Message from discussion 9/11 Required Reading: "500 Days"
Received: by 10.66.80.8 with SMTP id n8mr1528069pax.17.1353710063095;
Fri, 23 Nov 2012 14:34:23 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: 9/11 Required Reading: "500 Days"
Date: 18 Nov 2012 23:38:11 -0500
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
X-Original-Trace: 18 Nov 2012 15:53:55 -0500, 18.104.22.168
X-Trace: mcadams.posc.mu.edu 1353299891 22.214.171.124 (18 Nov 2012 22:38:11 -0500)
X-Original-Trace: 18 Nov 2012 22:38:11 -0500, 126.96.36.199
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 11/18/2012 1:59 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Nov 17, 6:31 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/16/2012 10:44 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> I have not replied to or looked at all the preceding versions of
> this post. It makes for confusion and extra work having to reply to
> the same comment many times. In the service of sensible time use, I'm
> putting all answers and queries here. It would be of use for us all
> to learn the ability to put all our thoughts into the most recent post
> on a topic and not splatter out to multiple versions...:) Individuals
> will, of course, make their own decisions and be judged accordingly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Longer does not equal hotter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not sure what you mean by this steel compromising example from Nat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geo, and your theory of trusses, so I'll let Mainframe weigh in on that or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see if you can clarify.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is said that oxygen fires are hotter, and when something is burning at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> length as opposed to some of these WTC short term fires, it must be looked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at as improbable that these fires were having that type of theorized
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impact. Some of these other fires where 'no fire has ever brought down a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steel-beamed structure before' were not affected by all this inferno type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fire that was engulfing the whole buildings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have no idea what you THINK you mean by that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The gist is that buildings of steel do not get hot enough to burn down in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fires, and before 9/11, none had. The steel stays intact. I would think
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wonder how steel is formed. Is it by magic?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these steel-structured buildings had enough steel to be such that a Nat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geo experiment would not get them to compromise. Are you saying the Nat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geo experiment was in comparison to the trusses? And what if the trusses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were compromised? Wouldn't the greater and main steel beams just remain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intact, while 'THEY" just fell?
>>>>>>>>>>>> There is some truth in the question of the trusses falling while
>>>>>>>>>>>> leaving the main beams there. But the building was planned to stay up
>>>>>>>>>>>> while a fully loaded 707 crashed into it, including all the jet fuel.
>>>>>>>>>>> They did stay up when the planes hit them, even though the planes
>>>>>>>>>>> were bigger than they figured, and were going much faster.
>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the outside 'cage' of supports was intact to some degree,
>>>>>>>>>>>> it would be kept up and supporting the building even when some beams
>>>>>>>>>>>> were cut, as in the twin towers' case. The main beams were thick and
>>>>>>>>>>>> solid and the same theory worked for them too. A few of them might
>>>>>>>>>>>> be compromised, but the way they were interconnected, they would
>>>>>>>>>>>> continue holding up the building...as was planned. The kind of fall
>>>>>>>>>>>> that was experienced could only happen if ALL the main supports and
>>>>>>>>>>>> many of the peripheral supports were weakened far beyond their normal
>>>>>>>>>>>> load bearing point.
>>>>>>>>>>> Weakened by fire.
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, won't do.
>>>>>>>>> Of course you are not going to accept reality. But since I saw planes
>>>>>>>>> hit and saw fires you are going to have to show that something else was
>>>>>>>>> needed. And that you will never do with the flimsy nonsense you`ve
>>>>>>>> Like some of the steel showing cuts that he posted?
>>>>>>> What about them?
>>>>>> What about them??!! Look for yourself, and decide how the cuts were made
>>>>>> and how it had nothing to do with the building fire cutting them. Maybe
>>>>>> MF will repost it for you.
>>>>> One more thing you can go nowhere with, eh? Here, let me help you...
>>>> Why go there when this will take you there and tell you what they
>>>> said. Now if this thermite can cut differently than your NatGeo team
>>>> claimed it does, one should certainly be thinking their little I beam
>>>> on a jet fuel 'campfire' would be a little suspect, eh?
>>>> This I think is what MF was trying to show you.
>>>>>>>>>> Poor little buddy is now an expert on steel and its
>>>>>>>>>> various modes,
>>>>>>>>> Poor little Chrissy was sleeping when I showed him how easily steel
>>>>>>>>> can be heated enough to bend.
