Steel failing in hydrocarbon fires.

[bob the analyst]

Recall, Professor, that the gist was that the steel failed in the fire zones partially because of the disloging of the fireproofing, thus exposing them to heat-weakening, as well as the overload on the remaining supports caused by the severing of other supports when the jets impacted. Furthermore, the fires ended up having an even greater effect on the exposed steel because the severing of the water mains by the impact kept firefighting efforts from being successful. It's not simply about heat degredation, it's a combination of factors. The NIST report deals with this.

If you remove any of those problems, say by overengineering the structure to account for the additional load imposed by severed columns, or designing ways to mitigate the effects of fire - either by protecting steel better - say, by encasing it in concrete - and/or including a much more robust firefighting system - then you end up with a far different scenario than what happened at the Twin Towers. Anyway, my point here is that comparing the Mandarin Oriental fire in Beijing with the Twin Towers is not straightforward. The Mandarin Oriental fire, for example, had the benefit of active firefighting efforts helping mitigate the effects. Furthermore, the building had a concrete and steel framing, as opposed to the simple steel framing the WTC Twin Towers had. But above and beyond all of that, let's also remember that it was specifically built to standards improved by the knowledge gained from studying the Twin Towers tragedy. Arup's knowledge of the WTC fires and collapse was specifically applied to buildings like this. In a way, 9/11 influenced this building's design. So it's every bit as ridiculous to compare Mandarin Oriental's fire to the WTC ones as it is to compare crash injuries in a modern car to one from the 1930s; those older cars don't have the benefit of crumple zones or effective passenger restraints, not like the airbags and seat belts a modern car has. Similarly, the Mandarin Oriental didn't have steel by be the main supporting element, nor did the designers merely rely on the spray-on fire resistent material that was used in the WTC. On top of that, the thermal distortions Arup has made much noise about would have been fully taken into consideration in the Mandarin Oriental's design.

It's not a good comparison to make. The latter resists better because of what was discovered about the former. The latter does not invalidate the narrative about the former whatsoever; if anything, because it was designed to newer standards, it validates the acceptance of the narrative by engineers.

The "disloging of the fireproofing, thus exposing them to heat-weakening, as well as the overload on the remaining supports caused by the severing of other supports when the jets impacted" as you termed it, not I, was not of importance of any mindset. furthermore, testing ana analysis showed nothing of benefit since the steel in question, did not suffer any heat or thermal damage, no steel anywhere, that was removed from ground zero, showed any effects of heat transfer and metallurgical decmposition, or dergading of the strength of the steel


if you notice in various chapters ans sections of the official-nonoffical report, nothing is made, only suggestions. more time and more materials were needed

a few million dollars was granted to study everything, $2 million to us directly, our staff, the other funds went into transportation, perks, shows, dinners, lodging, entertainment, theatre tickets, travel

but over $100 million was spent by Ken Starr on a bj.

 

[T.A.M.]

If I catch you making an attack, a verbal assualt again, towards me or anyone else, i will recommend your bansihment from this property

That is classic.

Please, do go on.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

The "disloging of the fireproofing, thus exposing them to heat-weakening, as well as the overload on the remaining supports caused by the severing of other supports when the jets impacted" as you termed it, not I, was not of importance of any mindset. furthermore, testing ana analysis showed nothing of benefit since the steel in question, did not suffer any heat or thermal damage, no steel anywhere, that was removed from ground zero, showed any effects of heat transfer and metallurgical decmposition, or dergading of the strength of the steel


if you notice in various chapters ans sections of the official-nonoffical report, nothing is made, only suggestions. more time and more materials were needed

a few million dollars was granted to study everything, $2 million to us directly, our staff, the other funds went into transportation, perks, shows, dinners, lodging, entertainment, theatre tickets, travel

but over $100 million was spent by Ken Starr on a bj.

Give it up mate, no one here believes a word you are saying, and since you have not provided proof you are who you say you are, I am putting you on ignore (as entertaining as you are).

Next time, don't shoot for the moon, pretend to be a metallurgist, or something a little more believable.

TAM

 

[bob the analyst]

I wonder if there are still traces of microthermite in the Mandarin hotel... We need to warn them that their building is about to blow at any moment!

I know it's shocking to you, but fires, hydro-carbon fires, simply do not harm steel, structural steel high rise buildings.

You see, steel and concrete and specifically designed, engineered, tested and validated, so that in the event of a fire, in the event of a jet crashing, then the building, then the concrete and steel, simply can easily handle the heat and the energy.

I mean, I'm sure than you can realize that you could not dare design and build a high rise tower, the highest in history at the time, 1972/1973 and bnot expect that there was a chance of a jet striking the tower, right?

The possibilities, even the likelihood was definite, not just possible or potential it was likely to happen

So you design and test and build to accompany that sort of tragedy.

