That fire can not cause a steel building to collapse.

tell that to the families of these fire fighters.

The chemicals manufacturers spray on furniture probably caused it to become an inferno.

Then again, don't they by law have to put anti-inflammable chemicals on sofas like they do mattresses.

yep i think so lois well im not sure entirely of us standards but i think so up here in canada that is the case

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist

Lois, have you ever been in a modern office building? What are all those modular, padded, cubicle walls made of?

How much plastic is in a typical office desk chair?

Isn't jet fuel a chemical?

How is it that those "furniture chemicals" can burn that hot, when jet fuel can't?

NO structural steel building has EVER suffered a TOTAL collapse due to fires, according to NIST [www.haifire.com]

Cheers,
J

Yes Jose, not even at ground zero of Hiroshima!

elnatural

From the NIST report I quoted above, an example of a multi-story steel framed building with NO sprinklers and NO fireproofing that DID NOT collapse, thereby refuting the rubbish claim made by the Purdue "study".

............Building name: Broadgate Phase 8
............Location: London, UK
............Type of construction: Steel composite trusses and beams; mostly not fire protected and without sprinklers
............14 stories, main occupancy: Office space
.............Year: 1990
.............References: Newman, et al., 200
.............Description: During construction, 4.5 hour fire duration and temperatures reached 1000 ºC

Fruther information on this fire can be found here [guardian.150m.com]

On the 23rd June 1990 a fire developed in the partly completed fourteen storey building in the Broadgate development. [115] The fire began in a large contractors hut on the first floor and smoke spread undetected throughout the building. The fire detection and sprinkler system were not yet operational out of working hours.

The fire lasted 4.5 hours including 2 hours where the fire exceeded 1000°C. The direct fire loss was in excess of £25 million however, only a fraction of the cost (£2 million) represented structural frame and floor damage. The major damage was to the building fabric as a result of smoke. Moreover, the structural repairs after the fire took only 30 days. The structure of the building was a steel frame with composite steel deck concrete floors and was only partially protected at this stage of construction. During and after the fire, despite large deflections in the elements exposed to fire, the structure behaved well and there was no collapse of any of the columns, beams or floors. [115] The Broadgate phase 8 fire was the first opportunity to examine the influence of fire on the structural behaviour of a modern fast track steel framed building with composite construction.

I feel that structure and it's resilience can give you a ballpark idea of the top twenty stories in the WTC (which was actually a much much stronger building design).

That link also has the following interesting example:

BHP William Street fire tests, Melbourne [197]

Built in 1971 in the centre of Melbourne, 140 William street at 41 storeys high was the tallest building in Australia. This building is also of composite construction similar to Broadgate and Mercantile centre, with a square plan and central square inner core. The steelwork around the inner core and the external columns were protected with concrete whereas the beams and the soffit of the composite steel deck floors were protected with asbestos based material. In 1990 during a refurbishment programme the decision was made to remove the hazardous asbestos material. Prior to the refurbishment the fire resistance rating of the building was 120 minutes. To maintain this level after refurbishment the regulations at the time required fire protection to the steel beams and the soffit of the lightly reinforced concrete slab. The light hazard sprinkler system would also have had to be upgraded. In the 1990s the fire resistance of buildings was a matter for debate in Australia and the refurbishment of the William street building provided an opportunity to determine whether these measures were really necessary.

Two risk assessments were conducted. The second was the most interesting. It assumed no protection to the beams or the soffit of the slab and use of the existing sprinkler system.

A series of four fire tests were carried out on a purpose built test building at BHP Research Melbourne Laboratories. The test simulated a 12m x 12m corner bay of the real building and was furnished to resemble a typical office with a 4m x 4m small office constructed near the perimeter of the building. Water tanks provided the imposed loading. The first two tests were concerned with testing the performance of the existing light hazard sprinkler system. Test 3 was designed to test the composite slab. The soffit of the slab was left unprotected although a non-fire-rated suspended ceiling was in place. The supporting beams were partially protected. The fire was started in the open plan area and allowed to develop fully. A maximum atmosphere temperature of 1254°C was achieved. The ceiling remained intact during the tests and was beneficial in protecting the slab. In test 4 the ability of the steel beams to withstand a fire without protection was assessed. The fire was started in the small office but unfortunately did not spread to the rest of the compartment and another fire was set in the open plan area. The atmosphere temperature reached 1228°C whilst the steel beams reached temperatures of 632°C. Deflections of 120mm were recorded in one of the beams during the test. The steel beams and slab were shielded by the ceiling resulting in relatively low steel temperatures and small deflections in comparison with Broadgate. The results of the various fire tests concluded that the William street building did not need fire protection on the beams or the underside of the slab and the existing sprinkler system was adequate.

Cheers,
J

More information about the WTC fires can be found here [guardian.150m.com]

Cheers,
J

ps I really can't understand how an unbiased, open-minded observer can really accept as true the official reports, they are a total farce. Not to mention that there is a whole host of reasons to doubt the official 9/11 story, not just the WTC "collapses". There are literally hundreds of reasons.

Quote

Jose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NO structural steel building has EVER suffered a
> TOTAL collapse due to fires, according to NIST

And none of them did on 9/11, either.

you seem to be ignoring the fact that all three buildings suffered severe structural damage. Two were hit by airplanes and the third was hit by WTC 1.

It was the combination of the fires AND the strucutral damage that doomed the buildings.

Quote

Jose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
From the NIST report I quoted above, an example of
a multi-story steel framed building with NO
sprinklers and NO fireproofing that DID NOT
collapse, thereby refuting the rubbish claim made
by the Purdue "study". . . Blah, blah Blah. . . .


The structure of the building was a steel frame with composite steel deck concrete floors

And thus t was nothing like the towers or WTC 7, was it?

Quote

BHP William Street fire tests, Melbourne [197]

Built in 1971 in the centre of Melbourne, 140
William street at 41 storeys high was the tallest
building in Australia. This building is also of
composite construction similar to Broadgate and
Mercantile centre, with a square plan and central
square inner core. The steelwork around the inner
core and the external columns were protected with
concrete

Again, nothing like either the towers or WTC 7.


The tower and WTC 7 had unique (but different) structural designs that make direct comparisons to other structures pointless..

Jose Wrote:

>
> ps I really can't understand how an unbiased,
> open-minded observer can really accept as true the
> official reports, they are a total farce. Not to
> mention that there is a whole host of reasons to
> doubt the official 9/11 story, not just the WTC
> "collapses". There are literally hundreds of
> reasons.


It's all a matter of having a strong understanding of the science and engineering principles involved.

That is why you won't find any Strucutral engineering professionals supporting the CD theories.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2007 01:58AM by squeeks.

What about these ARCHITECTS AND CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS who are questioning the official 911 story?

ARCHITECTS AND CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS

[patriotsquestion911.com]

****************

Here's more --

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!

[ae911truth.org]

squeeks:

<<It was the combination of the fires AND the strucutral damage that doomed the buildings.>>

WTC Building number 7 was not hit by a plane and yet it too was still pulverized which calls into question your idea that structural damage could "prime" the fire to subsume these buildings at ungodly speeds.


<<That is why you won't find any Strucutral engineering professionals supporting the CD theories>>

Not only are a plethora of structural engineering professionals actively questioning and debunking this administration's "report" but they are doing so at the risk of

1) losing their jobs
2) risking their reputation ( in their line of work, their reputation is everything and is built upon a LIFEtime of hard work)
3) being targeted as "unpatriotic" ( notice that a lot of these scientists and those who speak out for a reinvestigation have actually served in the military in some capacity)

They really are not in the SAFEST position to be revealing what they feel is a total fallacy of the government's report. They are not necessarily of any political stance either except "justice". The points they have to make individually and collectively are EXTREMELY salient. Each point, ALONE, is enough to raise MASSIVE suspicion. The points, taken collectively, is, indubitably, grounds for reinvestigation.

Point #1 : The hijack code was not put in.


Commander Ted Muga ( retired Naval aviator and airline pilot for Boeing 707 and 727) explicitly states that it takes no more than half a second for a pilot to
put in a hijack code ( "just lift up the console " and press the button) if they feel that the plane is being hijacked. The fact that NONE of the FOUR pilots did that is unthinkable. Why WOULDN'T they?

Point #2

None of the planes were intercepted when they went awry from their route.

"Additionally, in my experience as an officer in NORAD as a Tactical Director for the Chicago-Milwaukee Air Defense and as a current private pilot, there is no way that an aircraft on instrument flight plans (all commercial flights are IFR) would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control. No way! With very bad luck, perhaps one could slip by, but no there's no way all four of them could!"

Capt. Daniel Davis, U.S. Army – Turbine engineering specialist. Founder and former CEO of Turbine Technology Services Corp., a turbine (jet engine) services and maintenance company (15 years). Former Senior Manager at General Electric Turbine (jet) Engine Division (15 years). Former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director. Decorated with the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal for bravery under fire and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam. Also served in the Army Air Defense Command as Nike Missile Battery Control Officer for the Chicago-Milwaukee Defense Area. Private pilot.


Point #3 : The rapidity at which the towers fell totally goes against the laws of physics itself.

"The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This violates Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases.

Even if Newton’s Law is ignored, the prevailing theory would have us believe that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed upon itself crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor while maintaining a free-fall speed as if the 100,000, or more, tons of supporting structural-steel framework underneath didn't exist."

William Rice, PE – Registered Professional Civil Engineer who worked on structural steel and concrete buildings in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. Former Professor at Vermont Technical College where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other building related courses

This point is reaffirmed by :

Heikki Kurttila, D.Sc. (Tech.) (Doctor of Technology) – Safety Engineer and Accident Analyst, National Safety Technology Authority (TUKES), Finland. Specialist in the investigation of pressure vessel explosion accidents and the impacts of the shock waves caused by them.

who says:

"Analysis of the collapse of WTC Building 7, 11/18/05: "Conclusion: The observed collapse time of WTC 7 was 6.5 seconds. That is only half a second longer than it would have taken for the top of the building to fall to the ground in a vacuum, and half a second shorter than the falling time of an apple when air resistance is taken into account. ... The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition."

squeek: there are so many other discrepancies that have to do with glaringly obvious inconsistencies with logic itself and they are so numerous that it is not even funny. In fact, it is downright tragic and criminal that they are not being scrutinized by this government which is no wonder why people are placing this administration under grand suspicion ( what self respecting citizen WOULD'T be suspicious?)

Jose has done a damn good job in trying to elucidate the discrepancies by bringing in articles, his own opinions as a physicist etc. I would highly recommend that you look into this matter in more detail, take it apart and re examine it again.

Wow, Veronique -- you have a serious side

I hope we're not bringing your beautiful airy/fairy nature down to earth.

Maybe you shouldn't read these negative posts.

But I agree -- I'm always glad when Jose helps us out with his technical, scientific, physics knowledge.

Lois Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What about these ARCHITECTS AND CIVIL AND
> STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS who are questioning the
> official 911 story?
>
> ARCHITECTS AND CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
>
> [patriotsquestion911.com]
>
> ****************
>
> Here's more --
>
> Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!
>
> [ae911truth.org]

Same old, same old. The usual tired bunch of conspiracy nut jobs. Judy woods? She is as wacky as they come. I think that the fact that the one list includes Frank DeMartini on it is totally despicable

Dear Mr. Squeeks, I'm coming to the conclusion that it is fairly pointless discussing this with you. For example, you reply to my post thus:

<<The tower and WTC 7 had unique (but different) structural designs that make direct comparisons to other structures pointless..>>

The obvious remark that WTC had a UNIQUE DESIGN does not mean it didn't fall under the same CATEGORY (ie STEEL FRAMED structure) as other buildings, and with which it would share a lot of features, such as, the steel being a MASSIVE HEAT SINK, the steel structure being excellent at REDISTRIBUTING LOADS and STRESSES, etc... In short, the examples that I showed you ARE relevant, and perhaps if you don't believe ME, beleive NIST since they put them under the same CATEGORY in THEIR report.