>>>>>>>> Did you try it while roasting marshmallows at home?
>>>>>>> Apparently you were asleep also.
>>>>>> It wasn't convincing as the steel wasn't the same as in the building, and
>>>>>> the jet fuel wouldn't have been that way in the building.
>>>>> And besides, you`d rather pretend it was explosives.
>>>> Well the explosives are one commodity that is just pushed to the side,
>>>> 'conveniently'. Some I believe even before the plane(s) hit. I guess
>>>> this magic jet fuel has great powers besides this 'burning like no
>>>> other inciderant' could, has explosive powers as well? I am sure MF
>>>> can give the the replay on the Explosives video you must have
>>>> conveniently missed?
>>> An interesting story is that NIST was asked if explosives were
>>> involved in the collapses and they replied 'NO'. They were then asked
>>> if they checked for explosives, and the answer was again 'NO'. It's
>>> in the NFPA guidelines that explosives should be checked for if
>>> terrorist activity is suspected. It wasn't done although terrorism
>>> was blamed for the collapses.
>> When the decided that the planes caused the collapse there was no need
>> to look for secondary causes.
> Ah, but there was. The NFPA 921 guidelines specified that when
> terrorist activity is suspected, a full check for explosives should be
> made. But of course, that would give the secret away, that
> explosives (and incendiaries) were used.
Don't cite a 2011 document telling me what they should have done in
2001. Show me the guidelines published in NFPA 921 BEFORE 9/11.
>>> While NIST also said they knew nothing about any explosions in the
>>> buildings, many of the firemen and others heard explosions inside the
>>> buildings while they were inside themselves. Listen carefully for one
>>> in the WTC7 building in the first video:
>>> These firemen could just as easily be describing the way controlled
>>> demolition works.
>> Never rely on witnesses.
> Why is that? Do they say inconvenient things for your case? As
Read Loftus. Witnesses are unreliable.
> long as one keeps in mind the failings of witnesses, they often make a
> wonderful aid in determining what happened. In this case, they help to
> prove that there were explosions in the WTC buildings, including the
Your hearsay is not evidence. If you want to show me some evidence I am
happy to look at it. I am not impressed by hearsay.
> lobbies and basements. However, we have videos that show some
> explosions both visually and aurally, as shown above and in the WTC7
> collapse videos. We should keep in mind that the Warren Commission
And yet you have never shown me any video of separate explosions on
different floors as we see in controlled demolitions.
> thought witnesses were a valuable aid to their theorizing as to who
> was the guilty party, and how the heinous act was accomplished.
>>>>>> The other
>>>>>> experiment was shown by MF to be incorrect.
>>>>> I have shown that it is rather easy to heat steel and make it
>>>>> susceptible to bending. You are on record as not liking this fact, as
>>>>> it interferes with the very bad ideas you really like.
>>> Nope, won't do. I'm on record as presenting a different
>>> experimental video showing the exact opposite result when trying to
>>> burn an I-beam with gypsum board and other office items for more than
>>> a day, without effect on the I-beam.
>> There you go again misusing words. No one claimed "burn an I-beam."
>> That experiment did not use jet fuel.
> So you believe that setting a fire under a beam is NOT burning it?
> I think it IS burning it. I believe you're aware of what my point was
No, you continually misuse words. Heating something to weaken it is not
burning. Burning means to consume. Convert a solid to vapor.
> and understrood my words. Please try to allow others to have their
> own style and not attempt to have them act and speak as YOU would
No, I will not allow you to have your own style and misuse words.
> like. So your attempt to change my style had gotten you out of
> commenting on the experiment under discussion...please try to stick to
> the topic at hand. The age-old admonishment of forums (as I'm sure
> you know) is 'debate the topic and not the person'.
I made no ad hominem. I did not call you a drug addict or alcoholic.
I pointed out your rhetorical errors.
>>>> I think I am on record for stating fires in other buildings don't
>>>> compromise the steel, that have burned much longer. Either the fires
>>>> were inferior fires, or you need to answer why steel would not be
>>>> compromised in them. I don't think that's quite in your interest, is
>>>> it? I think MF had a comeback for that. Did you read it, and will
>>>> you comment on it?
>>> The comeback is the many high rise fires that burned longer than the
>>> WTC towers, yet none fell as did the towers. Oddly, they fell after
>>> the fires had died down and the buildings had stayed up for about an
>>> hour after the planes hit.
>> Yeah, some buildings do not collapse immediately. So what?
> they don't? Please name one steel framed building that collapsed of
> its own accord due to fire, other than the WTC buildings.
The Windsor Building Fire
Huge Fire in Steel-Reinforced Concrete Building Causes Partial Collapse
windsor building after fire
The Windsor Building after the fire was extinguished
On the night of February 12, 2005, a fire started in the Windsor
building in Madrid, Spain, a 32-story tower framed in steel-reinforced
concrete. At its peak, the fire, which burned for almost a day,
completely engulfed the upper ten stories of the building. More than 100
firefighters battled to prevent the uncontrollable blaze from spreading
to other buildings. 1
During the night the building shedded larged pieces, which crashed to
the ground. 2
The fire apparently caused the collapse of the top floor spans
surrounding the still-standing core structure of the ten uppermost
floors. As in the case of the other large skyscraper fire since 9/11/01,
fears of total building collapse in the case of the Windsor fire were
widely reported. 3 Those fears would again prove unfounded.
Because the Windsor fire produced a partial collapse, some have argued
that it validates the official account of the collapses of WTC Buildings
1, 2, and 7. Because the same fire was so massive and did not produce
total collapse, others have cited it as evidence disproving that account.
Steel Versus Steel-Reinforced Concrete
In fact, comparisons between the Windsor tower and the WTC Towers are
limited because of the very different structures of these buildings. The
Twin Towers and Building 7 were both 100% steel-framed, with large
wide-flange columns and box columns, some measuring over four feet wide
and fabricated of steel up to five inches thick. Severe fires in other
skyscrapers which, like the WTC Towers, were 100% steel-framed, have not
produced even partial collapses.
In contrast to the WTC Towers, the Windsor building was framed primarily
in steel-reinforced concrete, with columns of concrete reinforced by
thin sections of rebar. 4 The concrete pillars in the Windsor building
are clearly visible in the photographs showing the intact core exposed
by the collapsed facade. The very light construction of the perimeter,
described below, makes it clear that the core was the main load-bearing
component of the building.
Windsor fire Windsor fire close-up
Compare these photographs of the Windsor building fire to photographs of
the Twin Towers' fires and Building 7's fires
Before examining the partial collapse of the Windsor building more
closely, we note that steel-framed and steel-reinforced-concrete-framed
structures behave very differently in fires.
Steel is a good conductor and concrete is a poor conductor of heat.
Thus in a fire, a steel frame will conduct heat away from the hotspots
into the larger structure. As long as the fire does not consume the
larger structure, this heat conductivity will keep the temperatures of
the frame well below the fire temperatures. The same is not true of
steel-reinforced-concrete structures, since concrete is not a good
thermal conductor, and the thermal conductivity of the rebar inside the
concrete is limited by its small mass and the embedding matrix of concrete.
Fires can cause spalling of concrete, but not of steel. This is
because concrete has a small percentage of latent moisture, which is
converted to steam by heat. Thus, a large fire can gradually erode a
concrete structure to the point of collapse, whereas a fire can only
threaten a steel-framed structure if it elevates steel temperatures to
such an extent that it causes failures.
Windsor Building Partial Collapse
The observation that the Windsor Building is the only skyscraper to have
suffered even a partial collapse as a result of fire suggests that the
use of steel-reinforced-concrete framing was responsible. A closer look
at the incident shows reality to be more complex. The portion of the
building that collapsed consisted of the outer portions of floor slabs
and perimeter walls throughout the upper third of the building (the 21st
through 32nd floors). The outer walls consisted of steel box columns
arranged on 1.8 meter centers and connected by narrow spandrel plates.
The columns had square cross-sections 120mm on a side, and were
fabricated of C-sections 7mm thick welded together. (these had a
fraction of the dimensions, and were spaced about twice as far apart as
the perimeter columns of the Twin Towers.) The perimeter columns lacked
fireproofing throughout the upper third of the Windsor building. 5
The Windsor Building fire engulfed the upper third of the building, but
also spread downward as low as the fourth floor. A report by two fire
safety experts in Japan highlighted three causes for the very wide
extent of the fire:
The lack of a sprinkler system
Incorrect installation of spandrels
The lack of fire prevention regulations in Spain
The Windsor Building fire demonstrates that a huge building-consuming
fire, after burning for many hours, can produce the collapse of parts of
the building with weak steel supports lacking fire protection. It also
shows that the collapse events that do occur are gradual and partial.