 

[BenBurch]

I know it's shocking to you, but fires, hydro-carbon fires, simply do not harm steel, structural steel high rise buildings.

...

Read the first page, oh-so-brilliant one. I proved that it can.

 

[Pardalis]

The construction of the towers started in 1968 btw.

 

[T.A.M.]

sorry, I haven't put you on ignore yet, but I had to laugh at your accusation (a very familiar one brought up by another truther recently) that HC fires cannot harm steel.

So NIST Scientist, if that is the case, what is the purpose of the fireproofing placed on all the structural steel in the WTCs??

TAM

 

[bob the analyst]

The construction of the towers started in 1968 btw.

The North Tower (1) was completed in December 1970 and the South Tower (2) was finished in July 1971 from wiki-not trying to be a kniow it all, but you seemed rather confused between minor groundbreaking events and construction

 

[ElMondoHummus]

The "disloging of the fireproofing, thus exposing them to heat-weakening, as well as the overload on the remaining supports caused by the severing of other supports when the jets impacted" as you termed it, not I, was not of importance of any mindset.

How can you say this? The role of the fireproofing's dislodgement was so central to one point of the NIST narrative that it was directly mentioned in the Executive Summary:

However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multifloor fires.

furthermore, testing ana analysis showed nothing of benefit since the steel in question, did not suffer any heat or thermal damage, no steel anywhere, that was removed from ground zero, showed any effects of heat transfer and metallurgical decmposition, or dergading of the strength of the steel

Due respect professor, how do you explain the results of the annealing studies referred to in NCSTAR 1-3, section 9.4.5 (Fire Exposure and Temperatures Reached by the Steel) then?

if you notice in various chapters ans sections of the official-nonoffical report, nothing is made, only suggestions. more time and more materials were needed
[/quote

Again, due respect, professor, but that's what was said in the FEMA 403's. Can you point out where that was mentioned in the NIST reports?

a few million dollars was granted to study everything, $2 million to us directly, our staff, the other funds went into transportation, perks, shows, dinners, lodging, entertainment, theatre tickets, travel

but over $100 million was spent by Ken Starr on a bj.

Irrelevant and off topic. The topic is the contents of the NIST reports.

 

[Pardalis]

The North Tower (1) was completed in December 1970 and the South Tower (2) was finished in July 1971 from wiki-not trying to be a kniow it all, but you seemed rather confused between minor groundbreaking events and construction

So why did you say 1972-73? Wikipedia says clearly construction began in 1968.

Besides, why would you need Wikipedia? Didn't you work for the NIST on the WTC report?

 

[bob the analyst]

How can you say this? The role of the fireproofing's dislodgement was so central to one point of the NIST narrative that it was directly mentioned in the Executive Summary:





Due respect professor, how do you explain the results of the annealing studies referred to in NCSTAR 1-3, section 9.4.5 (Fire Exposure and Temperatures Reached by the Steel) then?

if you notice in various chapters ans sections of the official-nonoffical report, nothing is made, only suggestions. more time and more materials were needed
[/quote

Again, due respect, professor, but that's what was said in the FEMA 403's. Can you point out where that was mentioned in the NIST reports?



Irrelevant and off topic. The topic is the contents of the NIST reports.

you need to focus a little bit, you are aware of what you are asking, you can by the fact of the way that you are jumping around like a rabbit with ass worms.

settle dowen, you first need to specify a few things, generalizations of your background and experiences, your skilled trades knowledge, you aptitude for testing and analysis, college and special courses for training.

You seem to be on the the typical cut and paster germphobes, the hit and run trolls all too common on the internet

If you wish to engage amnd to learn and to trade ideas, slow down, take a deep breath, exhale and start slow.

 

[Sunstealer]

people claimed that the steel in wtc 1, 2 and 7 could not with stand the heat and the temperature, the gamut has run from the steel melting all the way to it was softened, weakened, the compositry and the metallurgy and the chemistry was destroyed!

Where's that laughing dog smilie.

The compositry eh? What does that mean and how does that relate to the steel's properties? I don't think it's even a word.

The metallurgy was destroyed! Mmmmm. No. Metallurgy (dictionary def) cannot be destroyed. Metallurgy is (a subset of Materials) science.

Chemistry was destroyed? No. Chemistry (dictionary def) cannot be destroyed, it's a science, see above.

You are using those words severely out of context and winding up not meaning anything.

 

[BenBurch]

Clearly this present poster knows nothing whatsoever about steel.

Sadly for him, I do.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I know it's shocking to you, but fires, hydro-carbon fires, simply do not harm steel, structural steel high rise buildings.

You see, steel and concrete and specifically designed, engineered, tested and validated, so that in the event of a fire, in the event of a jet crashing, then the building, then the concrete and steel, simply can easily handle the heat and the energy.

