'What about building 7'?

[Thunder]

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

its not "fireproofing".

its thermal insulation. it prevents the steel from getting too hot too fast.

it gives firefighters time to get in there..and put out the fire.

but, if the fire rages long enough, unfought, the insulation will eventually fail to prevent the steel from reaching dangerous temperatures.

 

[DGM]

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?"

Because engineers don't understand "the truth".

 

[T.A.M.]

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?"

So that they will survive until firefighters with hoses can get there and help put out the fires.

TAM

edit: doh! Parky beat me to it.

 

[cooperman]

its not "fireproofing".

its thermal insulation. it prevents the steel from getting too hot too fast.

it gives firefighters time to get in there..and put out the fire.

but, if the fire rages long enough, unfought, the insulation will eventually fail to prevent the steel from reaching dangerous temperatures.

No, it really is called "fireproofing." That is what they call it in the real world.

 

[T.A.M.]

No, it really is called "fireproofing." That is what they call it in the real world.

come on...you are complaining about the tone and attitude here, and then you go and say that...I know that is what he said, but you know what he means.

Thunder gave you the answer to your question...as did I.

TAM

 

[BigAl]

No, it really is called "fireproofing." That is what they call it in the real world.

Anything rated in hours isn't "proof".

Read the fine print on any garment labeled "waterproof." It generally says "not really" in other words.

Same deal with "fireproof."

 

[BigAl]

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?"

It gives people time to get out.

 

[DGM]

come on...you are complaining about the tone and attitude here, and then you go and say that...I know that is what he said, but you know what he means.

Thunder gave you the answer to your question...as did I.

TAM

T.A.M. the only problem I've seen is he has succeeded in driving this "discussion" well off what can be construed as part of the NIST argument for sequence of the collapse.

Why do we keep falling for this?

 

[cooperman]

It gives people time to get out.

You make it sound like complete collapse of a steel skyscraper from fire is a common occurence. It only ever happened 3 times and they were all on the same day.

Sky scrapers have never, and I will take a punt on will never, collapse due to ordinary office fires. But on 911 it happened 3 times.

 

[beachnut]

...
I consider controlled demolition to be more plausible than the NISt hypothesis. You will disagree, of course, but there it is.

Your hypothesis is based on lies and delusions. NIST based it on science.

Fire did it, and it does not matter if you could prove NIST wrong, 911 truth has no skills to to it. Others disagree with NIST, but fire did it for them. Sad you have to make up a delusion for your alternative to NIST.

Where is your evidence for controlled demolition? Why did the building fall so chaotically if it was controlled? Why were there zero explosions from explosives? And don't even try thermite, the office fires have more heat energy than thermite.

Why have you failed to contact the FBI? NO evidence.


One Meridian Plaza, destroyed by fire; TOTALED
Windsor Building in Madrid, destroyed by fire; TOTALED

911 truth thinks building are like the Titanic, never can sink, never can burn down. The only thing holding up One Meridian Plaza was enough strength because the sprinkler system and FIREMEN saved it from collapse, the fire was fought. Windsor building in Madrid fire was fought, it partially collapsed and was held up by concrete core.

There are no examples of any high-rise building that burned without fire fighting efforts that survived and there are examples of building which had fires that were fought that did not survive.

Where was a high-rise building full involved without fire fighting efforts, no water, no fire suppression, that survived? Any?

Name one building which had aircraft impacts of 1300 to 2093 pounds of TNT KE, injected with 66,000 pounds of jet fuel (10,000 gallons) on multiple floors, with insulation dislodged, and fire systems destroyed that survived?

Building was left by firefighters for fear of collapse, the building fire being fought by crews in adjacent buildings, saved the building, but fire totaled it. OOPS, fire totaled building just like 911 save the collapse, the building was still strong enough to stand, not to use. OOPS

Just office fires, in a sound building, no holes, no 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, no damage. Building gone! Too weak, due to fire.

 

[Sabretooth]

You make it sound like complete collapse of a steel skyscraper from fire is a common occurence. It only ever happened 3 times and they were all on the same day.

Sky scrapers have never, and I will take a punt on will never, collapse due to ordinary office fires. But on 911 it happened 3 times.

Sky scrapers have never been struck with a 767 traveling at 500+ mph and nearly fully loaded with jet fuel, either.

You can stop with that "it never happened before" crap. For such a veteran lurker, you'd think you'd know that such a statement is dumb and doesn't further or prove an argument.

-----------
What medium or item can cut structural steel, in multiple places, with precision, that not only is very quiet, but also does not produce a blinding flash of light, is fire-proof, and can be applied without being detected either before, during, or after it's use?

As long as this question goes even partially unanswered, the CD theory is dead.

 

[T.A.M.]

You make it sound like complete collapse of a steel skyscraper from fire is a common occurence. It only ever happened 3 times and they were all on the same day.

Sky scrapers have never, and I will take a punt on will never, collapse due to ordinary office fires. But on 911 it happened 3 times.

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

 

[BigAl]

You make it sound like complete collapse of a steel skyscraper from fire is a common occurence.

Not having water to fight a fire in a modern steel-framed structure is rare, very rare but that's what happened to WTC7 on 9/11.

What happened to any other building in the world is irrelevant.

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.

You'd never learn this stuff from Richard
Gage, AIA.

 

[T.A.M.]

No, the "never happened before" argument does not further anything for them, but I think they use it as a default argument, that lets them go to bed at least BELIEVING they are right.

TAM

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Sky scrapers have never, and I will take a punt on will never, collapse due to ordinary office fires. But on 911 it happened 3 times.

Not relevant, the extremity of the circumstances that accumulated to bring about the end result are among the likes that we hadn't previously seen before, and arguing the plausibility of something that already happened does not in any way, shape or form, address the cause for it. The appeal to the "first in history" argument is nothing more than a lazy swing around to avoid having to do any level of case study, or research, in addition to completely sidestepping every engineering principal used in understanding the mechanisms that led to collapse. Such appeals like "first in history" of "take a punt that it will never happen" are not only irrevelant, but irresponsible, and does not constitute as "insightful research"

 

[leftysergeant]

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?"

Fallacy of language. The spray-on cementic foam is actually just fire resistant. It will, itself, melt if it gets hot enough. It just conducts heat much more slowly than air or sheet rock.

Bear in mind, too, that WTC 7 was subjected to the equivalent of a very effective artillery strike, and that dislodged at least some of the fire protection. That it did so unevenly just makes things worse because the steel then would expand unevenly. Steel buildings can flex a lot, but everything has to flex at about the same time, at the same rate, or connections begin to fail.

 

[BigAl]

You make it sound like complete collapse of a steel skyscraper from fire is a common occurence. It only ever happened 3 times and they were all on the same day.

Sky scrapers have never, and I will take a punt on will never, collapse due to ordinary office fires. But on 911 it happened to modern steel buildings with unfought fires 3 times.

ftfy.

Yup

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Sky scrapers have never, and I will take a punt on will never, collapse due to ordinary office fires. But on 911 it happened 3 times.

Ignoring the fact that the fires in WTC1 and WTC2 were ignited by the high-speed impact of objects weighing nearly 90 tons, resulting in immediate and significant structural damage in addition to the aforementioned fires is, at best, intellectually dishonest. At worst, it indicates deficiencies in one's memory or mental capabilities.

So the "first time in history" + "office fires" argument only applies to a single building: WTC7.

 

[T.A.M.]

Psst! Ignoring the fact that the fires in WTC1 and WTC2 were ignited by the high-speed impact of objects weighing nearly 100 tons is intellectually dishonest.

So, at best, the "first time in history" + "office fires" argument only applies to a single building.

yah...yah...well on 9/11 we saw, FOR THE FIRST TIME, a jumbojet hit a steel framed skyscraper going over 500 mph!!!!

So there...

TAM

 

[BigAl]

Fallacy of language. The spray-on cementic foam is actually just fire resistant. It will, itself, melt if it gets hot enough. It just conducts heat much more slowly than air or sheet rock.

I first learned about fire codes and construction practices as a result of being involved with retrofitting 60s-vintage NYC buildings with data networks. The electricians took the code seriously and I recall lots of stuff called "firestop" being jammed around any wire or conduit that went through a fire-rated floor or wall.

It was of course rated in hours, 2 as I recall and that is only if it's properly installed and isn't dislodged later.

WTC7 was a mess of renovations and internal modifications and lots of network wiring. I picture it as being a mass of firestop and after two hours of elevated temperatures the firestop failed and gaps opened up and let the fire get up or over the next fire barrier.