Estimated time frame of collapses
Time Collapse Situation
1:29 East face of the 21st floor collapsed
1:37 South middle section of several floors above the 21st floor
1:50 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:02 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:11 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:13 Floors above about 25th floor collapsed Large collapse of middle
section at about 20th floor
2:17 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:47 Southwest corner of 1 ~ 2 floors below about 20th floor collapsed
2:51 Southeast corner of about 18th ~ 20th floors collapsed
3:35 South middle section of about 17th ~ 20th floors collapsed Fire
broke through the Upper Technical Floor
3:48 Fire flame spurted out below the Upper Technical Floor
4:17 Debris on the Upper Technical Floor fell down
These partial collapse events, spread over several hours, contrast with
the implosion of WTC Building 7 in 7 seconds, and the total explosive
collapses of each of the Twin Towers in under 17 seconds.
Conspiracy Theorists bring up the fact that the towers were the
first steel high rises to fall from fire in history. The fact is the
towers had other firsts that day they never seem to include.
There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of
high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500
miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all
the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns
which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of
high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical
load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7,
in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for
6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from
another building collapse. Not the Madrid/Windsor tower did not have
almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another
building which left a 20 story gash. The Madrid tower lost portions of
its steel frame from the fire. Windsor's central core was steel
reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has
ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires.
I could go on with the "Firsts" but you get the drift. The
statement that the WTC buildings were the first high-rise buildings to
collapse from fire is deceptive because it purposely doesn't take those
factors into account.
Conspiracy sites point to the building falling straight down as
proof the buildings were blown up. Even Professor Jones uses this in his
paper as an indication of controlled demolition.
But Jones and others making this claim know very well that these
buildings are not built like the towers. Most of the buildings they
point to are steel reinforced concrete buildings or have steel
reinforced concrete cores. Others are constructed with a steel web
evenly distributed throughout the building. These buildings are not a
"tube in a tube" design. The towers were steel without concrete. The
towers perimeter steel walls were held in place by the trusses and those
trusses were connected to the perimeter columns by small bolts. They
also weren't hit by an airliner at 500 miles an hour. While it's true
they were designed to withstand the impact of a smaller 707, they never
factored in the removal of fire proofing or fuel in the wings.
"It is impressive that the World Trade Center towers held
up as long as they did after being attacked at full speed by Boeing 767
jets, because they were only designed to withstand a crash from the
largest plane at the time: the smaller, slower Boeing 707. And according
to Robertson, the 707's fuel load was not even considered at the time.
Engineers hope that answering the question of exactly why these towers
collapsed will help engineers make even safer skyscrapers in the future.
ASCE will file its final report soon, and NIST has been asked to conduct
a much broader investigation into the buildings' collapse."
But it wasn't the impact which the NIST said brought the building
down. That's a conspiracy theorist straw man. They show an interview
with a construction manager who said the buildings steel skin should
have held up by redistributing the load. He's right. This is EXACTLY
what the NIST said happened. It wasn't the impact alone which the NIST
said brought down the towers. It was a combination of factors. The only
way conspiracy theorists can attack the report is by separating these
factors and attacking them individually. It's like taking a car accident
apart and saying the car shouldn't have skidded off the road because the
factory said the car could grip up to .97 g's. While that might be true,
the conditions on the road must be factored in. Was there rain, dirt,
gravel, anything which could have contributed to the crash? Conspiracy
theorists are engaged in deliberate disinformation when they talk about
these factors in a vacuum. They KNOW these factors can't be separated.
The PBS special did a good job of explaining the difference between
the towers construction and these other buildings conspiracy theorists
like to point to. Most steel buildings have a web of steel like this...
The towers had most of the steel in this web on its skin to save
office space. Like this...
Note: What's missing from the above photo are the core
columns but they are not needed to show the difference in building
construction. Conspiracy theorists will be quick to point out this photo
doesn't show the core columns but this isn't here to show how many stick
figures someone can create. It's here to show how the building had a
vastly different design than the average building. If you're a
conspiracy theorist just imagine your 47 box columns in the core. (The
dark area in the center) The building will still be built differently,
box columns in this image or not.
