Hi Architect:
If this represents your “WTC-7 Collapsed From Building Fires” Case, then these readers have been severely short changed. Where is Architect’s precedent for Building Fires causing ANY modern day steel-framed skyscraper to collapse demolition-style into its own footprint like
this? The fact is that you have no case for anything like that in the history of this planet. Right? :0) Of course. My WTC-7 Controlled Demolition Thread is
here.
An auspiscious start to your rebuttal. This thread was started some time ago in response to the rapidly departed Heiwa's incredible (in the litteral sense) claim that stail was inherrently fire resistant. You will note that there is no mention of WTC-7 anywhere, indeed I don't think I've ever debated that particular building.
In that case, then Heiwa would be 100 percent correct, because typical building fires burn between
800 and 1000 degrees and structural steel melts at
2795 degrees. If structural steel was susceptible catastrophic collapse from typical building fires, then men would have started erecting structures from a much better material. The fact that you have no case for any steel-framed skyscraper suffering catastrophic failure from typical building fires anywhere in history means the architects and engineers have been doing a very good job of selecting the best available building materials possible.
How peculiar. You seem to be suggesting that steel retains its integrity up to 2795 degrees. Are you sure about that? Really sure?
No sir. The purpose of this thread is for Architect to make his own thesis, claims and conclusions from whatever he calls credible evidence. Heiwa then has the opportunity to post his rebuttals or counterproposals the very same way.
If you're not happy with the evidence cited, then explain where the likes of the BSI go wrong. Incidentally, Heiwa ran away from this argument (see above).
The concept of how steelwork responds to fire has nothing to do with the WTC-7 steel-framed network that suffered catastrophic failure in just a few hours. In fact, a good look at
the building in freefall mode (from
this website) shows no signs of fire through the unbroken windows at all. However,
this Madrid skyscraper burned like a Roman Candle (
story) for over a day and did NOT suffer any collapse. Mr. Architect here is getting ready to razzle dazzle you with statistical bullony rather than apply any of that to WTC-7 or anything else.
Can you tell me what the Windsor Tower in Madrid was constructed of, perhaps? In detail? Then revise your conclusions on comparable construction types?
Does statistical balloney mean test results and the like? Because that seems to me like awfully solid material.
Take all of this Part 20 Method of determination bullony and toss everything into the garbage can, because none of this drivel means anything.
I see. When considering technical issues surrounding fire performance of steel, detailed technical papers are.....balloney. How very interesting.
What is the problem with this picture? You can put a pot on the burner (watch
this short video) and cook all day long and never cause the thing to soften, melt or suffer catastrophic failure, but WTC-7 collapsed demolition-style into its own footprint like any typical building implosion.
I see. What temperature does the burner run at?
Testing a piece of metal in a laboratory has NOTHING to do with the characteristics of structural steel part of a steel-framed network where heat is transferred readily and very easily between columns, beams, girders and bar-joists. We are not talking about what ‘can’ be accomplished in ‘testing’ anything, but what building fires did to massive WTC-7 steel columns and beams to transform
this massive skyscraper into
this little pile of debris in a collapse that lasted about 6.5 seconds. This skyscraper was not hit by any Jetliner and as you can see
no windows are even broken on this entire side of the building, even at the time of collapse.
Uh-hu. Laboratory fire testing of steel assemblies typically used in building construction is of no relevance to the consideration of how steel assemblies perform in fires. I see.....
Architect's statement (pasted from
here) is very misleading in many ways. First of all, this
“Thermal and mechanical properties of materials” documentation relates to
“6.2. Steel” and NOT “Performance of Steel in Fires.” This paper was created to demonstrate the properties of
‘hot-finished carbon steel, stainless steel, light gauged steel and related concrete rebar reinforcing, bolts and welds.’ Testing of any metal in any laboratory means the
introduction of controlled temperatures for controlled durations, but this WTC-7 case is about how burning office furniture transfers heat energy to massive steel columns and beams protected by
3-hour spray-on insulation and gypsum wallboard designed specifically to keep heat OUT.
The purpose of fire protection is to retain the structural work at a temperature whereby it retains it's integrity. This may take the form of gypsum based plasterboards, where 2 layers of broken bond material will provide between 30 and 60 minutes resistance, right up to high-end applied intumescent materials. Generally speaking, the required fire resistance for a building of this type will be between 2 and 4 hours, depending upon regulatory codes.
Of course the fire protection is only as good as its weakest link. And as long as it's intact.
The problem with Architect’s methodology is that building fires typically burn in a single location for
only about 20 minutes. Therefore, his ‘testing’ gibberish has nothing to do with how building fires took down WTC-7 any more than the man on the moon. His next problem is that WTC-7 was built using Compartmentalization (see
5.3.3 Compartmentalization) of all supporting steel members ‘away’ from one another in sub-compartments designed also to eliminate the possibility of ‘building fire collapse’ from the equation. That means primary steel supports were separated horizontally by solid concrete slabs and vertically by curtain walls to ‘stop’ fire penetration BEFORE the fuel source could be extinguished.
Fires burn for 20 minutes? Then magically the heat dissapates and the fire goes off somewhere else? Great conspiracy by the fire protection manufacturers going on here then, eh?
Think about this very carefully and the realization will dawn that the Official “Building Fires Did It” Cover Story has a ZERO probability of being ‘the’ 911Truth: Even if you had fifty fires in different areas of WTC-7 (and you had very few), then those fires would burn at around 800 to 1000 degrees for twenty minutes ‘inside’ their own compartments for the fuel source to be extinguished LONG before any structural steel could become softened by anything. And yet ‘all’ the primary supports were ‘severed’ (cut) for WTC-7 to collapse demolition-style in a very short time.
If I think carefully, alll I see is a lot of ill-informed bluster Terry. Try harder.
What I hope to see from Architect is a real “WTC-7 Collapsed From Building Fires” Thesis Paper with whatever he calls ‘credible evidence,’ which hopefully is much more than his pitiful ‘testing’ information.
Last I heard, we were still waiting for the NIST final draft. I don't really think that an architect, sitting in his office, is going to match thousands of man-days of in depth analysis and evidence gathering from a multi-disciplinary team. Not that that seems to have stopped you.
