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.

 

NIST recommendations spur new building codes

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Well, I knew it wouldn't be long. The new things in the codes though are more fireproofing.

Source: www.nist.gov...


The model code changes address such areas as the fire resistance of structural components, the use of sprayed fire-resistive materials (commonly known as “fireproofing”), elevators for use by first responders, the number of stairwells, and exit path markings.


So, all we learned from 9/11 is that we need fire protection on construction components? I could have told you that 6 billion dollars ago.


Two more model code changes will be considered for the next edition of the IBC in 2009. In the first case, a broad industry coalition is developing a proposal that would recommend structures be designed to mitigate disproportionate progressive collapse and ensure, for the first time, minimum structural integrity and robustness requirements for structures as complete systems.


I could be wrong but I was taught that once the building is put together that it is considered a "complete system". I could be reading it wrong though.


The second proposed code change would require the use of a nationally accepted standard for conducting wind tunnel tests routinely used for determining wind loads in the design of tall buildings. During its investigation of the collapses of the WTC towers, NIST found that wind load estimates from three separate wind tunnel tests on WTC models differed greatly.


This one is just new wind tunnel tests.

Although I'm glad to see that NIST has had some recommendations to the coding world, I am a little unimpressed with it. Basically what they are saying is that the codes in place now are acceptable with the addition of these three codes.

Now, I haven't read the codes yet, so I could also be way off base in my assumptions here.

Any thoughts? Anyone read the new codes? Are they printed up yet?

Just thought I'd put this info out there. I haven't seen it posted yet.

[edit on 6/28/2007 by Griff]




posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 12:41 PM
link   
lol, i will have a crack. They should add to their codes:

additional security measures and regular/thorough checks on all sections of a building to make sure no explosives are present (still that can be exploited)

All important data is backed up off site/different location incase of fire

security feeds and power supply have offsite backup for powerdowns and upgrades so security is maintained in a powerdown situation with all CCTV data backed up offsite incase of fire

Perhaps in addition to water sprinkers they could have a foam system (rather expensive tho)

a PROPER evacuation procedure which includes preplanned strategies and pre organization between fire dept, police and other emergency services in place, also perhaps yearly drills included. Evacuation strategies could be practiced.

hermetically sealed sections on huge skyscrapers to stop fires from spreading, oh wait hold on, didn't the WTC have that?



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Yes, any code that would make it mandatory for the buildings' owners to make sure that all the occupants have been evacuated from the building before they demolish it, would be nice. Maybe a $1500 fine for any violation of this code.

How about a thermite restraining order. No thermite can come within 1000 yards of any skyscraper.

Peace



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 01:30 PM
link   
You crack me up Dr. Love.

I guess what NIST is saying is that we are s*t out of luck if our steel skyscraper catches fire. We are doomed to have a global collapse with no resistance. Because there are no codes that they can provide to prevent this. Am I reading this right?



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Notice they don't say anything about the type of structure that the WTC had.

Everyone says it's unique but the First Interstate Bank had basically the same layout, though with much smaller columns, and it was only 40 stories:












Where are the external columns buckled? Why wasn't there a pancake collapse?

I want to have it explained to me SPECIFICALLY why the WTC towers collapsed but this one didn't! What was it? I'm sure anyone who ever wants to design another building like this wants to know why.

Surely the components were all equally robust if not weaker, and the fire was just as intense if not moreso relative to the steel, and it burned about three times longer. So why no failures? Surely this contradicts pancake-type theories regarding steel buildings on fire. Something we can learn from, from this building.

[edit on 28-6-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 01:43 PM
link   
WHOA!!!!! Where'd you find this BsBray? This is the first I have heard of this building. Or at least pictures of it. I'm sure you're going to hear "but it wasn't slammed into with an airplane" though.

I'd like the calculations from NIST to show the difference between that. Good find.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11



Where are the external columns buckled? Why wasn't there a pancake collapse?


Not even external columns buckling. Notice in this picture that the drywall columns are still standing and haven't even warped. They wouldn't specifically buckle because there is practically no load carrying going on.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Not to sound morbid, but it would have been nice if the First Interstate Bank had collapsed. Then we would have seen how a real gravity driven collapse looks like.

Seriously. If there were 15% of those columns severed, does it look like the building would just collapse in on itself?



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Not to sound morbid, but it would have been nice if the First Interstate Bank had collapsed. Then we would have seen how a real gravity driven collapse looks like.


I know what you mean, lol.


The First Interstate Bank fire is one of those fires typically given as examples of steel building fires on websites, to show how unprecedented the WTC collapses were. I took its name off of one of those sites and did a couple Google searches, along with the other building fires, but this one turned out to seem the most relevant of any of them.

It had floors sag 48" or so, but no resulting failures.

There are more images, including more detailed floor plans for specific floors where the fire was located, here: www.studyof911.com...

The comments on those photos should have a URL (just take the spaces out) that brings you to a page going into more detail on the fire in relation to those diagrams.


This shows how much of the building was riding on those external columns on the affected floors:



[edit on 28-6-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Just to be fair and play debunker here a little the building you show is purely fire damage and it doesn't have a big hole in the side, the outer wall is still intact and the outer wall is likely still retaining the majority of its load. NIST animations show not only the outer walls were breached but a few core members were likely severed by the impact (which I doubt) but it would mean the load on the outer walls and some of the core would of shifted to other members putting increased tensions on them, which in turn would require less heat for them to buckle.

Still, I am in your corner and I think bombs brought down those buildings.




[edit on 28-6-2007 by VicRH]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by VicRH
but it would mean the load on the outer walls and some of the core would of shifted to other members putting increased tensions on them, which in turn would require less heat for them to buckle.


That's the key. NIST has the ability to find out exactly how the loads would have shifted and exactly how hot the columns would need to get to collapse. Why did they have to tweek their models to initiate collapse?

Oh, BTW, I just remembered. There is a person on the ae4911truth website that is looking into the SAP2000 models that NIST put out. I can't wait to see what they come up with. I'll probably post it when they are done (with full permission and giving them full credit of course).



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
The First Interstate Bank fire is one of those fires typically given as examples of steel building fires on websites, to show how unprecedented the WTC collapses were. I took its name off of one of those sites and did a couple Google searches, along with the other building fires, but this one turned out to seem the most relevant of any of them.


I thought it sounded familiar. I just haven't seen photos before. Or sketches of the layout. Shows how much more I need to research.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I want to have it explained to me SPECIFICALLY why the WTC towers collapsed but this one didn't! What was it? I'm sure anyone who ever wants to design another building like this wants to know why.[edit on 28-6-2007 by bsbray11]


If you believe the official story and the engineering analysis, you know most of the sprayed on fireproofing on the open webbed steel joists was separated rather forceably from the joist by the airplane components flying through the building, thereby removing most or all of the fire resistance of the joists. They then sagged and pulled the weakend outer columns inward causing the collpase.

I'd say the fireproofing in the building in your pictures stayed adhered to steel components and did its job.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
I'd say the fireproofing in the building in your pictures stayed adhered to steel components and did its job.


Just to make it clear BsBray, the First Interstate Bank was a 62 story building. I looked it up. I can't believe I haven't looked into this building more.

darkbluesky,

It burned for over 3 1/2 hours, close to 4 hours.

Fire protection is rated at 2 hours. So that leaves at least 1 1/2 hours of unprotected burning. That's still longer than the trade canters burned for before collapse.

Also, I have been reading that this building's sprinklers were off when the fire happened. Anyone want to verify this? I'm still looking into it.

[edit on 6/28/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 6/28/2007 by Griff]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griffdarkbluesky,

It burned for over 3 1/2 hours, close to 4 hours.

Fire protection is rated at 2 hours. So that leaves at least 1 1/2 hours of unprotected burning. That's still longer than the trade canters burned for before collapse.

[edit on 6/28/2007 by Griff]


You're an engineer Griff...you know all engineers over design everything

Also, the Bank was a conventional fire which one would assume moved through the building as it consumed fuel. Time from ignition to fire out may have been 3.5 hrs but I think it unlikely that many components were exposed to fire for the full 3.5 hrs.

Whole floors of the WTC ignited simultaneously due to the atomized jet fuel.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
You're an engineer Griff...you know all engineers over design everything


That would also include the buildings we are talking about.


Also, the Bank was a conventional fire which one would assume moved through the building as it consumed fuel. Time from ignition to fire out may have been 3.5 hrs but I think it unlikely that many components were exposed to fire for the full 3.5 hrs.


I'll give you this because you're right.


Whole floors of the WTC ignited simultaneously due to the atomized jet fuel.


And yet there are photos of people standing in the hole after collision.

Edit: I said collapse when I ment collision.

[edit on 6/28/2007 by Griff]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Just wanted to say great thread, guys! vic, griff, dr love, all.
bsbray good stuff on Banker's Trust. Of course no plane impact is the relevant diff, but still, it's a great reference, very relevant to the issue.

As for the new codes, I like Dr. Love's answers best. Thermite restraining order... Also keep airliners away. This seems to aggravate a lot of other problems. "New Pearl Harbors" are also bad for building integrity it seems, by whatever specific mechanism. Somehow I doubt any systemwide safety upgrade will address these dangers as it costs billions for contractors to upgrade every building in the country or whatever.

Peace.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   
...and as ever, there is always CD with accompanying seismic recordings to fall back on if structural damage and fire don't do it.


I would have hoped by now that the fire issue would have been resolved. There was an excellent few threads on this a few months ago. The conclusion was that structural damage, and fire combined, were insufficient to cause BOTH WTC 1 and 2 to collapse in near-identical ways, due to the design and over-engineering of the building. NIST themselves even said as much in their FAQ, that I highlighted. LaBTop did some excellent research into the seismic recordings themselves, and other anomalies that were highlighted by them.

The seismic recordings are the ultimate smoking gun IMHO; they are virtually impossible to fabricate due to certain seismic signatures that are very exacting in nature, and were recorded quite independently, under scientific conditions.

The question that should be researched now is: how were bombs/thermate charges placed in the building, and by whom??

[edit on 28-6-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 09:54 PM
link   
The NIST report was in response to critiics saying that the original FEMA
report (big plane hit building, building fall down) was inadequate. What
they were after is evidence that weakened fire codes and corner cutting
in construction caused the disaster. The fire codes were revised in 1968
at the time WTC was being designed. The older 1938 was very strict -
4 hour fire rating, numerous stairways including "smoke tower" which
ran through center of building. Steel members covered by 4-6 inches of
solid concrete or masonary. The 1968 did away with all this
only 3 stairways were required - after all buildings were fireproof! No
sense wasting rental space on unnecessary fire protection! Fireproofing
was reduced to only 1/2 inch of spray on material (mineral fibers and
cement). Solid steel beams for floor support by thin trusses. The stair
were encased in sheetrock vs concrete - when struck by plane the sheet
rock panels were dislodged and clogged up stairways trapping hundreds
of people above the impact. Add to this the massive structural damage
done the airplane impacts and buildings stability was severly compromised.
Many have pointed to InterstateBank and Meriden Plaza (Philadelphia)
as "proof" steel buildings cant collapse. There are numerous problems
with the comparision - Interstate building suffered no structural damage
while WTC buildings had massive holes blown in exterior walls which
unlike earlier buildings were major part of structural support. Fireproofing
was intact vs WTC where was blasted off by debris and impact shock.
The spray on fire proofing was very fragile - like dried mud. Would peel
off very easy. Also fires at Interstate spread through building slowly
moving from one section another - as fire moved on burned out section
would cool off. At WTC jet fuel kindled fires on numerous floors at same
time. Several floors were burning together and each floor in WTC was
one acre in size.

If you really want to look for a conspiracy find out who paid off politicians
toweaken building codes.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 07:22 PM
link   
You might find this thread from a couple of months ago interesting: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please do read the links posted in it. There is a lot to read, but it is worth it. Of particular interest are the comments by NIST, and the Thesis by LaBTop. As yet, no-one has debunked anything he has had to say. He welcomes the challenge.


[edit on 29-6-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join