The towers and building 7 were essentially bolted together like an
erector set. No concrete was used to create a ridged block or protect
the columns. The steel webbing was pushed to the outer walls.
A challenge to conspiracy theorists:
1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high
2) Which takes up a whole city block
3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design
4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors
(Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)
5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had
structural damage as a result.
6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours
7) And had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts.
And which, after all seven tests are met, the building does not
fall down. Anyone dissecting this into 7 separate events is lying to you.
Anything less than meeting these seven tests is dishonest because
it's not comparing apples with apples. Showing a much lighter 4, 5 or
even 15 story building which doesn't even take up a city block, and has
an old style steel web design leaves out the massive weight the 47 story
WTC 7 had bearing down on its south face columns. Yes, this is "moving
the bar", back to where it should have started.
It is an absurdity to expect these buildings to perform the same
during a collapse. This is why it's the first time in history these
buildings fell as they did. It's the first time in history buildings
constructed like this collapsed.
Conspiracy theorists say the Deutsche Bank fire is more proof that
steel buildings do not collapse by fire. But once again they fail to
compare apples with apples.
1) The building was NOT a tube in a tube design. It was a web
design which disperses load more evenly.
2) The fires were on the upper floors. The fire affected steel did
not have anywhere near the same weight on them as the WTC7.
3) The towers had it's fireproofing removed by the impact of the
airliners. Not so for the Deutsche Bank.
4) The fires were being fought which is why 2 firemen died.
6) There was no Con Ed substation to build the core columns around
as with the WTC 7.
7) Those steel beams already had floors removed above them. The
steel started with a lighter load before the fire.
8) The Deutsche Bank did not have 6000 gal of oil stored in the
building as WTC 7 did.
Those are just some reasons the events are very different.
Contrary to popular belief September 11, 2001 was not the first
time a steel framed building collapsed due to fire. Though the examples
below are not high rise buildings, they make the point that fire alone
can collapse a steel structure.
The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater
in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing. The theater
was fire protected using drywall and spray on material. A high rise in
Philly didn't collapse after a long fire but firefighters evacuated the
building when a pancake structural collapse was considered likely. Other
steel-framed buildings partially collapsed due fires one after only 20
The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's
largest exhibition center. It like the WTC used long steel trusses to
create a large open space without columns. Those trusses were
unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire protection due
to the impacts.
"As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in
1967, the original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition
hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small
[Note this article has several comments from engineers who back the
WTC collapse theory.]
"The unprotected steel roof trusses failed early on in the fire"
The McCormick Place fire "is significant because it illustrates
the fact that steel-frame buildings can collapse as a result of exposure
to fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not only
steel." wrote Robert Berhinig, associate manager of UL's Fire Protection
Division and a registered professional engineer. He also discusses UL's
steel fire certification much more knowledgably than Kevin Ryan. He is
an example of one more highly qualified engineer who supports the
From the FEMA report of the theater fire, my comments in [ ]
On the morning of January 28, 1997, in the Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania township of Strasburg, a fire caused the collapse of the
state-of-the-art, seven year old Sight and Sound Theater and resulted in
structural damage to most of the connecting buildings.
The theater was a total loss, valued at over $15 million.
The theater was built of steel rigid frame construction to
allow for the large open space of the auditorium, unobstructed by
columns... The interior finish in the auditorium was drywall.
The stage storage area, prop assembly building, and prop
maintenance building were protected with a sprayed-on fire resistant
coating on all structural steel. The plans called for the coating to
meet a two-hour fire resistance assembly rating. The sprayed-on coating,
which was susceptible to damage from the movement of theater equipment,
was protected by attaching plywood coverings on the columns to a height
of eight feet.
The walls of the storage area beneath the stage were layered
drywall to provide a two-hour fire protection rating for the mezzanine
offices [the WTC used drywall as fire protection in the central core] ,
and sprayed-on fire-resistant coatings on the structural
steel columns and ceiling bar joists supporting the stage floor.
