Another Question for Heiwa : Amazing Fireproof Steel

[Architect]

On the debunkers thread, Heiwa has suggested that one of the underlying flaws in the NIST collapse report is the steelwork would be inherrently resistant to heat-induced failure under typical fire conditions.

The purpose of this thread is to provide Heiwa with an opportunity to post the evidence for this quite remarkable claim.

Just to kick things off, let's look at how steelwork responds to fire. Heiwa, I'd like you to tell me if there are any errors that I make. And be specific.

Testing Criteria

Firstly, the lay reader may be interested to learn that there are, of course, formal standards to test the fire performance of structural steelwork.

The general procedures used for determining the fire resistance of load-bearing elements of structure are specified in BS476 series. In assessing the performance of fire protection materials the relevant parts are:

Part 20 Method of determination of the fire resistance of elements of construction (general principles)

Part 21 Method of determination of the fire resistance of load-bearing elements of construction

Whilst BS 476 Part 20 is concerned with general principles and covers requirements which are common to the other parts of BS 476, the BS 476 Part 21 fire resistance testing covers load-bearing elements of construction, such as steel beams, columns or walls, whilst BS 476 Part 22 fire resistance tests are intended for non load-bearing elements of construction.

European fire testing standards have also been published. In assessing the performance of fire protection materials the relevant part is presently ENV 13381-4 “Test methods for determining the contribution to the fire resistance of structural members Part 4: Applied protection to steel members”. This standard makes reference to the EN 1363 Series of standards which contain general information about conducting fire resistance tests. However, as all the procedures for assessing fire protection are currently specified in ENV13381-4, it is this standard which is generally referred to in this publication.

Performance of Steel in Fires

Hot finished carbon steel begins to lose strength at temperatures above 300°C and reduces in strength at steady rate up to 800°C. The small residual strength then reduces more gradually until the melting temperature at around 1500°C. This behaviour is similar for hot rolled reinforcing steels. For cold worked steels including reinforcement, there is a more rapid decrease of strength after 300°C (Lawson & Newman 1990). In addition to the reduction of material strength and stiffness, steel displays a significant creep phenomena at temperatures over 450°C. The phenomena of creep results in an increase of deformation (strain) with time, even if the temperature and applied stress remain unchanged (Twilt 1988).

High temperature creep is dependent on the stress level and heating rate. The occurrence of creep indicates that the stress and the temperature history have to be taken into account in estimating the strength and deformation behaviour of steel structures in fire. Including creep explicitly within analytical models, is complex. For simple design methods, it is widely accepted that the effect of creep is implicitly considered in the stress-strain-temperature relationships.

For those who require further information or, as the case may be, persuasion regarding the actual performance of steelwork under such conditions we are fortunate that a predictably large numbers of leading bodies have looked at the issue in depth.

http://www.shef.ac.uk/fire-research/..._meetings.html

http://www.corusconstruction.com/page_1416.htm

http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/866/CIB_W14/workprog.htm

http://www.civil.canterbury.ac.nz/fi...rts/KLewis.pdf

Note in particular the strength/temperature/yield grading charts in the final link, which have obvious implications for the structure of any steel framed building exposed to fire conditions.

Practical Implications - Design Codes and Building Regulations

The fire design codes BS 5950-8, Eurocode 3 Part 1-2 and Eurocode 4 Part 1-2 provide the framework for designers to calculate the temperature at which a given steel member will fail in a fire situation. These design methods incorporate more realistic estimates of the applied load during a fire and include the effects of non-uniform heating through and along the member. The design methods are based on either fire
resistance, which is a measure of an element to withstand given criteria in a standard furnace test, or natural fires where the size of the fire compartment, available combustible material, characteristics of the compartment boundaries and

air supply are considered.

The requirements and calculations so arising are necessarily complex.

As the reader might anticipate, because structural steelwork is at risk of failure in a fire building regulations also introduce fireproofing requirements.

The Scottish Regs, section D, are a bit detailed - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/build_regs/sect-d.pdf - but you'll notice do flag up the need for fire protection in structural components and steelwork.

In England, Part B of the Regs flags up a similar position - its not available on-line free but Corus (who do know a thing about steel) have a useful and relatively non-technical summary at http://www.corusconstruction.com/leg...s_section1.pdf . Some of you will note on page 5 the admission that most unportected steel sections only have fire integrity for about 15 minutes.

