid ideas.

In American they are a fringe group so small and insignificant. Tiny pockets of people with crazy ideas on 9/11.
 
Like the OP, I'm more than happy to have a technical debate with anyone who rests under the dubious misapprehension that structural steelwork is inherrently fireproof.

I have yet to meet a Truther who will rise to this challege.
 
beachnut said:
The truth movement has such a small following. Only handfuls out of millions of professionals; and those can be considered nut cases on 9/11 topics. They are such a small group no one knows about them. They are a news item due to their nut case status of stupid ideas.

In American they are a fringe group so small and insignificant. Tiny pockets of people with crazy ideas on 9/11.
Click to expand...

Yes, well if this is indeed correct then it is reassuring. Isn't it true that notable parts of conspiratorial flocks like "truthers" tend to entertain a wide and plethoric flavour for other, equally bewildering, theories as well?
In my experience, like accidents, such views comes in company with others.
 
This is a setup for a "Sherman's Necktie";

necktie.jpg


Union raiders would tear up Confederate railroad tracks and then stack up the railroad ties into a bonfire and drape the steel over the fire. Once the steel was good and hot it was weakened enough for it to be bent into a U shape or a "fish" shape around a nearby tree or post, or just bent in half.

Here are some of the results, both in historic images and in a present-day museum collection;

shermannecktie.jpg


shermansneckties2.jpg


Here is a VIDEO of one being made by re-enactors; http://www.quantumtour.com/entity/mcallister/video/1/

Here is a slightly shorter version on youtube; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drsgs6-3Qlg
 
BenBurch said:
This is a setup for a "Sherman's Necktie";

http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/necktie.jpg

Union raiders would tear up Confederate railroad tracks and then stack up the railroad ties into a bonfire and drape the steel over the fire. Once the steel was good and hot it was weakened enough for it to be bent into a U shape or a "fish" shape around a nearby tree or post, or just bent in half.

Here are some of the results, both in historic images and in a present-day museum collection;

http://ngeorgia.com/images/shermannecktie.jpg

http://ngeorgia.com/images/shermansneckties2.jpg

Here is a VIDEO of one being made by re-enactors; http://www.quantumtour.com/entity/mcallister/video/1/

Here is a slightly shorter version on youtube; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drsgs6-3Qlg
Click to expand...

It's such a great conductor of heat, that steel, that those men are able to hold the ends in their hands without being burned, yet it's hot enough in the center to a) be bent relatively easily around that tree, and b) catch the bark of the tree on fire almost immediately.

Similarly, from Gravy's page on WTC7 lies, here's an image of steel beams draped over the still unburned portion of a wooden beam:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/woodbeambentsteel.jpg/woodbeambentsteel-full.jpg

Fire and gravity did that.
 
TheRedWorm said:
No, I'm not starting a new heavy metal rock band, instead, I am starting this thread for the benefit of Bofors. his/her contention is that fire cannot weaken steel, therefore WTC 7(?) was brought down by thermite coated C4, or something.

As usual, this thread is free for everyone, and if I misstated Bofor's position, please call me on it.
Click to expand...

I am calling you on it.

Of course fire can "weaken" steal.
 
Last edited:
1337m4n said:
How comfortable would you be working in a building designed by an architect who can't spell "steel"?

I'm amazed this man has a job.
Click to expand...

Oh please... grow up.

By the way, I am not architect but an engineer with degrees in materials science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom