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.

 

No Steel-Structured Building Has Ever Collapsed Due To Fire

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Not all steel structures that have burned ahve been buildings.

This bridge went into service in 1888. It became the victim of arson in 1974 and has not been used since. In fact, it was completely abandoned, but still poses no danger of collapse to the substantial river and highway traffic that runs underneath it, nor to the residential areas under it.











posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by firehead
The official story is the way it happened. it is perfectly logical, and any engineer would have come to that conclusion without the government telling them.


Then why do many engineers speak out against the official story?

Also please explain where the molten steel found in all the basements and in the debris came from and why it stayed molten for up to 6 weeks?



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



For heat to continue to be generated deep within the rubble weeks after, there must have been a supply of oxygen. Otherwise the fires would burn out and things would cool down. Just like a candle... if you deprive it of air, the flame goes out.


Isn't it interesting that thermite provides its own oxygen, so that it can continue to burn and stay hot even in an oxygen-starved environment?




[edit on 21-4-2008 by ianr5741]



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ianr5741
For heat to continue to be generated deep within the rubble weeks after, there must have been a supply of oxygen. Otherwise the fires would burn out and things would cool down. Just like a candle... if you deprive it of air, the flame goes out.

Isn't it interesting that thermite provides its own oxygen, so that it can continue to burn and stay hot even in an oxygen-starved environment?


Then it's safe to assume that there was an adequate draft to keep the fires going.

Thermite is much like standard fuel/oxidiser mixes such as black powder which don't require atmospheric air to burn. The downside of that characteristic in this case is that the reaction, once started, can't be controlled so thermite just couldn't keep up the heat output for weeks even if there was a mountain of it to start with.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 08:31 AM
link   
My take on the melting in the rubble pile:

The thermite caused pools of molten metal at the base which would have been extremely hot. They didn't continue to burn at that extreme temperature though because once complete, the thermal process is stopped. Once these extreme temperatured piles were covered (insulated) by the debris, they slowly began to cool over the weeks until they were excavated out of the piles.

So, the thermite didn't burn for weeks. The initial extreme temperatures caused by the thermite stayed for weeks because of insulation. Not because of new thermite burning.

That's just my take on it.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


I thought about that possibility some time back because the thermite reaction wouldn't even last out the first day or even the first hour.

A thermite reaction peaks at up to 3000C (typically 2500C) which is



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Jesse Ventura had a GREAT point as well (dont know if this has been posted yet here or not), that when you cook on our "hot plate" stove at home, the temps get up near to the temps that "they" claim melted the steel in the twin towers. But as Ventura points out, why then doesn't the steel "hot plate" or burner melt and sink into the stove?!

Just doesn't make any sense!



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


I see what you're saying. By chance, do you know the R-value of crushed concrete? I don't, that's why I ask.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


I don't have any actual figures for thermal characteristics of concrete but I know it's a fairly good insulator and even better at holding heat due to the high density. Concrete block off-peak domestic heaters were popular not long ago - heat the blocks up overnight and use a fan to blow the radiant heat out during the day.

I can't see such a perfect insulation being achieved in a chaotic collapse though and concrete willingly gives up its heat - I expect crushed concrete would perform much the same as in solid form.





[edit on 21/4/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I can't see such a perfect insulation being achieved in a chaotic collapse though and concrete willingly gives up its heat - I expect crushed concrete would perform much the same as in solid form.


Well, something had to insulate the heat. Because the fact that the heat dissipated tells us that there was loss of heat and not an on-going thermal reaction.

If it was ongoing, the heat would be constant until such time as to be uncovered. Right?



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Imagine a fire not fought. One steel building bits the dust. Funny stuff, no buildings fall due to fire! lol

This is a complete collapse, any 9/11 truth member is welcome to live on the sides. Gee even the WTC tower had stairwells standing OOPS partial collapse at WTC.

Yes the die hard 9/11 truth will rant, partial collapse, then so was the WTC complex. But then who wants to learn physics and prove the WTC did not fail from impact and fire. BTW an impact 7 to 11 times greater than designed aircraft impact of the WTC.

Yes, go ahead you partial collapse experts, and live in this building on those sides, the rent has been cut.

[edit on 21-4-2008 by beachnut]



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut

Imagine a fire not fought. One steel building bits the dust. Funny stuff, no buildings fall due to fire! lol


Yes, very funny how it was a PARTIAL collapse. Please post a global collapse. Thanks.

p.s. Notice the steel frame work still up?