The Canadian Regs aren't available on-line free either, but their national buildings institute flags up across all their documents the risk posed by fire and the need for protection - see, by way of example, http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/cbd/cbd071e.html .

The New Zealand and Australian steel codes, (SNZ, 1997 and SAA 1990) are very similar to each other. The NZ regs section C4 requires....wait for it......structural protection of steel in fire ( http://www.building.govt.nz)


Summary

It is recognised through empirical analysis across a recognised series of standards that structural steelwork weakens significantly under normal fire conditions, and as a consequence codes require additional protection through (for example) the incorporation of passive fire protection systems.

There is no evidence that such tests are wrong, or that fire protection can be safely omitted due to (for example) the efects of heat conduction throughout the affected members.

[SDC]

If I were a betting man, I'd say that Heiwa is unlikely to come a'calling. Anyway, how can he be wrong? He seems so confident. I thought that confidence is always the sign of correctness.

ps Is joke. A weak one at that. Good luck.

[Architect]

I'm pretty confident that you're right.

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by Architect

I'm pretty confident that you're right.

Yeah at this point he likely knows a 'stacked deck' when he sees one.

MM

[TriskettheKid]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Yeah at this point he likely knows a 'stacked deck' when he sees one.

MM

Why's that?

Would you rather the question be more simple? Something like:

Why does steel need to be fireproofed?

[Architect]

MM

1. It was Heiwa that set out the argument that steel was not susceptible to fire-induced failure in typical cases, hence if he is being hoisted on any petards then it is one of his own making.

2. Am I to assume from your comment that you feel that I have in some way misrepresented the case as regards the performance of steel in such circumstances? Is the material which I have posted in some way incorrect or incomplete? Please expand upon where you think I have unfairly "stacked" the deck.

Yours aye,

Arch.

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Yeah at this point he likely knows a 'stacked deck' when he sees one.

MM

I guess you can call Reality a "stacked deck" when you try to work against it.

[Architect]

Well, we know that Heiwa has been on, and been posting, but he's not responded to this thread.

That's right, the man who keeps referring us back to his own paper and demanding that we critique it has refused to respond to a thread debunking his claims regarding the inherrent fireproofing characterstics of steel.

I'm drawing a conclusion here.....

[Architect]

You know, Heiwa, I can see that you're on the board.

I think you can't answer the question put to you in this post, because it completely debunks your theory.

That really sums up the quality of your paper for me: easily debunked, and you can't respond to technical criticism.

[Sunstealer]

I suspect he's trying to understand the wiki article on creep and failing miserably. As a metallurgist I can't help but chortle (although I have some sympathy).

[Terral]

Hi Architect:

If this represents your “WTC-7 Collapsed From Building Fires” Case, then these readers have been severely short changed. Where is Architect’s precedent for Building Fires causing ANY modern day steel-framed skyscraper to collapse demolition-style into its own footprint like this? The fact is that you have no case for anything like that in the history of this planet. Right? :0) Of course. My WTC-7 Controlled Demolition Thread is here.

Quote:

Architect >> On the debunkers thread, Heiwa has suggested that one of the underlying flaws in the NIST collapse report is the steelwork would be inherrently resistant to heat-induced failure under typical fire conditions.

In that case, then Heiwa would be 100 percent correct, because typical building fires burn between 800 and 1000 degrees and structural steel melts at 2795 degrees. If structural steel was susceptible catastrophic collapse from typical building fires, then men would have started erecting structures from a much better material. The fact that you have no case for any steel-framed skyscraper suffering catastrophic failure from typical building fires anywhere in history means the architects and engineers have been doing a very good job of selecting the best available building materials possible.

Quote:

Architect >> The purpose of this thread is to provide Heiwa with an opportunity to post the evidence for this quite remarkable claim.

No sir. The purpose of this thread is for Architect to make his own thesis, claims and conclusions from whatever he calls credible evidence. Heiwa then has the opportunity to post his rebuttals or counterproposals the very same way.

Quote:

Architect >> Just to kick things off, let's look at how steelwork responds to fire. Heiwa, I'd like you to tell me if there are any errors that I make. And be specific.

The concept of how steelwork responds to fire has nothing to do with the WTC-7 steel-framed network that suffered catastrophic failure in just a few hours. In fact, a good look at the building in freefall mode (from this website) shows no signs of fire through the unbroken windows at all. However, this Madrid skyscraper burned like a Roman Candle (story) for over a day and did NOT suffer any collapse. Mr. Architect here is getting ready to razzle dazzle you with statistical bullony rather than apply any of that to WTC-7 or anything else.

Quote:

Architect >> Testing Criteria


Firstly, the lay reader may be interested to learn that there are, of course, formal standards to test the fire performance of structural steelwork.
The general procedures used for determining the fire resistance of load-bearing elements of structure are specified in BS476 series. In assessing the performance of fire protection materials the relevant parts are:

Part 20 Method of determination of the fire resistance of elements of construction (general principles)

Part 21 Method of determination of the fire resistance of load-bearing elements of construction

Take all of this Part 20 Method of determination bullony and toss everything into the garbage can, because none of this drivel means anything. What is the problem with this picture? You can put a pot on the burner (watch this short video) and cook all day long and never cause the thing to soften, melt or suffer catastrophic failure, but WTC-7 collapsed demolition-style into its own footprint like any typical building implosion. Testing a piece of metal in a laboratory has NOTHING to do with the characteristics of structural steel part of a steel-framed network where heat is transferred readily and very easily between columns, beams, girders and bar-joists. We are not talking about what ‘can’ be accomplished in ‘testing’ anything, but what building fires did to massive WTC-7 steel columns and beams to transform this massive skyscraper into this little pile of debris in a collapse that lasted about 6.5 seconds. This skyscraper was not hit by any Jetliner and as you can see no windows are even broken on this entire side of the building, even at the time of collapse.

Quote:

Architect >> Performance of Steel in Fires

Hot finished carbon steel begins to lose strength at temperatures above 300°C and reduces in strength at steady rate up to 800°C.

Architect's statement (pasted from here) is very misleading in many ways. First of all, this “Thermal and mechanical properties of materials” documentation relates to “6.2. Steel” and NOT “Performance of Steel in Fires.” This paper was created to demonstrate the properties of ‘hot-finished carbon steel, stainless steel, light gauged steel and related concrete rebar reinforcing, bolts and welds.’ Testing of any metal in any laboratory means the introduction of controlled temperatures for controlled durations, but this WTC-7 case is about how burning office furniture transfers heat energy to massive steel columns and beams protected by 3-hour spray-on insulation and gypsum wallboard designed specifically to keep heat OUT.

The problem with Architect’s methodology is that building fires typically burn in a single location for only about 20 minutes. Therefore, his ‘testing’ gibberish has nothing to do with how building fires took down WTC-7 any more than the man on the moon. His next problem is that WTC-7 was built using Compartmentalization (see 5.3.3 Compartmentalization) of all supporting steel members ‘away’ from one another in sub-compartments designed also to eliminate the possibility of ‘building fire collapse’ from the equation. That means primary steel supports were separated horizontally by solid concrete slabs and vertically by curtain walls to ‘stop’ fire penetration BEFORE the fuel source could be extinguished.

Think about this very carefully and the realization will dawn that the Official “Building Fires Did It” Cover Story has a ZERO probability of being ‘the’ 911Truth: Even if you had fifty fires in different areas of WTC-7 (and you had very few), then those fires would burn at around 800 to 1000 degrees for twenty minutes ‘inside’ their own compartments for the fuel source to be extinguished LONG before any structural steel could become softened by anything. And yet ‘all’ the primary supports were ‘severed’ (cut) for WTC-7 to collapse demolition-style in a very short time.

What I hope to see from Architect is a real “WTC-7 Collapsed From Building Fires” Thesis Paper with whatever he calls ‘credible evidence,’ which hopefully is much more than his pitiful ‘testing’ information.

GL,

Terral

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Terral

Hi Architect:
If this represents your “WTC-7 Collapsed From Building Fires” Case, then these readers have been severely short changed. Where is Architect’s precedent for Building Fires causing ANY modern day steel-framed skyscraper to collapse demolition-style into its own footprint like this? The fact is that you have no case for anything like that in the history of this planet. Right? :0) Of course. My WTC-7 Controlled Demolition Thread is here.

In that case, then Heiwa would be 100 percent correct, ...
No sir. The purpose of this thread is for Architect to make his own thesis, claims and conclusions from whatever he calls credible evidence. Heiwa then has the opportunity to post his rebuttals or counterproposals the very same way.

The concept of how steelwork responds to fire has nothing to do with the WTC-7 steel-framed network that suffered catastrophic failure in just a few hours. In fact, a good look at the building in freefall mode (from this website) shows no signs of fire through the unbroken windows at all. However, this Madrid skyscraper burned like a Roman Candle (story) for over a day and did NOT suffer any collapse. ...

Take all of this Part 20 Method of determination bullony and toss everything into the garbage can, ...

Architect's statement (pasted from here) is very misleading in many ways. First of all, this “Thermal and mechanical properties of materials” documentation relates to “6.2. Steel” and NOT “Performance of Steel in Fires.” This paper was created to demonstrate the properties of ‘hot-finished carbon steel, stainless steel, light gauged steel and related concrete rebar reinforcing, bolts and welds.’ Testing of any metal in any laboratory means the introduction of controlled temperatures for controlled durations, but this WTC-7 case is about how burning office furniture transfers heat energy to massive steel columns and beams protected by 3-hour spray-on insulation and gypsum wallboard designed specifically to keep heat OUT.

The problem with Architect’s methodology is that building fires typically burn in a single location for only about 20 minutes. ...
Think about this very carefully and the realization will dawn that the Official “Building Fires Did It” Cover ...
What I hope to see from Architect is a real “WTC-7 Collapsed From Building Fires” Thesis Paper with whatever he calls ‘credible evidence,’ which hopefully is much more than his pitiful ‘testing’ information.

GL,Terral

The dumbest reply in fire safety history. Wood is better than steel in fire. Your perfect post of dumb ideas, wrong ideas, very bad ideas, false ideas continues unabated due to lack of knowledge, rational thought, logical thinking and maturity. I see you are trying to mix some stuff with your errors and lack of knowledge on 9/11. try reading books instead of internet trash sites


This is why they try to put fire proofing on steel. But after a short period, the steel fails anyway. A short period is less than a day. WTC7 fires burned all day. Sad you use zero facts to even match your lies with.


This building was totaled by fire; Terral, it is not here any more; only a concrete core held it up, and fire fighting efforts kept the bottom from more damage, but the building was destroyed by fire. You need to pick a building that did not have steel collapse in two hours, it hurts your stupid idea that steel can not fail in fire. Terral you forgot about the 20,000 gallons of fuel in WTC7 and the damage from tons of debris. Why are you void of knowledge and missing the ability to make logical conclusions?
The steel encased in concrete kept this building from falling. But the building was destroyed by steel; too weak to remain. Sorry, steel fails in fire; you are too ignorant on the subject to know. Lack of knowledge.

Fire in WTC5 causes failure of steel. WTC5 did not fall down totally, but it was totally destroyed by fire! How come you lack knowledge on fire and steel?

Just a regular building, burned, steel is sagging. Sorry, you have zero knowledge on fire and steel. Why are you lacking knowledge in fire and steel and all subject to do with 9/11?

One dumb post to add to your perfect string of WRONG posts.

[Furcifer]

Originally Posted by Terral

Where is Architect’s precedent for Building Fires causing ANY modern day steel-framed skyscraper to collapse demolition-style into its own footprint like this? The fact is that you have no case for anything like that in the history of this planet. Right? :0) Of course.

Absurd. Progressive collapse has been defined since 1968. Look up Ronan Point Apartment. Since then it has been a major consideration in structural design.

[leftysergeant]

The typical high-rise steeel structure is built with fire protection for the steel built into the design. Smaller structures generally lack extensive fire protection and are notoriously prone to collapse, McCormick Place, the Windsor Tower, the South Carolina furniture warehouse and the Kader Toy Factory being prime examples.

Larger structures, such as WTC and the ESB are built with some sort of fire protection built in, such as the concrete in the ESB and the foam coating in the WTC. I tyoical fire conditions, they would stand, but the conditions in the WTC were grossly atypical, involving, as they did, mechanical damage to the fire protection and the irregular distribution of stress due to the impact damage.

All the same rules of physics applied, but, owing to the unknowable factors introduced by the conditions inside the effected floors, they would apply in such a way as to render any design safeguards ineffectual, and a total description of the results unobtainable, regardless how much of the steel was preserved for forensic purposes. The slightly different placement of a desk or chair can greatly alter the results of hundreds of foot-pounds of force being directed at a wall behind it. It might even effect the amount of radiated heat that a particular column would recieve, thus the dimensions of that column as heat accumulated.

Admittedly, my knowledge of construction is gained from the perspective of a fire fighter and construction laborer, but it has always been my belief that the strength of a structure depends on the correctness of the allignment of members joined to each other. Random heating of steel members would have to mean that those members were no longer of the right lengths, thus placing more stress than intended on any joints.

Clearly, any conclusion based upon how steel behaves in an orderly system is irrelevant to the analysis of its performance in a chaotic system. I am, thus, not even convinced that the loss of strength in the steel members over-all is as important as is the amouint of stress placed on the joints between the members.

[Terral]

Hi Beachnut:

Quote:

Beachnut >> The dumbest reply in fire safety history. Wood is better than steel in fire.

Terral’s Reply >> Here and here.

GL,

Terral

[Terral]

Hi 3body:

Quote:

Terral Original >> Where is Architect’s precedent for Building Fires causing ANY modern day steel-framed skyscraper to collapse demolition-style into its own footprint like this? The fact is that you have no case for anything like that in the history of this planet. Right? :0) Of course.

3body >> Absurd. Progressive collapse has been defined since 1968. Look up Ronan Point Apartment. Since then it has been a major consideration in structural design.

You have got to be kidding. Here is a picture of where a series of balconies collapsed (story) and suffered structural damage. The idea that you can compare that to the WTC-7 Controlled Demolition is absolutely astonishing. We are looking for something similar to WTC-7 (built in 1985) collapsing from building fires in just a few hours. That means the fire starts in the morning and the skyscraper like this falls flat into a neat little pile the same afternoon. BTW, where are the signs of fire damage in this picture?

GL,

Terral

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Terral

We are looking for something similar to WTC-7 (built in 1985) collapsing from building fires in just a few hours. That means the fire starts in the morning and the skyscraper like this falls flat into a neat little pile the same afternoon. BTW, where are the signs of fire damage in this picture?

Can you even identify a single large skyscraper similar to WTC7 that has had a large fire in it and not collapsed?

I bet you can't.

[Par]

Originally Posted by Terral

Hi Beachnut: Terral’s Reply >> Here and here. Terral

Argument from incredulity.

[Par]

Originally Posted by Terral

Please Find Us Just One Steel-Framed Skyscraper To Collapse From Building Fires

Straw man. No one is claiming that the buildings collapsed due to fires alone.

Special pleading. Can you cite an example of a building similar to World Trade Center 7 that has suffered similar damage and yet has not collapsed? No. You cannot. But you don’t consider that question to be quite so important.

[Terral]

Hi Lefty:

You appear to be very knowledge about building design and fire protection countermeasures for writing commentary on the WTC-7 case. You wrote,

Quote:

Lefty >> Clearly, any conclusion based upon how steel behaves in an orderly system is irrelevant to the analysis of its performance in a chaotic system. I am, thus, not even convinced that the loss of strength in the steel members over-all is as important as is the amount of stress placed on the joints between the members.

We can agree 100 percent that the way steel behaves in the laboratory is very different from steel members part of any steel-framed network where heat is transferred to neighboring members readily and very easily. The point about the stress placed upon the joints between the members could be a valuable piece of the puzzle in solving this WTC-7 case. Surely you realize that WTC-7 had an insufficient number of fires to affect the entire steel-frame network. And yet, the entire building managed to collapse ‘symmetrically’ demolition-style, which means ‘all’ system components had to be ‘cut’ simultaneously. Otherwise we would be looking at steel columns and beams connected together into a much larger debris pile than you see here.

The question then becomes:

Can you see any way ‘Building Fires’ can be responsible for the ‘severing’ of all these massive columns, beams, girders and bar-joints incorporated into this massive steel-framed network ‘apart’ from the use of Controlled Demolition techniques being used?

Thank you in advance,

Terral

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Terral

Hi Beachnut: Terral’s Reply >> Here and here.
GL, Terral

What a fact filled rebuttal! You must of studied hard to make such a fact less post to keep you perfect record. Please forget about looking up facts on fire. Your post say it all. You laugh when you can not find a single fact, a single logical conclusion, and no viable idea about 9/11? This is it, you laugh and continue to fail to bring one real idea, one reasonable conclusion to any discussion on 9/11.

I have to say, your response is the best you can do, and you have not yet broken your unblemish record of WRONG, even with simple fire and steel.

[Terral]

Hi Par:

Quote:

Par >> Straw man. No one is claiming that the buildings collapsed due to fires alone.

Please start Par’s “WTC-7 Collapsed From Building Fires and Something Else” Topic at your earliest convenience, so the rest of us have the opportunity to come behind and write our rebuttals. Are you saying the 'Something Else' looks like this? Until we can actually look at your thesis paper and your evidence, then Par is just another little three letter word . . .

