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.

 

China's Tallest Building Catches Fire, Does Not Collapse

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
One quick question and forgive me if its been asked before:

As part of this physics defying feat, was the building hit by a 200000 lb+ object travaling at 400-500 mph? and full of jet fuel?


[edit on 8/16/07 by FredT]


Either you are the smartest person on the planet.. Or really ahh... nm...

Anyway show us where a jet plane hit WTC 7 again...




posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   
This article en.epochtimes.com... says that the fire
was started by a Welding Torch, which is fairly common. The eye-opening
part of this story though is that in China the police beat the living crap
out of people for taking photos of buildings under construction!
Geezz.
Well all I can say is God Bless America and Democracy.
-cwm

[edit on 16-8-2007 by carewemust]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Ah but in the grand scheme of things, its pretty clear that the jets that hit the towers and caused thier resulting collapse would have weakened the structures in surrounding buldings by both derbits that rained down and caused fire and out right structural trauma to said structures.

Also, to try to use the story without all of the details like numbers of floors, time the fire blazed, content of said structure etc smacks of a strawman argument.............

However we have been down this road before eh?

"Dead Horses to the left, stick to the right" Help yourself



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
As part of this physics defying feat, was the building hit by a 200000 lb+ object travaling at 400-500 mph? and full of jet fuel?


The only thing that did to the towers was sever less than 15% of the columns just on the impacted floors.

Considering what a "Factor of Safety" is, and given that a generalized FoS of 2 is a pretty damned conservative assumption for the columns on a given floor of a skyscraper, then the planes would've had to have knocked out 50% of the columns to reduce the towers to just barely holding themselves up on those floors.

One engineering team that designed the buildings once boasted in the 1960's that there were perimeter columns with an FoS of 20. This was probably in the higher floors just because of how much less weight in general they had to bear, but the columns were still roughly the same size nonetheless.


What it boils down to, is more damage must have been done by the FIRES than was done by the IMPACTS... and there is no precedent whatsoever of fire being able to seriously threaten the global stability of steel skyscrapers. It's happened many times. NIST reports that the WTC Towers had a number of fires in them, the last in 1999 on the upper floors of WTC1, before 9/11. Never had any problems. Then there's the First Interstate Bank, the Meridian Plaza, the Caracas Tower, etc., even WTC5 and WTC6 on 9/11 suffered immense fires without failures beyond beams warping.


What I don't understand, is how the impacts affected the steel, besides severing columns, and starting the fire that all relevant science says should have done nothing.

That's all the planes did, right? Sever some columns? And we even know about how many in each tower, down to a small margin of error. What else is the problem? Am I missing anything else about the planes?

[edit on 16-8-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by carewemust
The eye-opening
part of this story though is that in China the police beat the living crap
out of people for taking photos of buildings under construction!
Geezz.
Well all I can say is God Bless America and Democracy.
-cwm


Just wait till the photography ban in NYC takes affect. Gotta love Democracy.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
However we have been down this road before eh?

"Dead Horses to the left, stick to the right" Help yourself


About the only relevant thing you've posted on this thread so far. Beat, beat, beat..until we finally have some answers.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Just wait till the photography ban in NYC takes affect. Gotta love Democracy.


Ah..interesting! Where can I find information on this? I don't know
how to do a productive web search without turning up thousands of
un-related hits.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by carewemust
Ah..interesting! Where can I find information on this? I don't know
how to do a productive web search without turning up thousands of
un-related hits.


I'm not sure on the details but there's a thread titled something like "Bloomberg burned by ______ brothers" or something like that. As far I was able to tell, they are trying to stop filming in NYC by a crew of more than 2 for more than 15 minutes or something like that.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Thanks..sound's like paranoia to me. But a photography ban
of some type is not out of the realm of possiblity. I wonder why
the authorities would fear "2 or more" photographers more than
one?



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
That's all the planes did, right? Sever some columns? And we even know about how many in each tower, down to a small margin of error. What else is the problem? Am I missing anything else about the planes?


Here is the thing. Im not saying the impact of the a/c alone caused the failure. Perhaps the fire alone may not have caused the failure of the towers. But the two events? (remember tha tthe building was designed with the impact of a Boeing 707 travaling at low speed lost in the fog which has half the MTOW of the a/c that did hit the towers at high speed)

Now I realize that the naysayers have already scoffed at the notion, but the impact of the planes did destroy some of the structural integrity of the building. In addition, the schrapnel effect that was caused by the airframe would also do some damage, but also strip off the fire proffing in the building. In part of out hospital in the service stairwell we have exposed beams covered with the stuff and its like chipping off a tough foam. I did it with a pen as an experiment. If I can chip it off with a pen, then a jagged piece of aluminum for sure will strip it off. With the fireproofing removed from more of the structure than the impact took out that much more of the building was compromised.

When that weakened it put progessivly more and more stress on the surviving structure which could not absorb the load. The open archtecture of the design may also have played alot into this as well.

Its both. The building may have survived one or the other but not both. I have the luck that two members of my family are Civil engineers. My dad and my unlce both agree that the given the scneario, both are surprised the building stood up as long as it did.

Much has been made of the fire as well. However at one point I went through the fire accadamy and have some experience with office fires (we did several scenarios at the fire training complex on treasure Island and one was an office fire). Just about everything in a modern office will burn and quite intensly as well.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
I have the luck that two members of my family are Civil engineers. My dad and my unlce both agree that the given the scneario, both are surprised the building stood up as long as it did.


I'd like to hear more on their thoughts. I am a civil engineer also.

Please ask them about WTC 7 also.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marlborough Red
Whats also funny is I don't recall a Jumbo Jet hitting towers 1&2 either......!