The two theater employees told the State Police Fire
Investigator that when they first discovered the fire they noticed that
the sprayed-on fire proofing had been knocked off the underside of the
stage floor bar joists and support steel. The fire proofing was hanging
on the wire mesh used to hold the coating to the overhead. The
investigation revealed that the construction company's removal of the
stage floor covering down to the corrugated decking involved striking
the floor hard enough to knock off the sprayed-on protection, exposing
the structural steel and bar-joists in the storage area. [The theater's
spray-on fireproofing was newer and more modern than at the WTC, The
theater was only seven years old. If striking the floor during
renovations was enough to dislodge it imagine the impact of a 767]
Temperatures of 1000ï¿½ F can cause buckling and temperatures of
1500ï¿½ F can cause steel to lose strength and collapse. When the heat and
hot gases reached the stage ceiling they extended horizontally into the
auditorium, causing the roof to fail all the way to the lobby fire wall.
The fire also extended horizontally from the stage to the elevated
hallway, causing the structural steel to fail and buckle in the prop
assembly and prop maintenance buildings
Once the heat of the fire caused the structural steel to fail
in the storage area (aided by the damage to the sprayed-on fire
protection during renovation), interior firefighting became too
hazardous to continue. The truck crews ventilating the roof noted metal
discoloration and buckling steel.
The two hour fire resistance-rated assembly in the storage area
beneath the stage was damaged during the stage floor renovation, leaving
the structural members unprotected from the ensuing fire.
Buildings constructed of steel should, in effect, be considered
unprotected and capable of collapse from fire in as few as ten minutes.
Fire resistant coatings sprayed onto structural steel are susceptible to
damage from construction work.
The impact of fire and heat on structural steel members warrant
extreme caution by firefighters.
Unless the steel members are cooled with high-volume hose
streams, the fire's heat can rapidly cause steel to lose its strength
and contribute to building collapse.
In February 1991, a fire broke out in One Meridian Plaza - a 38
story office building in Philadelphia. The building was built during the
same period as the WTC and had spray-on fire protection on its steel
frame. Despite not suffering impact damage, authorities were worried it
"All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11
hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a
structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in
the building led to the belief that there was a
possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged
About 2 years later, the NYFD was concerned that a steel framed
building that partially collapsed during after a gas explosion might
collapse entirely due to the resulting fire.
Part of a floor of an unprotected steel frame building
collapsed in Brackenridge, Pennsylvania on, December 20, 1991, Killing 4
Part of the roof of a steel framed school in Virginia collapsed
about 20 minutes after fire broke out
Thanks to Len Brazil for the other examples.
>>>>>>>>>> as well as an expert on the WTC tragedy. I guess he has
>>>>>>>>>> wider orders than we figured.
>>>>>>>>> You spend a lot of time guessing and little time enlightening
>>>>>>>>> yourself. If you read something on a truther site you like the sound
>>>>>>>>> of you believe it, thats all. Believe all the stupid things you like,
>>>>>>>>> it`s a free country.
>>>>>>>> No steel beamed building has ever collapsed prior to 9/11.
>>>>>>> Apples are different than oranges.
>>>>>> Maybe the steel in the WTC's were inferior. Ha.
>>>>> Usually I would attempt to do your thinking for you,
>>>> But you are incapable of anything but lame one-liners.....
>>> Typical ad hominem comment ignored.
>>>> but I think it
>>>>> would be fun to see you display that stellar thinking ability you`ve
>>>>> been blessed with. Lets see you list all the differences you can come
>>>>> up with between the the WTC event and the Madrid fire.
>>>> I only like one. The steel wasn't compromised in that fire. The only
>>>> important question is, why wasn't it?
>>>> It should be a
>>>> simple thing for you to come up with 10 major things, being you are so
>>>> good at this thinking stuff.
>>> While you're busy making work for others that you won't do yourself,
>>> there is one important difference...they didn't find nano-thermite
>>> anywhere around the Madrid fire. It was found (with micro-spheres of
>> Maybe they didn't look for it.
> We don't know. I can't find a reference either way. However, nano-
> thermite is not a chemical that would be found in the dust of ANY city
> or town. It was originally developed for the military and is hard to
> get. Sort of like the anthrax spores that showed up after 9/11.
How do you know that to be a fact? Maybe the CIA had a secret office in
the WTC where they stored nanothermite for sabotage missions.
Maybe the hijackers had filled the planes with nanothermite. You don't know.
>>> iron, a bad sign) all around the WTC area in the dust. It is next to
>>> impossible for that stuff to be on the streets of NYC by accident.
