I need all debunkers I can get!

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, you haven't actually read the full Nist report, have you? And you're not very familiar with structures or fire engineering? Tell the truth now.

You are right about the 10 000 pp Nist report. But I have read the relevant parts and quote from the Nist report in the article = subject of discussion. And I am quite familiar with steel structures and their fire proofing of course.

The article is evidently for children so it is simple. In future quote the parts do disagree with, make your comments, and I will correct or improve if required. All these OT or vague comments are not helpful. And please, subject is the article = the music.

 

[uk_dave]

In England, Part B of the Regs flags up a similar position - its not available on-line free but Corus (who do know a thing about steel) have a useful and relatively non-technical summary at http://www.corusconstruction.com/leg...s_section1.pdf . Some of you will note on page 5 the admission that most unportected steel sections only have fire integrity for about 15 minutes.

There you go...

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_ADB2_2006.pdf

....though, of course, to a 'truther' these regulations are obviously just an attempt by governments (which are all part of the evil NWO conspiracy) to con people into believing that steel framed structures can fail due to ordinary fires.

 

[beachnut]

I calculate the potential energy of the mass above (33 000 tons) after falling one floor (3.7 meters) at gravity (10 m/s²) as 339.17 kWh and that is not a lot. However, it assumes that all wall and core columns buckle/split simultaneously and that is not seen on any forensic records. The wall columns are not really heated at all (and do not buckle) and the core columns are according NIST not heated more than 500°C and can at that temperature not buckle due to mass above! They may compress and bulge, that's all. And it takes time. No potential energy will be released then!

No load of mass above can be transmitted from core to walls; the floor bolted connections the columns are too weak.

I doubt you have read my article.

That is like a 500 pound bomb! You are wrong, an energy release equal in energy to a 500 pound bomb is significant! You are a liar by covering up this much energy as "not a lot".

 

[Newtons Bit]

That is like a 500 pound bomb! You are wrong, an energy release equal in energy to a 500 pound bomb is significant! You are a liar by covering up this much energy as "not a lot".

It's actually a bit more. It would be as if a 500lb bomb went off and every part of the energy released went into mechanical work rather than heat (which the large majority of it does)

 

[Architect]

You are right about the 10 000 pp Nist report. But I have read the relevant parts and quote from the Nist report in the article = subject of discussion. And I am quite familiar with steel structures and their fire proofing of course.

The article is evidently for children so it is simple. In future quote the parts do disagree with, make your comments, and I will correct or improve if required. All these OT or vague comments are not helpful. And please, subject is the article = the music.

You apparently misunderstand.

You have suggested, as far as I can tell, that steel structures are not susceptible to failure due to normal fire loadings (although I note the recent addition of the "global" caveat). So which part of my post regarding recognition of same is wrong?

 

[Heiwa]

That is like a 500 pound bomb! You are wrong, an energy release equal in energy to a 500 pound bomb is significant! You are a liar by covering up this much energy as "not a lot".

We all agree that the theoretical energy involved is 338 kWh and it can be produced by say 80 litres of diesel oil in an engine. If the engine is small it takes longer than if the engine is big. If this energy is sudden release of potential energy by gravity over a distance of 3.7 m it still takes time - abt. half a second - and has nothing to do with a bomb or an explosion that is much faster. So any similarity with a bomb or TNT is plain stupid and misleading.

If the energy is used to accelerate a mass in half a second, the final velocity is not very high and if it impacts something at the end of 3.7 meter travel, there is no violent collision, as suggested. The mass in question is not very rigid at all and it will be stopped. Actually, most of the energy is already consumed during the acceleration phase (to deform the stiff 'springs' between the mass and what it collides with), i.e. the acceleration can never be near anything like 9.8 m/s².

That's why my suggested model test (above) is useful to understand what happens when you heat a steel column (the 'spring') under compression and it's stiffness is allegedly affected (reduced). You will find that the stiffness is hardly affected at all at 500° C, etc. There is no sudden release of potential energy.

Many tests have already been done - as shown in the link in my article.

I can only conclude that your attempts to debunk my article has failed. Hopefully you will now change your opinions about the WTC collapses.

 

[funk de fino]

My paper is on the Internet and Lennart Hyland asked you to debunk it. I have not found any steel office buildings collapsing due to office fires. Damaged yes - plenty - but no total collapses.

Only example so far provided is an 18 floor tower that was partly damaged due to a gas explosion. Not very similar to WTC1.

But it is OT. Topic is WTC1 design, construction and strength to resist collapse. WTC 1 resisted a plane crash. It resisted a big fire. Then the fire got smaller. No risk to enter and fight it. Everybody agreed to that. And my article shows there were no risks. But plenty of official BS to the contrary. It smells.

Come on - debunk the article.

See above - Stop lying

 

[funk de fino]

I saw a steel framed warehouse fail due to fire on 22nd december in Aberdeenshire. The frame collapsed.

Normal household items in the warehouse only.