<<Same old, same old. The usual tired bunch of conspiracy nut jobs.>>

Oh, you mean like the usual bunch of ASCE people that investigate major "terrorist incidents" like Oklahoma, WTC, etc..?

See [911research.wtc7.net] , for instance.

In it you will also find excerpts from an interview with lead WTC engineer John Skilling in 1993, five years before his death, which shows that the design engineers had contemplated jetliner crashes and the fires that would result. But I have a feeling no amount of evidence (or lack thereof - ie WTC1&2&7 structural steel removal) will convince you that something is not quite right here...


Hey veronique, thanks for all your great comments, I hadn't actually come across some of the stuff you quoted, just goes to show the huge amount of anomalies that occurred and that people are pointing out. You're totally right that people who speak out on this are literally putting their lives on the line, and deserve the utmost respect.

Cheers,
J

Fruthermore, if you would care to actually READ the links I post, and in reply to your comment <<The tower and WTC 7 had unique (but different) structural designs that make direct comparisons to other structures pointless..>> , you would find that WTC North tower had ALREADY suffered a previous MAJOR fire in 1975.

....the north tower of the World Trade Center suffered a very serious fire on February 13, 1975. You also need to know that this fire caused no serious structural damage to the tower and that no steel-framed high-rise has ever collapsed due to fire.

........
The February 13, 1975 North Tower Fire has been carefully hidden from you. Here are a few reports concerning it.

This 110-story steel-framed office building suffered a fire on the 11th floor on February 13, 1975. The loss was estimated at over $2,000,000. The building is one of a pair of towers, 412 m in height. The fire started at approximately 11:45 P.M. in a furnished office on the 11th floor and spread through the corridors toward the main open office area. A porter saw flames under the door and sounded the alarm. It was later that the smoke detector in the air-conditioning plenum on the 11th floor was activated. The delay was probably because the air-conditioning system was turned off at night. The building engineers placed the ventilation system in the purge mode, to blow fresh air into the core area and to draw air from all the offices on the 11th floor so as to prevent further smoke spread. The fire department on arrival found a very intense fire. It was not immediately known that the fire was spreading vertically from floor to floor through openings in the floor slab. These 300-mm x 450-mm (12-in. x 18-in.) openings in the slab provided access for telephone cables. Subsidiary fires on the 9th to the 19th floors were discovered and readily extinguished. The only occupants of the building at the time of fire were cleaning and service personnel. They were evacuated without any fatalities. However, there were 125 firemen involved in fighting this fire and 28 sustained injuries from the intense heat and smoke. The cause of the fire is unknown.

Also, from the New York Times (Saturday 15th February 1975):

Fire Commissioner John T. O'Hagan said yesterday that he would make a vigorous effort to have a sprinkler system installed in the World Trade Center towers as a consequence of the fire that burned for three hours in one of them early yesterday morning.
The towers, each 110 stories tall and the highest structures in the city, are owned and operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which is not subject to local safety codes.
As Commissioner O'Hagan stood in the sooty puddles of the North Towers's 11th floor hallway, he told reporters that the fire would not have spread as far as it did if sprinklers had been installed there.
The fire spread throughout about half of the offices of the floor and ignited the insulation of telephone cables in a cable shaft that runs vertically between floors. Commissioner O'Hagan said that the absence of fire-stopper material in gaps around the telephone cables had allowed the blaze to spread to other floors within the cable shaft. Inside the shaft, it spread down to the 9th floor and up to the 16th floor, but the blaze did not escape from the shaft out into room or hallways on the other floors.........
Only the 11th floor office area was burned, but extensive water damage occurred on the 9th and 10th floors, and smoke damage extended as far as the 15th floor, the spokesman said.
Although there were no direct casualties, 28 of the 150 firemen called to the scene suffered minor injuries.

