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: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
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.


It defies EVERYTHING I've actually learned in school. I can't believe there aren't more engineers coming forward with this. Bring some engineering ....please.......I'm waiting to learn how these buildings just folded. PLEASE.


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.


Not even that. I'd bet my life that they are afraid to be called "kook". Seriously, I've spoken to you about this before. The engineering community could blow this out in the open. We are scared though. This is our jobs, our rent, our money. I mean come on. Any person with half a brain can figure out this stuff.

But, I will digress because it just makes me so mad that we can spend all our time finding out what happened at a simple bridge collapse but the most intriguing thing in the 20th century has EVERY scientist looking the other way. WHY? LOOK INTO THE TOWERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
1) It's shape prevents collapse. Pyrimid shapes are the strongest. They last through nukes


Engineering to back this up please. Thanks.


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


Also, back this up. I have heard different. I have heard they actually upgraded the fire proofing.


The rest, I just couldn't stomach. No offense.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Not even that. I'd bet my life that they are afraid to be called "kook". Seriously, I've spoken to you about this before. The engineering community could blow this out in the open. We are scared though. This is our jobs, our rent, our money. I mean come on. Any person with half a brain can figure out this stuff.


Ever see the movie Ant's?

you should rent it download it or whatever..

It would teach most people a lesson about things.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 08:49 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)


First of all. I have never heard of fire load. Please elaborate. What does fire add to load? Give me a freakin break. People. DO NOT LISTEN TO THIS PERSON. He has an agenda. Fire load?


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


I'll give you that. Can you tell us the amount of time it would take for a 110 story column to heat to failure? Let alone 46 more? I'll let you chew on that one for a moment.


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



And I've seen fires started with just a cigarette on hot tar roofing. What's your point? Fires happen? Global collapse due to fire doesn't. Period.

Edit: I want to add as a disclaimer: Though I haven't heard of fire load, it may exist and I will be willing to listen to the engineering principles behind it. Thank you.

[edit on 8/16/2007 by Griff]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
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?


No. And I will freely admit that. That is why I ask for some sane engineering principles to explain this crap. Because NIST and FEMA aren't doing it. Ask the other engineers here. Pootie, Valhall?


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....


Can I ask what else in your career has lead you to believe global runaway collapses happen in steel framed structures? Thanks.

Edit: And I have enjoyed your posts. Everyone's opinion is valid IMO. So, all that I have annoyed (or otherwise)...peace be with you. Take care.

[edit on 8/16/2007 by Griff]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
I hear someone got shot in the head the other day - and he didn't die!

Which by the logic of this thread means that shooting people in the head doesn't kill them



No, Essan, the logic of this thread would indicate that when you shoot someone in the head, their legs don't break, even if two people got shot in the head one day and had their legs shattered by it, and a third person's bones shattered because bits of blood and brains from the other two splashed him.

Hmmm, and there was me thinking your analogy was rubbish. Its actually a very good one! Well done! Just don't bother trying to break someone's legs by shooting them in the head, is my advice.

I can't understand why companies wanting to carry out controlled demolitions on tall buildings don't buy cheap 'planes from that graveyard in Arizona and use them rather than piddling about with cutting charges and such-like. Perhaps it only works when there are Arabs on board?



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 09:31 PM
link   
I done a little looking around when this thread was posted and found some information about the fire and building. I will post some links Saturday when I have time because I know how far I will get without links.

1. The fire lasted approximately 1 hour.
2. The core of the building is steel reinforced concrete.
3. Design changes occured before construction began due to concerns after September 11.
4. Leslie E. Robertsons firm is part of the design team.

carewemust is on to something, I couldn't find any detailed pictures of the construction process.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Engineering to back this up please. Thanks.

...

Also, back this up. I have heard different. I have heard they actually upgraded the fire proofing.


The rest, I just couldn't stomach. No offense.


Certainly

Trianles/pyrimid like shapes are the stongest. Every engineer knows this. Every modern bridge is built in this style for this reason:

London bridge: see the little triangles supporting cables and some structures:



I forget the name of this bridge, but see all the triangles?



Arch bridges are made of triangles



Some bridges use square shapes, but see what supports the roads?



Obviously the pyrimids are the last remaining wonders of the world. THeir triangle shaped too.

Odd shaped buildings often require triangles as their strong point



The first high raised buildng in NY was triagle, and it still stands today.



Many architects, soon to be me as well, always enjoy the use of triangles for strength and good looking too. Rectangled buildings are not the best. This is one of the reasons the WTC collapsed. It's simple for architects to see that WTC was simply unstable and poorly built. It is not sensible to put a buildings strength on its outside:


Rectangles are common in all types of structures, especially buildings. Windows and doorways nearly always take the form of rectangles. However, this shape is generally chosen for aesthetics and reasons of uniformity, not because it is inherently strong. In fact, without support along its vertical sides or the strengthening of its joints -- or both -- a rectangle is highly unstable.

If there is a single most important shape in engineering, it is the triangle. Unlike a rectangle, a triangle cannot be deformed without changing the length of one of its sides or breaking one of its joints. In fact, one of the simplest ways to strengthen a rectangle is to add supports that form triangles at the rectangle's corners or across its diagonal length. A single support between two diagonal corners greatly strengthens a rectangle by turning it into two triangles.

www.teachersdomain.org...

--------
As for the fire protection, it blew off on the planes inpact. That shows it sucked.

--------
I think my other points were very well as well.

-the building had its strength on the ground because of its curved pyrimid shape. A rectangle like the WTC has its strength in its sides. When they go, it all goes. When something curved likt this Chinese building loses a side, well, there are no sides, so it stayes up.

-The building was under construction, what is there to burn??
look, they lost a couple windows. NOTE: it's on the opposit side, the other pic on prison planet shows even less damage:



-it was earthquake proof, so it could not have collapsed. theres was nothing to burn, so the fire died.

thats it.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
1. The fire lasted approximately 1 hour.


So did WTC 2.


2. The core of the building is steel reinforced concrete.


Please explain what the core has to do with composite floor trusses "pulling" in exterior columns?


3. Design changes occured before construction began due to concerns after September 11.


Please elaborate because I can't comment until you do. Thanks.


4. Leslie E. Robertsons firm is part of the design team.


Hmmm. I wasn't expecting that. A surprise none the less. Thanks for the info.


I couldn't find any detailed pictures of the construction process.


Neither could I. Welcome to the world we live. Take care.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
Arch bridges are made of triangles



Do you know what a vernicular structure is? You just posted one. Be back for more.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 09:48 PM
link   
yes verticle, but its height is almost half thata of WTC. Look around at tall buildings, what supports them?



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
Some bridges use square shapes, but see what supports the roads?




Is this a joke dude? You're compairing the Golden gate with pyramids? Because they have a triangular shape? I don't mean to offend but do you know what you are saying?

[edit on 8/16/2007 by Griff]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91

Obviously the pyrimids are the last remaining wonders of the world. THeir triangle shaped too.


Do you know why the pyramids are shaped the way they are? Do you know that soil has a natural friction degree that it will fall at? Sand being around 28 degrees. Did you know or are you spitting things outcha ..you know what.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
yes verticle, but its height is almost half thata of WTC. Look around at tall buildings, what supports them?


Vernicular. It's a type of structure and I'm too tired to give an engineering lesson.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 09:56 PM
link   
It's all triangles. Pyrimids are just 3d triangles. a 2d one has just as much strength as a 3d one when in the right direction. I'm training to be an architect, so i'm bound to know more. I do know what I'm saying, and garrentee you that a square shape reinforced on its sides with triangles could support the pyramids on top of it.

Triangles are "da bomb"



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Sorry if you don't believe me, but it's simple, triangles are everywhere. The WTC had triangles syes, but it was square shape. it was unique in that it was so plain. No other stucture of that height had just a box shape. I cannot recall any similar structures with the shape of the WTC at that heght.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 09:59 PM
link   
DOuble post by accident, edited to be deleted

[edit on 16-8-2007 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Sorry if you don't believe me, but it's simple, triangles are everywhere. The WTC had triangles syes, but it was square shape. it was unique in that it was so plain. No other stucture of that height had just a box shape. I cannot recall any similar structures with the shape of the WTC at that heght.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 10:01 PM
link   
And I know about the sand, but the width of the pyrimids with its shape made it something that wll be there tll the sun goes super nova



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Fire load - I may have mistated it FUEL LOAD I believe is correct term
Also LIVE LOAD - aka the weight of the contents of a building. Gives
you how much stuff will burn inside of building. Since 1960's the
amount of combustibiles has increased several times - most of them
are synthetics (plastic) which burn hotter.

Fireproofing - WTC structural steel was originally covered with
spray on fireproofing 1/2 " thick. The Port Authorithy chief engineer
inn 1996 ordered the material upgraded to at least 1 1/2", Problem was
that space had to be vacant to do it. Only 34 floors out of the 220 total
floors had been upgraded. The impact floors were not among them.
Much of the fireproofing in the impact zone was blown off by the
aircraft impact. George Sleight, a marine engineer at American Board
of Shipping on 91st floor of North Towerafter the impact ripped down false
ceiling noticed that there was no fireproofing on steel floor trusses.

Read "City in the Sky" - James Glanz, Eric Lipton . Gives complete
narrative of fireproofing.




top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join