GL,

Terral

[Par]

Originally Posted by Terral

Please start Par’s “WTC-7 Collapsed From Building Fires and Something Else” Topic at your earliest convenience, so the rest of us have the opportunity to come behind and write our rebuttals.

There’s no need to get upset. The building was also heavily damaged.

[Par]

Originally Posted by Terral

Are you saying the 'Something Else' looks like this?

HTTP 403 Forbidden.

[Par]

Originally Posted by Terral

...Par is just another little three letter word.

Word!

[Terral]

Hi Beachnut:

Quote:

Beachnut >> What a fact filled rebuttal!

Thank you very much. Did Beachnut write the OP Thesis Paper? No. However, I did present a rebuttal to Architect here in Post #11. Right? Now Mr. Architect has every opportunity to begin writing his defending arguments IF indeed he has any. Beachnut is also invited to write advocating or opposing arguments to Architect’s Opening Post offering, if he can ever get over his fixation upon TERRAL. :0) If you really think for one minute that anything was proven by your apples to oranges “Wood is better than steel in fire.” (heh) nonsense in Post #12, then congratulations.

Keep up the good work, because their hands never get tired,

GL,

Terral

[Furcifer]

Originally Posted by Terral

Hi 3body:
You have got to be kidding.
Terral

I'm not sure what kind of analogy you're trying to draw here. Progressive collapse and global collapse, while unique, were not unheard of. As of 1968 building code around the World (from what I've read) began to reflect what happened at Ronan. It never happened before because they took measures to prevent it. However, nothing of this magnitude had ever happened before so how could they have anticipated it?

PS-I never compared the two, if you actually read what I wrote I said the outcome of Ronan lead to this being a major consideration in future buildings. The collapse of WTC1,2,7 lead to further considerations in this area.

[leftysergeant]

Thanks for those pics of steel damaged by fire, Beachnut. Could yopu provide a link where I could explore that a little further. This is more consistant with what I know of the performance of steel in a fire by both my training and life experience. The Shermn's Necktie beams are really a good comeback to those who do not think the Class A fires were hot enough to effect the steel in the towers.

[Max Photon]

I love that all of the smarties are arguing my model for me.

Thanks guys!

[Lensman]

Quote:

Originally posted by Terral:
In that case, then Heiwa would be 100 percent correct, because typical building fires burn between 800 and 1000 degrees and structural steel melts at 2795 degrees. If structural steel was susceptible catastrophic collapse from typical building fires, then men would have started erecting structures from a much better material. The fact that you have no case for any steel-framed skyscraper suffering catastrophic failure from typical building fires anywhere in history means the architects and engineers have been doing a very good job of selecting the best available building materials possible.

(my bolding)

Why do you keep insisting on quoting the the melting point of steel?
Can't you get it through your thick skull that melting isn't necessary?
All that's required is that the steel softens & loses some of its strength!
This has been pointed out numerous times - to the point that it seems that you can't actually see the words "loses strength" but automatically insert the words "molten steel" or "steel melts" or some such.

[Architect]

Originally Posted by Terral

Hi Architect:

If this represents your “WTC-7 Collapsed From Building Fires” Case, then these readers have been severely short changed. Where is Architect’s precedent for Building Fires causing ANY modern day steel-framed skyscraper to collapse demolition-style into its own footprint like this? The fact is that you have no case for anything like that in the history of this planet. Right? :0) Of course. My WTC-7 Controlled Demolition Thread is here.

An auspiscious start to your rebuttal. This thread was started some time ago in response to the rapidly departed Heiwa's incredible (in the litteral sense) claim that stail was inherrently fire resistant. You will note that there is no mention of WTC-7 anywhere, indeed I don't think I've ever debated that particular building.

Quote:

In that case, then Heiwa would be 100 percent correct, because typical building fires burn between 800 and 1000 degrees and structural steel melts at 2795 degrees. If structural steel was susceptible catastrophic collapse from typical building fires, then men would have started erecting structures from a much better material. The fact that you have no case for any steel-framed skyscraper suffering catastrophic failure from typical building fires anywhere in history means the architects and engineers have been doing a very good job of selecting the best available building materials possible.

How peculiar. You seem to be suggesting that steel retains its integrity up to 2795 degrees. Are you sure about that? Really sure?

Quote:

No sir. The purpose of this thread is for Architect to make his own thesis, claims and conclusions from whatever he calls credible evidence. Heiwa then has the opportunity to post his rebuttals or counterproposals the very same way.