I guess I must have imagined it

 

[DGM]

Heiwa:
Here are two problems with you paper without even having to do any math;

Introduction - a bird cage

The structural design of the World Trade Center Twin Towers is very simple as its very lightweight framework is similar to a box shaped bird cage in which human beings are working. Most skyscrapers or office towers in the world are built similarly. None has ever globally collapsed in seconds before or after 911 except WTC 1, 2 and 7.

Still haven't named all the many buildings of the same design.

And:

Buckling of the cage bar or column occurs, when the compressive stress in the bar exceeds the critical buckling or collapse stress of the bar. The critical buckling stress is only a function of the slenderness ratio of the bar, its cross area and material properties. Only the material properties are affected by the heat but are virtually unchanged between 20 and 500° C but let's assume that, e.g. the yield stress is reduced by 20% (from say 248 to 200 MPa) at 500°C. The wall bar is obviously fitted in the wall and cooled by external air and can never be heated very much. That is why the wall perimeter columns were not fire proofed!

You really need to learn how the buildings were constructed.

Maybe try reading the NIST report and stop lying to children. You wrote this for children thinking they won't check your work, right?

 

[DGM]

Are you intentionally dense? It's 250kg of EQUIVALENT ENERGY.

The energy required to "deform, buckle and rip apart 250 steel columns of various types + rip off x floors from the columns, etc" as follows:

Elastic Strain Energy of the Lower Stories - 213MJ
Inelastic Strain Energy of the Lower Story - 171MJ
Elastic Strain Energy of the Upper Block - 71MJ
Inelastic Strain Energy of the Upper Story - 171MJ

Gee, that's only 626MJ of energy. And why should there be any significant amount of energy expended in removing the trusses from the columns? You've already said

You can't have it both ways. Either the truss-bolts can carry the severed core columns or the truss-bolts are too weak to seriously affect the energy balance.

And you still haven't answered the direct questions I've asked to you. I'm left with no other choice but to believe you WONT analyze the moments in columns and you wont answer what keeps a severed core column from falling down because looking at those two issues completely invalidates everything you believe[/I].

Heiwa:
Why don't you answer these question. Do you always solve you criticisms by structural engineers by ignoring them?

 

[Architect]

I notice, in between humorous moments ploughing through his paper, that he hasn't responded to any of the structural fire proofing issues set out in my early post. Presumably there's a good reason for this. Incidentally I would commend his website and in particular his CV to you all.

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa:
Why don't you answer these question. Do you always solve you criticisms by structural engineers by ignoring them?

Newton Brat is, as concluded previously, an imposter and trouble maker whose questions (sic) is best ignored. Replies starting obnoxiously just shows the personality and is obloquy.

Keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks or insults to argue your point.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[JimBenArm]

Newton Brat is, as concluded previously, an imposter and trouble maker whose questions (sic) is best ignored. Replies starting obnoxiously just shows the personality and is obloquy.

Of course, this reply is so much more mature. Thank you for demonstrating how an adult should act.

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa:
Here are two problems with you paper without even having to do any math;


Still haven't named all the many buildings of the same design.

And:



You really need to learn how the buildings were constructed.

Maybe try reading the NIST report and stop lying to children. You wrote this for children thinking they won't check your work, right?

As I say - most skyscrapers are built according to the same principles as a ... bird cage. Or all of them.

Re fire proofing you generally do not insulate external walls (or columns in same) as they are cooled by the external air.

 

[Heiwa]

I saw a steel framed warehouse fail due to fire on 22nd december in Aberdeenshire. The frame collapsed.

Normal household items in the warehouse only.

I guess I must have imagined it

Probably not, OT of course, but what was the proximate cause of collapse?

 

[JimBenArm]

Probably not, OT of course, but what was the proximate cause of collapse?

Probably microwaves beamed from space. Or maybe explosives placed in the concrete core. It couldn't have been the fire, since that doesn't do anything to steel.

 

[Heiwa]

I notice, in between humorous moments ploughing through his paper, that he hasn't responded to any of the structural fire proofing issues set out in my early post. Presumably there's a good reason for this. Incidentally I would commend his website and in particular his CV to you all.

But I have - see the link about heated steel in my article, so that's the reason. Why repeat yourself? But you forgot the link to my website http://heiwaco.tripod.com . Very popular and interesting.

 

[Heiwa]

Probably microwaves beamed from space. Or maybe explosives placed in the concrete core. It couldn't have been the fire, since that doesn't do anything to steel.

So you don't know. Come back, when you know. Object of this thread is to debunk the content of my article. It is there for your observation, no obstacles, it is obligatory reading before commenting that hopefully you are not oblivious of? It is actually an obligation and no objurgation. Obscure obstructions are obstreperous.

Do I make myself clear?

PS I needed my dictionary to write above. It sounds great.

 

[Newtons Bit]

As I say - most skyscrapers are built according to the same principles as a ... bird cage. Or all of them.

Has anyone nominated this for a Stundie yet?

 

[JimBenArm]

So you don't know. Come back, when you know.

Well, you don't know, and you're still here! So I'm staying too. Nonnie, nonnie, boo-boo!