[edit on 4/21/2008 by Griff]



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
Imagine a fire not fought. One steel building bits the dust. Funny stuff, no buildings fall due to fire! lol


No steel building has ever collpsed due to fire no matter how severe.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.




Originally posted by ianr5741
For heat to continue to be generated deep within the rubble weeks after, there must have been a supply of oxygen.
Isn't it interesting that thermite provides its own oxygen, so that it can continue to burn and stay hot even in an oxygen-starved environment?


But where did the heat and oxygen come from Since the fires in the towers were buring out before the collapse and never got hot enough to melt steel?

Yes there are thermite beam cutters and other chemical beam cutters.

[edit on 21-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
NIST assembled a group of typical computer workstations (desk, chair, PC, monitor, manuals & papers) as used in the buildings and burnt them with and without jet fuel as accelerant. The maximum temperature at the fire's peak (at ceiling height above it) was measured at, or slightly above, 1000C.

So yes - typical building contents could produce that temperature in a fire.

Sorry to dig this point back up again, but according to ae911truth:
"Unfortunately, NIST lists only the heat release rates and mass loss profiles--it does not list the
temperatures attained during the tests. This is significant in that it is critical to establish whether common office
furnishings and equipment, such as the WTC buildings contained, could have reached temperatures sufficient to
cause the structural systems to fail..."
-www.journalof911studies.com...

You state that NIST reached a certain temperature during testing but this article says that NIST never measured the temperature of the office fire physical model. Further more, they state that the test conditions did not limit ventilation like the towers did. If they are wrong in the publication, has anyone tried to correct their statements?



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Isn't NIST doing blast scenarios since their report on the impact and fire cause does not match their original computer model?



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 


Funny how your partially collapsed "steel" building looks an awful lot like brick.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
You state that NIST reached a certain temperature during testing but this article says that NIST never measured the temperature of the office fire physical model. Further more, they state that the test conditions did not limit ventilation like the towers did. If they are wrong in the publication, has anyone tried to correct their statements?


From NCSTAR1-5 chapter 4:


Figure 4–8 displays the upper layer temperature for Test 1 at four locations (clockwise from upper left: near window, between workstations, behind workstations, rear wall). The measured and predicted temperatures for all the tests were similar to those shown in Figure 4–8. Peak temperatures near the compartment opening were about 1,000 °C, decreasing to 800 °C at the very back of the compartment.


They did a computer modelled run then an actual test fire with several workstations to ensure the modelling produced reliable results. I note that they actually say 'measured' (via thermocouples) and provide photographs of the fire test plus graphs of temperature in 4 different locations over a 1 hour period. The 1000C peak occurred after approx 30 minutes.






posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Well, something had to insulate the heat. Because the fact that the heat dissipated tells us that there was loss of heat and not an on-going thermal reaction.

If it was ongoing, the heat would be constant until such time as to be uncovered. Right?


To me, the large observed heat loss means an ongoing source of heat is required right up to the point where the hotspot is uncovered and it was most certainly burning in there but without telltale signs of anything exotic.

You have me working hard - checked on thermal characteristics of concrete and, as an insulator, it's not very good at all compared to other building materials like gyprock (drywall or sheetrock). A covering of crushed concrete would literally suck the heat out of hot material over the time period we're dealing with (~6 weeks). Naturally a large mass of concrete would hold much of the heat it extracted for a long time but the temperature would be vastly reduced with the thermal mass reaching equilibrium. To make matters worse, the large amount of steel and other heat conductors spread throughout the pile randomly would be conducting some of that heat to the outside world.

I doubt the temperature would be constant, more likely it would go through peaks and troughs with the location and quantity of fuel encountered and the amount of draft to those locations. A fire is only stationary if the fuel is brought to it continuously.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 06:43 AM
link   
If concrete were an excellent insulator of heat you would rarely if ever see roadway mirages, and I wouldn't burn my feet when walking out to check the mail in the summer time.
I would assume that there would have to be an available draft to produce sustained heat/combustion. But I have no training in the field, and wouldn't presume to be certain.
Things are occasionally counter-intuitive in my field of study as well, but we explain them with formulae, not conspiracy theories



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
Things are occasionally counter-intuitive in my field of study as well, but we explain them with formulae, not conspiracy theories




Unlike NIST who says oh well, it happened. Move along.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join