More from the New York Times (Saturday 14th February 1975):

"It was like fighting a blow torch" according to Captain Harold Kull of Engine Co. 6,........
Flames could be seen pouring out of 11th floor windows on the east side of the building.

So, this was a very serious fire which spread over some 65 per cent of the eleventh floor (the core plus half the office area) in the very same building that supposedly "collapsed" on 9/11 due to a similar, or lesser, fire. This fire also spread to a number of other floors. And although it lasted over 3 hours, it caused no serious structural damage and the trusses survived the fires without replacement and supported the building for many, many more years after the fires were put out.

All of this and much more is contained in [guardian.150m.com]

Cheers,
J

<<Wow, Veronique -- you have a serious side

I hope we're not bringing your beautiful airy/fairy nature down to earth>>

Actually, I think that those who believe the buildings went to smithereens WITHOUT the aid of serial detonative explosives, have more of an "airy,fairy"
nature than mysel.

What else could account for their beliefs that everything follows the laws of physics EXCEPT for the WTC buildings.

They must subscribe to either of these airy/fairy theories:

Airy/Fairy Theory #1

The WTC was supplanted in some strange reverse black hole vortex in which time accelerated at break-your-heart speeds which would account for how fast the buildings toppled. ( check up on that jose, i may be onto somethin

Airy /Fairy Theory #2

Green Aliens , with one disapproving look of their crimson eyes, shot out lasers from their eyeballs to POWDERIZE the buildings, in order to make the statement : "earthlings are getting too hedonistic and deluded for their own good. We must do something about this flagrant mess."

Airy/Fairy Theory #3

A bunch of muslim dudes who were jealous of how much coca cola and hamburgers Americans got to eat decided to kill themselves over it in a suicide mission,and bring all the other IPOD loving Americans dowwwwwwn.
All four buildings became dust, including hundreds of bodies, and the entire steel building itself... totally dust EXCEPT that the PASSPORTS of these muslim dudes were found ( hmmm... let me think... building made out of steel and cement and it became dust... but passports made out of flimsy paper MAGICALLY SURVIVED? this is how they determined that it was these muslim dudes... by their PASSPORT ( quite interesting)

Which is the most AIRIEST FAIRIEST Theory of all?
Here is a hint ( I'm being nice):
You really don't have to be a structural engineer to figure this one out.

You DO need to know that FIRE takes longer to burn STEEL than it does PAPER and if it totally pulverizes steel than the same fire outta have pulverized the PAPER (passports) too. I learned such "science" in kindergarten. Oh yeah, I had some top notch teachers in kindergarten, too



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2007 10:07PM by la_veronique.

i like rosie shes got guts lol

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist

the law of karma always prevails



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2007 10:31PM by la_veronique.

squeeks says

"That fire can not cause a steel building to collapse.

tell that to the families of these fire fighters"

You emphasize " tell that to the families of these firefighters" AS IF questioning the CAUSE of 1) HOW and 2) WHY the buildings went down is an affront to those who lost their lives rescuing people out of the building.

I'll tell you what is the TRUE affront and that is people who feel that the lives of firefighters, police and citizens are so unimportant that what happened to them is not even WORTH a TRULY SCIENTIFIC reinvestigation.

YOU tell THAT to those who lost their lives to unwittingly front someone ELSE'S

LIE.

la-veranique

I had to read your name over and over to make sure it was your who wrote that post.

Didzzzzz deezzzz greenzzz juizesss makessss dem chagessss inz yuzzzzzz?


Elnatural

hey el natural

yer funny

there's more to me than kim chi musings and dandelion juice cravings
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!

but i'm still 100% MARTIANIQUE!!

Whoever thought LaV was airy-fairy or shallow ....... mustn't have been reading her posts!! No simple mind could write that stuff!!!

Hey Aqua,

I can be pretty shallow too. Just ask my friends
I never judge a guy by the content of his character but by the size of his compost heap ( in his backyard).

>there's more to me than kim chi musings and dandelion juice cravings
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!! . . . but i'm still 100% MARTIANIQUE!!<

Thank God! You're a breath of fresh Martian air. We love you!

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]