Originally posted by LoneRed+--> (LoneRed)....the first time ever where fire made steel frames buckle and collapse.[/b]
Well, I don't know about you, but this is the first occasion I've heard of when a fucking passenger jet crashed into a Steel framed building. Which of course, from a Structural point of view, creates a few more problems than your average fire.
I won't dispute your contention that the Twin Towers are the only example of fire causing a Steel framed building to collapse; because, off hand, I don't know of any other examples. But fire has caused significant Structural damage on a number of occassions....and as the following article points out, the example of the Twin Towers has raised a lot of questions in the Engineering community:
Originally posted by Steel's fire performance under scrutiny+--> (Steel's fire performance under scrutiny)The ability of structural steel to withstand major fires is under scrutiny. The latest findings of the US-based National Institute of Standards and Technology into the collapse of the World Trade Center couple with the recent collapse in fire of the perimeter steel columns of the Madrid Windsor Torre building question the performance of structural steel in fires in high rise buildings. And it is not just in high rise buildings. The avocation by the UK Chief Fire Officers' Association of a boycott of fire fighters entering burning steel framed superstores and warehouses is also raising questions about the use of steel for low rise buildings reports Anna Scothern, Head of Performance at The Concrete Centre.
[....]
Particularly damning for the steel frame is that according to NIST, the building design of the towers was robust with sufficient redundancy. So this was a robust steel frame that failed to withstand an office loading fire. American and European clients are now demanding high rise buildings to be designed to survive complete burnout.[/b]
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=827
The Windsor Torre example, is, in my opinion, sufficient in showing that it is possible for a fire to cause failure in the Steel framework....even if, as in this case, the building didn't collapse.
What's even more damning for the consparatists case, is, as I mentioned above, the complete silence of the Structural Engineering community on the issue of it being a "Government job".
The general consensus is that the fires caused enough heat under which the steel frames buckles...."Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100 °F (593 °C)." (Wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#Structural_and_civil_engine ering_research)) Now, without proper fire proofing, that scenario (fire causing the collapse) seems very plausible.
Indeed, from what I've read, Structural Engineers, you know, the people actually qualified to comment on Structural collapse, are actually rather concerned by the new evidence that points to possible Structural collapse being caused by fire. If they thought it was a "Government job", they say so....at least some of them would; after all, you'd get a nice bit of cash from a tabloid for such a story. But instead, they've said that this is a real flaw with regards Steel framed buildings and it's one they need to know more about.
Additionally, of course, as the wikipedia page I linked points out, controlled demolition requires "in-depth planning, preparation, and production involved in a controlled demolition. This labor-intensive task leaves clear signs of the work, such as stripping away building materials to expose the structural supports, and running cables from the explosives to the detonation timers."
No one, as far as I know, has said that any of this happened in the days, weeks and months prior to the Twin Towers collapsing. Yet, if that happened, then someone would have noticed....and more importantly, there would be a record of this.
I mean, Governments aren't very good at keeping secrets....the atrocities of American Imperialism, for example, are public record. Heck, I can remember listening to a Noam Chomsky debate where he makes the case against American Imperialism quoting directly from State Department documents.
Yet, somehow, a Government which can't keep its actions in Nicaragua, Chile, Iraq, Vietnam and so on, secret; is supposed to be able to keep the blowing up of the Twin Towers secret? Pull the other one....it's got bells on it! :lol:
Now, there are two points where there has been a "cover up" of sorts. As I mentioned in my post over at libcom, the report I read said that the fire-proofing was missing in areas; yet the presented opinion in most documents (the ones done by sane people that is), is that the fire-proofing was "striped off". (Source. (http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/worldTradeCenter.htm)) I'd say that either a combination of the two happened....or, just as plausible, to save face, that little detail was "airbrushed out"; possibly for Insurance reasons.
The second point, is the official number of people who died. Many illegal immigrants were working in and just outside the Twin Towers, and it's quite possible that their deaths were never recorded. Their families, of course, would not have wanted to report their deaths for fear of running into the Immigration Gestapo. I've read the number of dead illegal immigrants could be as high as 2000 people....and that this issue has not been looked into properly, nor even recognised, shows a degree of Government manipulation of the death counts for political purposes.
Other than those two points, I see absolutely nothing to question in the mainstream accounts of said event....never mind anything that would indicate a "Government job".
Originally posted by LoneRed
what about the buildings that were burning for days and no collapse?
I'd hazard a guess that the factor that makes them different is/was the intensity of the fires involved....plus, of course, the fire-proofing and preventative measures in place.
But without specific examples to compare, I'm afraid all I can offer is a "guess"....one which, no doubt, is more educated than yours, Construction is my field after all, but a "guess" all the same.
Originally posted by LoneRed
if a building collapse there are different little explosions inside the building.
Huh? :huh:
This sentence has lost me....could you restructure it please?
[email protected]
Armchair said it is, that you are taken in by our governments propaganda, and a bit humorous.
Another sentence that has lost me....again, could you restructure it please?
Commie Rat
Was not Americas enimies, but its own shitty system!
I think a study of any building would really outline the faults of capitalism. Shoddy standards caused, mostly, by cost factors, are present in most, if not all buildings. Another thing that never ceases to amaze me, is how the Water Board wastes the most water....mainly because they rarely fix burst underground pipes.
I think post-revolution, we'll need to put all the Construction "bigwigs" on trial for crimes against humanity....and in some cases, crimes against good taste! <_<