• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

'What about building 7'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
cooperman said:
Here is a better question.

"Why do we bother fireproofing steel frame buildings when they can completely collapse even when they have the fireproofing on?"
Click to expand...


To save lives so we can get out before the steel fails! Dumb question.

To give time so firefighters can fight the fire and save lives. Dumb question.

Let me look it up and summarize from another source:
You fireproof a structure to save lives, allow safe evacuation, provide safe access for firefighters and protect the building from structural failure.

The towers suffered loss of fireproofing, and had the equal of 2,000 people setting fires with 5 gallons of jet fuel all over multiple floors in the WTC, and the fire systems were inoperative due to the impacts equal to 1300 and 2093 pounds of KE.

WTC 7, burned all day without any fire systems, or firefighting efforts. Why would collapse be out of the question; not the first time a building on fire was feared to be near collapse.
 
I'll just place it into context. If this were a controlled demolition, the by the same first in history token it would have been the first of it's kind:
  • in a building over 100 stories tall
  • in a building that has massive (each floor was an acre) multifloor (6+ floor ignited) fires raging concurrently
  • with building occupants in it both during the time of implantation and execution

And if you want to get picky with WTC 7 it would have been a first for having the same done to it after being hit by a nearby collapsing skyscraper (without setting any of these alleged explosive off from the impact alone), and while fires progressed through several floors at varying degrees without setting a single one off.

If arguing thermite, then this is the first time in recorded history that thermite had ever been implemented in a demolition of any kind, with all of the aforementioned conditions added on also happening simultaneously.

These people are discussing statistical improbability or impossibility? :rolleye

There's a problem with a chain of impact + fire + crippled protection systems because the combo has never happened, yet they want us to consider explosive and thermite applications where the same statistical conditions they apply to the WTC are supposedly present as well... :rolleyes...

OH LORD.... :rolleyes
 
Last edited:
cooperman said:
Interesting that you didn't correct Thunder when he said it was called thermal insulation.

It is commonly referred to as fireproofing.
Click to expand...

Semantics and completely irrelevant to the subject.

"Fireproofing" is a layman's term. Nothing, anywhere, ever, is 100% fire proof.
 
cooperman said:
It is commonly referred to as fireproofing.
Click to expand...


FireproofingWP...

Fireproofing | Wikipedia said:
Fireproofing, a passive fire protection measure, refers to the act of making materials or structures more resistant to fire, or to those materials themselves, or the act of applying such materials. Applying a certification listed fireproofing system to certain structures allows these to have a fire-resistance rating. The term fireproof does not necessarily mean that an item cannot ever burn: It relates to measured performance under specific conditions of testing and evaluation. Fireproofing does not allow treated items to be entirely unaffected by any fire, as conventional materials are not immune to the effects of fire at a sufficient intensity and/or duration.
Click to expand...


The use of the term "fireproofing" is valid; it's just not literal. Your attempt to make it literal is dishonest.

sabretooth47 said:
I'd love to see your specifics on this claim, MM.
Click to expand...


Don't hold your breath. He's still unable to back up his claim that this forum "wrote the book on abusive tactics".
 
Last edited:
cooperman said:
Where did I claim it was literal?

I simply used the common term of fireproofing to describe SFRM. I made no claim that it was actually fireproof.
Click to expand...

Your question...
cooperman said:
"Why do we bother fireproofing steel frame buildings when they can completely collapse even when they have the fireproofing on?"
Click to expand...
...implies that you feel "fireproofing" is all that is necessary to protect a steel building because it is "fireproof".
 
sabretooth47 said:
Your question...

...implies that you feel "fireproofing" is all that is necessary to protect a steel building because it is "fireproof".
Click to expand...

It implies nothing of the kind. My question wasn't even serious, I was being sarcastic about the question I was responding to.

Of course fireproofing doesn't make steel totally impervious to fire. I just think it should work a lot better than allowing a total collapse in a building that had the fire condition that 7 had.
 
cooperman said:
It implies nothing of the kind. My question wasn't even serious, I was being sarcastic about the question I was responding to.

Of course fireproofing doesn't make steel totally impervious to fire. I just think it should work a lot better than allowing a total collapse in a building that had the fire condition that 7 had.
Click to expand...

Nothing about the collapse surprises anyone with relevant expertise that is familiar with WTC7's unusual all-steel structure and that the water source was destroyed on 9/11.
 
T.A.M. said:
so what do you think it is about steel skyscrapers that makes it impossible for them to collapse due to UNCONTROLLED FIRES? Be specific.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

A few years ago, a ONE-STORY steel building just down the street from my work collapsed after a fire. A one-story steel building is considerably more stable than a 47-story building.

Truthers seem to think that the bigger something is, the stronger it is, while in fact the opposite is true.
 
aggle-rithm said:
A few years ago, a ONE-STORY steel building just down the street from my work collapsed after a fire. A one-story steel building is considerably more stable than a 47-story building.

Truthers seem to think that the bigger something is, the stronger it is, while in fact the opposite is true.
Click to expand...

Yes, and you notice the question from me that you quoted...went unanswered.

TAM:)
 
cooperman said:
Of course fireproofing doesn't make steel totally impervious to fire. I just think it should work a lot better than allowing a total collapse in a building that had the fire condition that 7 had.
Click to expand...

As has been pointed out to you already, SFRM is rated as to how long it can protect the steel from significant heat damage.

You will note that the fires in WTC 7 lasted much longer than this rating, after which the steel can be regarded as unprotected.

Now I believe that MM was asked what occurs when a constricted steel beam is first heated and when it is later allowed to cool. I don't see a response. Perhaps you'd care to venture an answer?
 
Can any of the 'truthers' here answer my questions.

Why WTC7?
What was special about it?
Why did it have to be destroyed?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom