It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WTC North tower burned for 3 hours at 700 degree C in 1975

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
There most absolutely WAS enough structural damage.


Prove it.


But that as stated by NIST was not the major factor in the collapse, it only aided it.


No, because NIST never said that the impacts caused enough structural damage in the first place. In fact, I think NIST stated that they found it probable that the Towers would have continued standing indefinitely, if not for the fire. But then they failed to show enough additional failure from those fires.

But we can get to that later, after you understand how little damage the impacts actually did. It's in FEMA 2.2.2.2 and 2.2.1.1, as well as NIST's core damage modeling and the safety factors released.


The fire weakened the trusses which bent and pulled away from the inner and outer cores, causing them to collpase.


Once again we have an example of you telling me something I've already heard, and disagree with, as if it is going to convince me this time.

I don't understand why you're wasting your time doing this. At least try.


The core columns which depended on the trusses for stability then became unstable.


This is just absolutely wrong. The core columns were linked with their own flooring system, independent of the trusses linking them to the perimeter columns, and more heavily reinforced (as much as 100 psf, compared to 50 psf for the trusses). Look it up. In fact, look at any diagram of the structure and you'll see the trusses stopped right at the core structure. Shouldn't take long to realize something's up with what you're saying here.


So your claimiing that you have a good case because an experienced structural engineer is going public?


No, but because it just makes sense, once you get past the diarrhea of the fingers, where you just spew conjecture after conjecture that we've all already heard and considered.


But yet you discount the many worlds top qualified structural engineers who worked on the NIST reports?


Many "worlds top qualified structural engineers" also stated after 9/11 that they believed the jet fuel fires melted the steel columns!

Here's a list of quotes and etc.: 911research.wtc7.net...

Among those who espoused this embarrassing bullcrap, that has since been retracted in every even half-assed scholarly publication, were Hyman Brown (WTC construction project enigneer), Richard Ebeltoft (SE at University of Arizona), Chris Wise (SE), Elmer Obermeyer (chairman of a SE firm and called a "guru in his field"), John Knapton (SE, University of Newcastle), Eduardo Kausel (Civil engineering professor at MIT), and Scientific American and Stanford University also published these assertions as matter-of-fact.

These people are, in general and overall, way out of their field. They don't study building fires. They don't study effects of fires on steel. They don't study building collapses, or even dynamic systems, but are professionals with static loads only.

[edit on 30-8-2006 by bsbray11]




posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   
You have voted WestPoint23 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.

For the most part logic must win out here.
There are elements of 9-11 that I question but in case comparing a fire that happend in 1975 to the 9-11 attacks overlooks to many variables. Westpoint seems to have covered the ground pretty well in this reguard.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Ummm.. why wouldn't the 1975 apply here and help us look at the damage fires could cause at the World Trade Centers at those temperatures, even with the fire proofing.. are you using logic?



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 08:36 PM
link   
The fire is what made the call for the fireproofing, and it was contained to ONE floor with smoke damage on six. Read between the lines. This was a disgruntled janitor and some gasoline not a fully loaded airliner travelling over 500 mph.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
The fire is what made the call for the fireproofing, and it was contained to ONE floor with smoke damage on six.


I don't understand this statement. Are you saying that the fire is what made them put fireproofing in the towers?


Read between the lines. This was a disgruntled janitor and some gasoline not a fully loaded airliner travelling over 500 mph.


I think you guys are entirely missing the point of this comparrison. The comparrison is that in '75 there was an office fire lit by fuel (gasoline). Now, there wasn't even damage to the floor trusses, let alone the columns. This fire lasted for 3 hours.....1 hour over the standard fire rating for fireproofing....without any damage to the steel.

Now, on 9/11 we have an office fire lit by fuel (jet fuel...I don't know which burns hotter, jet fuel or gasoline, but I don't think it matters because the fuel was consumed so early). Now, we have significant damage to the floor trusses and columns due to fire.

Forget the impact for a moment because the impact isn't what caused the building to fail. They say it was the additional damage to the steel from the fire. So, in less than an hour we get substantial damage from fire to the trusses, while back in '75 a 3 hour fire didn't do anything. Sometimes I think you guys just want to ignore the obvious. Please quit using the red herring of the plane impacts.....the only relevance the impacts could have in this comparison is the failed fireproofing (if that even occurred).



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 10:18 AM
link   



from www.cooperativeresearch.org...

Additionally, on February 14, 1975 a major fire occurred, the result of arson, which began on the 11th floor of the north tower during the middle of the night. Spreading through floor openings in the utility closets, it caused damage from the 10th to 19th floors, though this was generally confined to the utility closets. However, on the 11th floor about 9,000 square feet was damaged. This was about 21 percent of the floor’s total area (43,200 square feet) and took weeks to repair. Some parts of the steel trusses (floor supports) buckled due to the heat. 132 firefighters were called to the tower in response, and because the fire was so hot, many got their necks and ears burned. Fire Department Captain Harold Kull described the three-hour effort to extinguish it as “like fighting a blowtorch.” [WTC Environmental Assessment Working Group, 9/2002, pp. 10 ;


Notice where it says some of the steel trusses buckled under the heat. I would have to say that this is an interesting statement to say the least. We have direct proof that the fire in 1975 caused buckling from a gasoline fire in a broom closet. There was fire on less than 25% of one floor and it casued buckling. IMagine now what those floors that were engulfed must have endured on 9/11.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71




from www.cooperativeresearch.org...

Additionally, on February 14, 1975 a major fire occurred, the result of arson, which began on the 11th floor of the north tower during the middle of the night. Spreading through floor openings in the utility closets, it caused damage from the 10th to 19th floors, though this was generally confined to the utility closets. However, on the 11th floor about 9,000 square feet was damaged. This was about 21 percent of the floor’s total area (43,200 square feet) and took weeks to repair. Some parts of the steel trusses (floor supports) buckled due to the heat. 132 firefighters were called to the tower in response, and because the fire was so hot, many got their necks and ears burned. Fire Department Captain Harold Kull described the three-hour effort to extinguish it as “like fighting a blowtorch.” [WTC Environmental Assessment Working Group, 9/2002, pp. 10 ;


Notice where it says some of the steel trusses buckled under the heat. I would have to say that this is an interesting statement to say the least. We have direct proof that the fire in 1975 caused buckling from a gasoline fire in a broom closet. There was fire on less than 25% of one floor and it casued buckling. IMagine now what those floors that were engulfed must have endured on 9/11.


Notice how it is worded. Some parts. It goes into detail how much of the floor was damaged but just says some parts of the trusses? I'd like to find an independant analysis of the damage to the trusses. But, I'll give you the benefit and say ok some trusses buckled. When they buckled, did they pull on the outer columns and inner core? I'll be back.....have to research. Good find anyway Esdad.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   
As far as the fireproofing, I was stating that I read there was a change to the fireproofing code around that time and the WTC benefitted from it. They were supposed to replace it all but only got the a certain floor though. I would have to go research to find out how high they got.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   
So, we have one source that says this:


On February 13, 1975, the WTC North Tower was beset by a fire, which "burned at temperatures in excess of 700°C (1,292°F) for over three hours and spread over some 65 percent of the 11th floor, including the core, caused no serious structural damage to the steel structure. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced."

Sources: New York Times, Saturday 15th February 1975

Source
en.wikipedia.org...


And then your source esdad:



from www.cooperativeresearch.org...

However, on the 11th floor about 9,000 square feet was damaged. This was about 21 percent of the floor’s total area (43,200 square feet) and took weeks to repair. Some parts of the steel trusses (floor supports) buckled due to the heat.


So, some parts of the steel trusses buckled (I'm curious as to which "parts" buckled) in your quote esdad but from The New York Times we get that no trusses needed replaced. Now, if they buckled, I'd assume that they would need replaced. Someone is being dishonest of the 2 sources here. Let's try and find out which one and how much damage did the trusses sustain. Sounds like a project to me.

Edit: BTW, I'm trying not to be biased in this. Let's really try and find out the real damage to the trusses. Hopefully not from a CT or Official site.

[edit on 8/31/2006 by Griff]



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Well, the version saying there was truss damage was not from 1975, but 2002 (after 9/11, obviously), from the "WTC Environmental Assessment Working Group". I've also never heard of major structural repairs being done (whereas replacing trusses kind of would be major).



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
(whereas replacing trusses kind of would be major).


Not just kinda.....would have been. To replace trusses, most of the floor would have to be ripped up. I'd still like to see something from '75 to verify what was damaged and what wasn't. BTW, the only reference to there being damage to any of the steel that I can find so far is esdad's source.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   
So far everything I've come up with, I have to purchase. I'm not spending money just to find out that the article doesn't have anything about the damage. Anyone else find an article that is not on someone's site but the original article that explains the damage done?



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   
I cannot find anything else on the issue, jsut the same rehashed article.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Trade Center Hit by 6-Floor Fire, New York Times, 2/14/75, page 41
New York Times, 2/15/75, page 45

These are 2 articles that contain information. Seems that it was confined to mostly the telephone wiring, which the arsonist lit. Seems he may have been using the MO for the movie "The Towering Inferno" released in 1974.

HEre are the original stories. Nothing good.

www.prisonplanet.com...

Only place i could find without paying for it.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Those are the same ones I didn't want to have to pay for. Thanks esdad. It would be nice for this arguements sake if we could verify any damage done in that fire. As usual, the CT sites say no damage and the "official" sites say there was. I wish the disinfo campaign would stop on both sides.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by bsbray11
(whereas replacing trusses kind of would be major).


Not just kinda.....would have been. To replace trusses, most of the floor would have to be ripped up.


Not nessessarily. If the floors were not excessively sagging, they could have just added new components to either side of the affected truss.

I have been involved in a number of roof truss repair projects where this was exactly what was done.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 07:57 AM
link   


Note anything about that picture?

The walls are intact. No impact damage.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Ive just spent 40minutes reading through this thread... i too had never heard of the 1975 fire in the WTC so good find that and an interesting read.
from what ive read and looked into i have to say i agree that the building could and should have been able to withstand the blast from the impact of the plane and the resulting jet fuel fire.
The fact that everyone seems to have overlooked in this thread is that the building's came down in near free fall time. (about 10seconds) you can see this from the video evidance so if you dont already know this go take alook...

what this means as many of you already know is that its coming down at the rate gravity is pulling it down, Now this simpaly CAN NOT HAPPEN if the fire caursed the floor to colapes onto the floor below and thus creating a domino effect that brought down the building. each impact onto the floor below would slow its rate and take up energy - this is simple physics as many of you already know.

This in mind its quite clear what brought down both buildings in the same way(doesnt anyone who thinks fire did it think its odd how they came down in the exact same way),...... explosive charges set in the buildings weeks before the 11th of september, you can even clearly see many charges exploding on the 100's of videos angles availible to everyone of us.
Add this to the 100's of people who were there and heard explosions going off for the entire hour before the first building came down, how can anyone really think it was just the fire?? really how can you???

Matt



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Matthew5012, I had to correct you. The buildings actually fell a bit slower than free fall about roughly 14-16 seconds rather than 10 seconds.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matthew5012
This in mind its quite clear what brought down both buildings in the same way(doesnt anyone who thinks fire did it think its odd how they came down in the exact same way)


What about the fact the damage and fires were similar? If you have two things failed from the same damage, the failures usually do look alike



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join