If you're not happy with the evidence cited, then explain where the likes of the BSI go wrong. Incidentally, Heiwa ran away from this argument (see above).

Quote:

The concept of how steelwork responds to fire has nothing to do with the WTC-7 steel-framed network that suffered catastrophic failure in just a few hours. In fact, a good look at the building in freefall mode (from this website) shows no signs of fire through the unbroken windows at all. However, this Madrid skyscraper burned like a Roman Candle (story) for over a day and did NOT suffer any collapse. Mr. Architect here is getting ready to razzle dazzle you with statistical bullony rather than apply any of that to WTC-7 or anything else.

Can you tell me what the Windsor Tower in Madrid was constructed of, perhaps? In detail? Then revise your conclusions on comparable construction types?

Does statistical balloney mean test results and the like? Because that seems to me like awfully solid material.

Quote:

Take all of this Part 20 Method of determination bullony and toss everything into the garbage can, because none of this drivel means anything.

I see. When considering technical issues surrounding fire performance of steel, detailed technical papers are.....balloney. How very interesting.

Quote:

What is the problem with this picture? You can put a pot on the burner (watch this short video) and cook all day long and never cause the thing to soften, melt or suffer catastrophic failure, but WTC-7 collapsed demolition-style into its own footprint like any typical building implosion.

I see. What temperature does the burner run at?

Quote:

Testing a piece of metal in a laboratory has NOTHING to do with the characteristics of structural steel part of a steel-framed network where heat is transferred readily and very easily between columns, beams, girders and bar-joists. We are not talking about what ‘can’ be accomplished in ‘testing’ anything, but what building fires did to massive WTC-7 steel columns and beams to transform this massive skyscraper into this little pile of debris in a collapse that lasted about 6.5 seconds. This skyscraper was not hit by any Jetliner and as you can see no windows are even broken on this entire side of the building, even at the time of collapse.

Uh-hu. Laboratory fire testing of steel assemblies typically used in building construction is of no relevance to the consideration of how steel assemblies perform in fires. I see.....

Quote:

Architect's statement (pasted from here) is very misleading in many ways. First of all, this “Thermal and mechanical properties of materials” documentation relates to “6.2. Steel” and NOT “Performance of Steel in Fires.” This paper was created to demonstrate the properties of ‘hot-finished carbon steel, stainless steel, light gauged steel and related concrete rebar reinforcing, bolts and welds.’ Testing of any metal in any laboratory means the introduction of controlled temperatures for controlled durations, but this WTC-7 case is about how burning office furniture transfers heat energy to massive steel columns and beams protected by 3-hour spray-on insulation and gypsum wallboard designed specifically to keep heat OUT.

The purpose of fire protection is to retain the structural work at a temperature whereby it retains it's integrity. This may take the form of gypsum based plasterboards, where 2 layers of broken bond material will provide between 30 and 60 minutes resistance, right up to high-end applied intumescent materials. Generally speaking, the required fire resistance for a building of this type will be between 2 and 4 hours, depending upon regulatory codes.

Of course the fire protection is only as good as its weakest link. And as long as it's intact.

Quote:

The problem with Architect’s methodology is that building fires typically burn in a single location for only about 20 minutes. Therefore, his ‘testing’ gibberish has nothing to do with how building fires took down WTC-7 any more than the man on the moon. His next problem is that WTC-7 was built using Compartmentalization (see 5.3.3 Compartmentalization) of all supporting steel members ‘away’ from one another in sub-compartments designed also to eliminate the possibility of ‘building fire collapse’ from the equation. That means primary steel supports were separated horizontally by solid concrete slabs and vertically by curtain walls to ‘stop’ fire penetration BEFORE the fuel source could be extinguished.

Fires burn for 20 minutes? Then magically the heat dissapates and the fire goes off somewhere else? Great conspiracy by the fire protection manufacturers going on here then, eh?

Quote:

Think about this very carefully and the realization will dawn that the Official “Building Fires Did It” Cover Story has a ZERO probability of being ‘the’ 911Truth: Even if you had fifty fires in different areas of WTC-7 (and you had very few), then those fires would burn at around 800 to 1000 degrees for twenty minutes ‘inside’ their own compartments for the fuel source to be extinguished LONG before any structural steel could become softened by anything. And yet ‘all’ the primary supports were ‘severed’ (cut) for WTC-7 to collapse demolition-style in a very short time.

If I think carefully, alll I see is a lot of ill-informed bluster Terry. Try harder.