>> No one said 9/11 was an accident.
>> They were the result of intense fires.
> Are you then saying that the WTC collapses were NOT an accident or a
> natural result of being hit by planes and fire?
>>>> Well, while your 'thinking' think why when buildings generally fall,
>>>> the fall not like a CD, but with where the compromise is in the
>>>> building, whether it be tumbling over sideways completely or less of a
>>>> tumble? Why wouldn't 'compromised-by-fire' in any building, or in
>>>> this case the WTC's, just get this fire where it burned hot enough for
>>>> a few beams to compromise and fall with just those beams, instead of
>>>> having to have all of them comprise basically at the same time, before
>>>> it could fall straight down?
>>> That is hard to follow. Try it again and I'll take a whack at it.
>>>>>>>> Many buildings
>>>>>>>> have burned on every floor for a lot longer and none of the steel was
>>>>>>> Any building that has intense fire for a long period of time will
>>>>>>> have it`s steel compromised.
>>>>>> Provably untrue.
>>>>> No, it`s true. Intense heat weakens steel. Everyone seems to know
>>>>> this but Truthers.
>>> I'm sorry, I'm not in that group of believers. I'm more of a facts
>>> and evidence guy. I'm a firm believer in the Newtonian laws of
>>> physics. I'm sure you can soften or melt anything if you can reach
>>> the right temperature and environment. Even steel...if all conditions
>>> are right...:)
>> No one is talking about softening or melting steel. Only weakening.
>> Stick to the topic
> LOL! You seem to have forgotten my speaking style that I advised you
> about. Please try to keep it in mind. Thanks!
Your speaking style is called obfuscation.
> .>> And yet, you can't put your finger on why all these buildings of
>>>> history seem to stand up in fires with steel beams. Lots of
>>>> buildings, and why doesn't 'everyone' seem to know that?
>>> It seems elementary. The fire hadn't reached the weakening point of
>>> the steel. Don't you agree? Of course, in the WTC towers (including
>>> WTC7) there were other factors that were used to bring them down
>>> besides fire, which was obviously not the guilty element. NIST said
>>> the jet fuel and the office material burned off in 20 minutes. The
>>> buildings stayed up for about an hour after the planes struck, meaning
>>> they had another 40 minutes of life. Things would have cooled during
>>> that time, yet suddenly the buildings collapsed. They waited with the
>>> WTC7 building until 5:20pm after hours of it standing and it had not
>>> been hit by a plane. It was controlled demolition based on all the
>>> facts available. Two different controlled demolition experts agreed
>>> with that assessment.
>>>>>>> Check the Meridian fire we had here in Philly...
>>>>>> And the building still didn't come down,
>>>>> But the heat inflicted trauma on the steel.
>>>> I think the heat inflcted trauma elsewhere, but for the sake of the
>>>> moderators, I will refrain from exactly where.
>>>>>> and if it did, it wouldn't
>>>>>> have come straight down like the WTC's did.
>>>>> You think it would have floated up?
>>>> I think you should do some research on how buildings fall, many videos
>>>> to choose from. And some on CD's not going so good, and how they
>>>> fell. You won't even have to read, just look.
>>> I've done that. What's your point?
> No answer once again.
Already was answered before.
>>>>>>> "There was structural damage to horizontal steel beams and floor
>>>>>>> sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Under extreme fire
>>>>>>> exposure the beams and girders sagged and twisted and cracks appeared
>>>>>>> in the concrete floors."
>>>>>>>>>> Read this article showing that the
>>>>>>>>>> softening point of steel could not have been reached:
>>>>>>>>> You need to pay attention, I showed you that an ordinary wood fire
>>>>>>>>> can heat steel to the point it can be bent.
>>>>>>>>> Cite something from that work that supports the proposition that the
>>>>>>>>> steel in the Twin Towers wasn`t softened by heat.
>>>>>>>> One could fill up all the bandwidth here on that. The greater question
>>>>>>>> would be, no matter how the building was compromised, how did it fall
>>>>>>>> straight down in a time that could be counted as a controlled demolition?
>>>>>>> Structural failure is structural failure.
>>>>>> This debating is like apples and oranges.
>>>>> Trying to reason with a Truther is like debating an apple.
>>>> Speaking in analogies of fruit is generally fruitless, except for Bud.