What ever, jumbo jet or not no plane hit the china bldg two planes hit the WTC bldgs, so its not a valid comparison. Also this thread has nothing to do with the WTC arguments so please dont derail it like so many other threads have been.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Here is the thing. Im not saying the impact of the a/c alone caused the failure. Perhaps the fire alone may not have caused the failure of the towers. But the two events?


You're trying to make this a mystical thing, as if the result was greater than the sum of the parts.

I've already told you, and I can provide sources from FEMA and NIST, that less than 15% of the support columns were severed in either building by the impacts. They also destroyed some trusses obviously, but this has more to do with resisting wind loads than gravity. These are accepted as facts.

All I'm asking, is if there is anything else scientific to consider, in what those planes did physically to those buildings.


If not, then MAYBE we're ready to move on and see what the fire could have contributed itself, based on what actual science we have at this point in time as to what real fire does to real steel structures, and even the NIST's tests on replicas of WTC floors. The idea that the fires could have dealt so much more damage to additional supports via buckling or warping or trusses somehow exerting some "pull" on the exterior columns simply by sagging, as to bring the buildings all the way to the ground, defies everything I've seen regarding what fire actually does to steel, or even a steel-framed building.


PS -- I doubt your relatives know how few columns were actually severed during the impacts. If you call them up and ask them point-blank, they'd probably give you a fraction a lot larger than 15/100. Not to mention most civil engineers are neither dynamicists (experts with moving bodies) or metallurgists.

[edit on 16-8-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 04:17 PM
link   
While it's amazing it still stands, remember this

1) It's shape prevents collapse. Pyrimid shapes are the strongest. They last through nukes

2) WTC had its fire protection replaced with weak "eco friendly" crap

3) It has its center strength at ground level like a pyrimid does, and is not supported by its outside like the WTC.

4) It's still under construction, so its damage is actually unbuild sections of the building-no one was injured and the fire was little damage.

5) its earthquake proof, so it must be fire proof as well.

6) Fire was 1 hour, unlike the WTC.

sure you could say WTC was bombed, but I live right by and I saw it come down, no bombs were used.

[edit on 16-8-2007 by Gorman91]

[edit on 16-8-2007 by Gorman91]

[edit on 16-8-2007 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
My only agenda is to educate some people. It hasn't worked so far.


Don't be so sure.

I often hear valid points and possibilities from both sides of the argument, so I don't look at threads such as this as a burden to the site or a stress to my mind at all. All the issues regarding fire damage and structural integrity as well as some of the more curious oddities surrounding 9-11 (before and after the attack) make this subject prime for conspiracy discussion.




posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded


Wait it was hit with a plane... thats been said.. Have a Nice day.

[edit on 8/16/2007 by ThichHeaded]


The WTC had a fire on February 13, 1975, a truck blown up under it on February 26, 1993, and was hit by planes.... Logically speaking.. they fell. So seeing as there was a fire in chinas building not a surprise it is still standing.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 06:07 PM
link   
yes, but it was rebuilt. The WTC had its fire protection replaced with stupid eco friendly crap.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   
What I see is:

building under construction = empty building = no fire load

fire load is the amount of combustibles per sq unit ( lbs/sq ft, kg/sq m)

also what type of materials are in building? Wood, steel, concrete

Are the furnishings synthetic (plastic) which burns with 50-100% more
heat per unit.

How much materials are present? Also WTC being office building were
loaded with thousands of tons of paper and such which fueled fires.

I've seen a fire in an empty building started by welding torch, under
renovation worker set fire inside wall, bitch and half to fight, lots of
smoke, little fire. I take it something similar happened in China



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
What I see is:

building under construction = empty building = no fire load

fire load is the amount of combustibles per sq unit ( lbs/sq ft, kg/sq m)

also what type of materials are in building? Wood, steel, concrete

Are the furnishings synthetic (plastic) which burns with 50-100% more
heat per unit.

How much materials are present? Also WTC being office building were
loaded with thousands of tons of paper and such which fueled fires.

I've seen a fire in an empty building started by welding torch, under
renovation worker set fire inside wall, bitch and half to fight, lots of
smoke, little fire. I take it something similar happened in China



It's a metal superstructure under construction, so it looks worse then it is, and it's only metal. What were you expecting, something serious?


six

posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
What I see is:

building under construction = empty building = no fire load

fire load is the amount of combustibles per sq unit ( lbs/sq ft, kg/sq m)

also what type of materials are in building? Wood, steel, concrete

Are the furnishings synthetic (plastic) which burns with 50-100% more
heat per unit.

How much materials are present? Also WTC being office building were
loaded with thousands of tons of paper and such which fueled fires.

I've seen a fire in an empty building started by welding torch, under
renovation worker set fire inside wall, bitch and half to fight, lots of
smoke, little fire. I take it something similar happened in China

Fred T
I also have been through training and real life fires and have seen the damage done to steel by fires. I have seen steel framed buildings go in less than a hour, steel truss roofs in less than 15 min, with the right fire load. Thedman, I have also brought up about the existint fire loads in the buildings. But I think what bsbray 11 and Griff are trying to say is that fire does not, and will not affect steel to a failure point no matter how hot or how long the fire burned, if I understand their argument correctly. If I mis understand their argument please forgive.

Griff, A question for you..for my own knowledge...You said that you are a civil engineer....Is part of your training how fire affects building materials such as steel , ordinary wood construction, heavy wood timber construction etc? You are very knowlegable and I have learned a great deal from your and bsbrays posts....but everything that I have seen in my career points me down a different direction....

[edit on 16-8-2007 by six]

[edit on 16-8-2007 by six]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join