You make the same claim that Bob the Builder tried to. In doing so, you make the same mistake that he did. Structures are built in order to try to mitigate the effects of fires on steel, but it is utterly incorrect to claim that fires do not affect steel. If they didn't affect steel, why include in designs mitigations to steel's thermal expansion, for example? Or include fireproofing measures for steel structural components?

And it does not matter whether a fire is fueled by "hydro-carbons" or whatnot; the point is what amount of energy is released in a given area, and how well the structure handles it. The Twin Towers actually handled it rather well, considering; it took the fires, which were multiple stories tall and acres wide, quite some time to eventually weaken the building. And if it were not for the lack of firefighting efforts, severed columns from the jets impacts, and dislodged fireproofing, it is entirely possible that the towers might still be standing today. I'll defer to other, better informed minds here on that last, but the point is that the towers handled the 9/11 about as well as could be handled. Now I know Prof. Astaneh-Asl disagrees, and has stated that he thinks the design was flawed. I readily admit to his far superior knowledge. However, it seems to me that after absorbing the hits that it did, it still took two at-the-time unforseen circumstances (dislodged fireproofing, lack of firefighting response) to lead to the collapses.

Bleh, starting to wander... anyway:

I mean, I'm sure than you can realize that you could not dare design and build a high rise tower, the highest in history at the time, 1972/1973 and bnot expect that there was a chance of a jet striking the tower, right?

The possibilities, even the likelihood was definite, not just possible or potential it was likely to happen

So you design and test and build to accompany that sort of tragedy.

As noted before multiple times on this forum, the towers did handle the impacts of the jets well. And handled the fires as well as could be expected. What's missing from your statement there is the fact that the presumptions were that the fire protective material would protect the steel, and that firefighting efforts would eventually extinguish the fires. Neither happened that day before the towers collapsed.

 

[Sunstealer]

That's what I was thinking, using used steel to build skyscrapers seems extremely stupid to me, and frightening.

Imagine if you could only build new buildings that way! All those architects having to use beams of only the dimensions found in the WTC.

Or having to wait until a building fell down before you could use it's steel members because only that building had the right number and length of members for your newly designed building!

 

[ElMondoHummus]

How can you say this? The role of the fireproofing's dislodgement was so central to one point of the NIST narrative that it was directly mentioned in the Executive Summary:





Due respect professor, how do you explain the results of the annealing studies referred to in NCSTAR 1-3, section 9.4.5 (Fire Exposure and Temperatures Reached by the Steel) then?


you need to focus a little bit, you are aware of what you are asking, you can by the fact of the way that you are jumping around like a rabbit with ass worms.

settle dowen, you first need to specify a few things, generalizations of your background and experiences, your skilled trades knowledge, you aptitude for testing and analysis, college and special courses for training.

You seem to be on the the typical cut and paster germphobes, the hit and run trolls all too common on the internet

If you wish to engage amnd to learn and to trade ideas, slow down, take a deep breath, exhale and start slow.

That is not an answer. And above that, you were the one who brought the subject up. Where does the NIST report say what you claim it says?

 

[BenBurch]

ElMondoHummus, had they stood, no way would they have been repairable. Too much damage. They would have had to have been shored up and then disassembled.

 

[Holler Hoojer]

I know it's shocking to you, but fires, hydro-carbon fires, simply do not harm steel, structural steel high rise buildings.

You see, steel and concrete and specifically designed, engineered, tested and validated, so that in the event of a fire, in the event of a jet crashing, then the building, then the concrete and steel, simply can easily handle the heat and the energy.

I mean, I'm sure than you can realize that you could not dare design and build a high rise tower, the highest in history at the time, 1972/1973 and bnot expect that there was a chance of a jet striking the tower, right?

The possibilities, even the likelihood was definite, not just possible or potential it was likely to happen

So you design and test and build to accompany that sort of tragedy.

Professor,

I'm interested in your claims, but I have some questions.

What was the grade of structural steel used in the WTC?
At what temperature does that steel suffer a 30% decrease in tensile strength?
What is the flame temperature of a stoichiometric kerosene fire?

Thank you,
HH

 

[jmercer]

Keep on topic, and don't derail the discussion with personal exchanges. I've had to move 10 posts to AAH, and I don't want to have to clean up this thread again.

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

 

[Toke]

people have to say enough is enough, TAM's behaviour is inexcusbale and should not be tolerated, whether you agree with his point of view or not..

Come on, T.A.M. is offering you all the respect you deserve, just like everyone else here.


I know that steel is a very complicated material, but if you go back in the tread you will find documentation for steels strenght as a function of temperature.
It drops fast.

What do you say to the fireproofing of the collums. It does not make sense if fireproof steel existed.?