Quote:

What I hope to see from Architect is a real “WTC-7 Collapsed From Building Fires” Thesis Paper with whatever he calls ‘credible evidence,’ which hopefully is much more than his pitiful ‘testing’ information.

Last I heard, we were still waiting for the NIST final draft. I don't really think that an architect, sitting in his office, is going to match thousands of man-days of in depth analysis and evidence gathering from a multi-disciplinary team. Not that that seems to have stopped you.

[padragan]

Originally Posted by Terral

Hi Beachnut:




Terral’s Reply >> Here and here.

GL,

Terral

So... are you saying that steel have higher fire protection class than wood?

(of course dimensions are relevant, but you get the overall idea)

If so, could you find some actual specs on that, for EVERY SINGLE firefighter I've asked about it says it's the other way around (the reason clearly illustrated by the pictures supplied by beachnut).

[Max Photon]

Originally Posted by Lensman

(my bolding)

Why do you keep insisting on quoting the the melting point of steel?
Can't you get it through your thick skull that melting isn't necessary?
All that's required is that the steel softens & loses some of its strength!
This has been pointed out numerous times - to the point that it seems that you can't actually see the words "loses strength" but automatically insert the words "molten steel" or "steel melts" or some such.

Lensman,

I have noticed in my adventures that there is tremendous confusion around the difference between melting steel and heat-weakening steel, and that the confusion is incredibly durable.

That significant heat-weakening can occur at a mere 1/3 the melting temperature of steel seems to make no difference.

Max

[DGM]

But Architect, Terral's dad is a general contractor so he know stuff like this.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Max Photon

I love that all of the smarties are arguing my model for me.

Thanks guys!

Hi Max,

If you're going to bring up the subject of your model here, please address the problem with it discussed in my posts at the end of this thread.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Furcifer]

Originally Posted by Myriad

Hi Max,

If you're going to bring up the subject of your model here, please address the problem with it discussed in my posts at the end of this thread.

Respectfully,
Myriad

I think you have a bad link there Myriad (at least I can't open it)

[Furcifer]

Originally Posted by Max Photon

Lensman,

I have noticed in my adventures that there is tremendous confusion around the difference between melting steel and heat-weakening steel, and that the confusion is incredibly durable.

That significant heat-weakening can occur at a mere 1/3 the melting temperature of steel seems to make no difference.

Max

Max,

Still waiting on a proposal of how to heat-weaken steel with thermite. Any thoughts yet?

[stateofgrace]

Originally Posted by Terral

Hi Architect:





In that case, then Heiwa would be 100 percent correct, because typical building fires burn between 800 and 1000 degrees and structural steel melts at 2795 degrees. If structural steel was susceptible catastrophic collapse from typical building fires, then men would have started erecting structures from a much better material. The fact that you have no case for any steel-framed skyscraper suffering catastrophic failure from typical building fires anywhere in history means the architects and engineers have been doing a very good job of selecting the best available building materials possible.
Terral

Really ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/new...t=true&bbcws=2

Time : 00:31. Please explain what happened to this steel beam.

[~enigma~]

Originally Posted by Terral

falls flat into a neat little pile the same afternoon.

Really?!


You woo really gotta come up with undebunked lies otherwise we will all think your ideas are stupid...too late

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Thanks for those pics of steel damaged by fire, Beachnut. Could yopu provide a link where I could explore that a little further. This is more consistant with what I know of the performance of steel in a fire by both my training and life experience. The Shermn's Necktie beams are really a good comeback to those who do not think the Class A fires were hot enough to effect the steel in the towers.

I found the sagging floors from One Meridian Plaza fire, I read the reports I found them on the internet, after some research. Reading about the building fire and how the firemen left for fear of failure, then the fire was put out by the 30th floor fire system. (if I remember, report below)

The WTC5 photo is from the NIST reports. There are examples of steel failure due to fire in NIST.

The steel wood photo was from Gravy or someone who also found information on wood. You can research fire and find that structural wood can hold up in fire better than steel.

I have not cataloged my research travels, however if you have problems finding reports, I can dig through the 3.66 G bytes and 10,053 files and look for sources, and post some sources.

But I can use the things I have to find of all place a 9/11 truth site has the report on One Meridian Plaza.
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/analysis/compare/fema_meridian_049.pdf
or the source
http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-049.pdf Looks like a clean pdf, of the same report 9/11 reserach has. Strange, the best debunkers are truth sites.