• 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.

Building 7's structure compartamentalised

buka001

Thinker
B
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
221
I came across this claim. I'm not all too familiar with building 7. What do you make of this claim?

WTC-7 was built using Compartmentalization of all supporting steel members, which means any building fire was contained between solid concrete slabs horizontally and curtain walls vertically like a 3-dimensional checkerboard. Any building fire would consume all the fuel in any given sub-compartment to burn out completely, before ever having the ability to spread through the fireproofing countermeasures built into the WTC-7 structure itself. No building fire could possibly break all the WTC-7 steel connections in a week, much less a few hours to see the entire building collapse into its own footprint. Steel is an excellent conductor of heat and the energy is rapidly transferred from the source into the cooler areas of the steel-frame network making every steel-framed skyscraper on this planet absolutely fireproof from building fires.
Click to expand...
 
So I guess the fireproofing is added to steel just for fun.

The steel-frame of the Windsor buiding in Madrid collapsed, so this is clearly BS: "every steel-framed skyscraper on this planet absolutely fireproof from building fires"
 
Well that's the first I've heard of this, but even if it is true the damage to WTC7 would have negated a fair number of said compartments.

Also that last sentence is just stupid.
 
I have heard the "Conduction and heat transfer" claim before. Twoofers seem to have a poor grasp (Among other things) of how conduction works and heat transfer. I don't know where they went to college, but when steel heats up, the heat does not automatically disperse throughout the entire steel structure and then just simply cool off. They forget that the point of contact where the heat hits the steel significantly weakens it and then any heat transfer also weakens the steel. With thousands of pounds of building being held up by hot, weakened steel it does not make for a very safe structure.

By the way this is an EXCELLENT Stundie nomination
"Steel is an excellent conductor of heat and the energy is rapidly transferred from the source into the cooler areas of the steel-frame network making every steel-framed skyscraper on this planet absolutely fireproof from building fires."
 
Well IF there was a raging fire in WTC 7 then obviously, the compartmentalizing worked since there is no raging fire on this side of the building.


wtc7b4collapse.jpg
 
Here is the extent of "compartmentalization" in WTC 7, through use of concrete:

450px-Fema-fig5-11.jpg


As with the WTC towers, each floor had a 2 1/2 inch thick concrete slab on top of the metal deck. This only helped to reduce vertical spread of fire between floors. On 9/11, there was clearly structural damage between floors, which negated such protection.

I am not aware of any such compartmentalization horizontally. Sounds bogus to me. You may read more about the design and construction of the building here:
http://www.debunk911myths.org/docs/Salvarinas-1986.pdf

The author describes no such compartmentalization.

Fireproofing on the old building consisted of spray-on fireproofing for structural steel elements was generally less than an inch thick. The material was a gypsum-based Monokote which had a 2-hour fire rating for steel beams, girders and truss, and a 3-hour rating for columns.
 
the titanic was compartmentalized too, to make it unsinkable

thats why it never sank :boggled:
 
Well, we're required to put things like fire insulation / safing and such between floors, to prevent a smokestack effect, and often smoke dampeners between tenants, in larger buildings these days, with the intent of slowing the spread of any fires that may occur. But, I'm not really aware of any sort of comepletely vacuum-sealed sort of system like the one this guys seems to be describing, that will 100% prevent the spread of fire, which is used in multi-storey office buildings. How do people exit these compartments?

Even if the building was in fact designed to seal off fires in the manner described above, the sort of structural damage that was experienced by building 7 that morning would have certainly severly compromised that system.

Also:

Steel is an excellent conductor of heat and the energy is rapidly transferred from the source into the cooler areas of the steel-frame network making every steel-framed skyscraper on this planet absolutely fireproof from building fires.
Click to expand...

:dl::dl::dl::dl:

I give this four (4) Laughing Dogs. My clients would be ever so pissed to learn that the thousands upon thousands of dollars we've spent on fireproofing their buildings over the years were wasted in a scam.
 
Regardless the heat-sinking capabilities of steel, hot steel does expand remarkably. That's why bridges so often fail when a gasoline truck catches fire under them.

If steel is taking heat from a hot area into a cool area, the steel conducting that heat is expoanding. If it is jointed to cool steel, which is not expanding, it is putting stress on that joint. Sooner or later, there is a chance that joint is going to pop. If the fire lasts more than five hours, that possibility is greatly increased.

This probably goes over the average twoofer's head.
 
leftysergeant said:
This probably goes over the average twoofer's head.
Click to expand...
obviously, its steel rapid conduction of heat that makes it a POOR material as far as fire resistance goes, since as heat is conducted away it allows the part exposed to fire to absorb even more heat

poor heat conductors like concrete are more fire resistant

ETA: do you have a source for the quote in the OP? i think the bit quoted by minadin is stundie-worthy
 
Last edited:
apacherose105 said:
Hey, it didn't stop NIST from photoshopping the images of WTC that were taken after the North Tower fell.
Click to expand...
Does anything stop you from making claims that you can't support? Let us know and we'll try to provide that service.

Second time: please keep in mind that this forum is inhabited largely by critical thinkers.
 
apacherose105 said:
Hey, it didn't stop NIST from photoshopping the images of WTC that were taken after the North Tower fell.
Click to expand...

Provide me with ONE picture that NIST photoshopped. I assume that you have one to provide correct? Seeing as how you are making such a claim...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom