This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Are Millions of Business People At Risk of Dying In Collapsing Buildings?

George Washington's picture




 

This is one in a series of safety-related public service announcements.

Death Traps?

Millions of people work in or visit high-rise buildings … assuming the buildings were more or less safe.

But it turns out that there is a severe, lethal risk of sudden collapse in even the best-made skyscrapers in America, Britain, Germany, Japan and other nations worldwide.

A New Understanding

Before 9/11, no modern steel-frame high-rise building had ever collapsed due to fire.

9/11 radically changed our understanding of architecture and engineering …

Specifically, 3 steel-frame buildings collapsed on that day. That includes one that was never hit by a plane, and had only small, isolated office fires prior to its collapse.

This was unexpected, as much hotter, longer-lasting fires have never before brought down a modern steel-frame office building.  For example, the 2005 Madrid skyscraper fire “reached 800 degrees Celsius (1,472 F), said Javier Sanz, head of Madrid firefighter”  and lasted some 20 hours without collapsing.

In other words, officials who write building codes, architects and structural engineers had never before worried about small office fires causing office buildings from collapsing.

Appendix A of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s World Trade Center Building Performance Study notes:

In the case of the fire at One Meridian Plaza, the fire burned uncontrolled for the first 11 hours and lasted 19 hours. Contents from nine floors were completely consumed in the fire. In addition to these experiences in fire incidents, as a result of the Broadgate fire, British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cordington in the mid-1990s to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beam reaching 800-900 °C (1,500-1,700 °F) in three tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600 °C [1,100 °F]), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments.

Underwriters Laboratories tested the steel components at the Twin Towers and found they could withstand fires for hours without failure:

“NIST [the government agency - National Institute of Standards and Technology, a branch of the Department of Commerce - responsible for investigating the collapse of the 3 buildings on 9/11] contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers…. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing… The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11.” (NIST, 2005, p. 140).

Other fire tests have also failed to cause failures at high temperatures.

So the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11 (not hit by a plane) was a surprise … and should be a huge concern to the millions of people who work in office buildings worldwide.

To get to the bottom of this issue, Washington’s Blog reached out to a former manager at Underwriters Laboratories – Kevin Ryan – to seek reassurance that the danger was small for the millions of financial services industry workers, business men, lawyers, web executives, and others who work in office buildings:

[Question]  Wasn’t the steel used in the Twin Towers and Building 7 of inferior quality?  So as long as builders use better-quality steel, can’t we be assured of safety?

[Kevin Ryan]   The steel used to build WTC Building 7 was the standard grade for high-rise construction–still used to this day–called ASTM A36 grade steel. It was not inferior in any way from the steel used to make many of the other high-rise buildings in America.

For the Twin Towers, fourteen different grades of steel were used in the construction, including A36, which has a nominal strength of 36 ksi.  The other grades used were higher strength steels like 100 ksi WEL-TEN steel which was manufactured in Japan and shipped to the States. The steel used in the Towers was actually far superior to typical structural steel.

The official government reports on the destruction of the WTC buildings did not find any problem with the quality of the materials or construction methods used. And although those reports did make some recommendations for changes to building codes, those changes have not been incorporated in municipal codes or adopted by the building construction community.

[Question]   You write in Foreign Policy Journal:

“And if people actually understood and believed the official account of what happened at the WTC they would not enter tall buildings because in doing so they would be putting their lives at risk.”

What do you mean?

[Ryan]  What I mean is that high-rise buildings are designed and constructed to withstand fires that are much worse than what we know existed in WTC Building 7. My former company, Underwriters Laboratories (UL), plays a big part in that process. We know that UL did the fire resistance testing that was behind the selection of the steel components for WTC7 because that fact is in the NIST WTC7 report. Therefore the steel columns and floor assemblies should have withstood 2 to 3 hours of intense fire in a testing furnace, as required by the NYC code.  But on 9/11, the fire lasted only 20 minutes in any given area, a fact that NIST admits, and the entire structure was destroyed due to an inexplicable failure to resist fire.

Moreover, NIST abandoned its previous hypotheses that suggested the destruction of WTC7 might have resulted from diesel fuel fires, or damage from falling debris, or the design of the building. In the end, NIST said that it was only the effects of the fire fed by office furnishings, on fully-fireproofed steel components, that caused the total destruction of this 47-story building. And since no actions have been taken to retrofit any existing high-rise buildings, we must assume that what happened to WTC7, according to the official account, could happen to any tall building that experiences a typical office fire.

No Change (?!)

Given that 9/11 totally changed our understanding of how dangerous small office fires could be, we couldn’t believe Ryan’s claim that “changes have not been incorporated in municipal codes or adopted by the building construction community.”

So Washington’s Blog contacted Richard Gage,  a practicing architect for more than two decades, who has worked on most types of building construction, including one project which used  around 1,200 tons of steel framing:

[Question] Have high-rise architects and engineers changed how they build skyscrapers, to prevent collapses after 9/11?

And have they changed how they build skyscrapers to prevent office fires from knocking down steel buildings?

[Richard Gage] No – they haven’t made any structural changes.

No structural changes?!

Either building code writers, architects and engineers are cavalierly ignoring this catastrophic new understanding of the extreme danger of small office fires, or the investigation into the collapse of World Trade Center building 7 on 9/11 was flawed.

No wonder New York residents have launched a High Rise Safety Initiative to try to protect the safety of those who work or visit office buildings.

Postscript:  Until this issue is resolved through a complete revision of building codes and architectural and engineering practices, we recommend that everyone stay out of office buildings. Because if even small office fires can cause the whole building to collapse, it’s just not worth the risk to go inside.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 02/15/2014 - 16:27 | 4440166 NaN
NaN's picture

Correct, the core did not support the building, the core only supported itself and the elevators and was horizontally stabilized by the floors.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 18:07 | 4440433 Lost Word
Lost Word's picture

The Core supported HALF the weight of the floors.

The Core was a Stabilizer, Not something that needed to be stabilized.

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 21:58 | 4438454 Seer
Seer's picture

"Tons of falliing debris produced a lot of kinetic energy, tearing the Towers apart."

Kinetic energy was apparent, it was exhibited, it ACTED upon matter, matter that presented resistance (opposing force).

Things that explode tend to seek paths of least resistance.  That's why when demolitions folks (using this class of people in a general way) tend to place things like sand bags (mass) over charges (like here: http://dbmbridges.com/Project-20-Holmfield-Demolition.php) so that the charges are directed inward against their target.  Without sand bags or other things focusing the charges the released energy from the charges would tend to radiate outward in all directions.  What focused the energy necessary to force debris to overcome stabilized mass that was presenting resistance, and to do so at a rate that would require MORE than the forces of gravity?

Seems that fire and explosives on a simple building should be able to duplicate what you're saying.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 15:23 | 4439955 moneybots
moneybots's picture

"Tons of falliing debris produced a lot of kinetic energy, tearing the Towers apart."

Kinetic energy was apparent, it was exhibited, it ACTED upon matter, matter that presented resistance (opposing force)."

 

Lay a knife on an unwrapped stick of butter.  Drop a knife on the stick of butter, tip first.  Not much opposing force at that point.  Falling debris stripped the floors from the flanges that held them to the exterior columns, or vice versa, stripped the floor and flange from the column.  The opposing force was no match for falling debris.

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 15:25 | 4437264 RallyRoundTheFamily
RallyRoundTheFamily's picture

Very nice CocknBalls.  Not sure that sounds right.

The only things I am sure about are GW's point and yours.

Have you seen the pictures of the core columns, yeah apply math to the probability they all failed at exactly the same time..twice

WTC 7 is even more laughable.

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 19:46 | 4438097 moneybots
moneybots's picture

"Have you seen the pictures of the core columns, yeah apply math to the probability they all failed at exactly the same time..twice"

 

What all failed exactly at the same time, twice?  The collapse of 2 world Trade was not the same as the collapse of 1 world Trade.  The two jetliners did not strike the Towers in the same manner.  The top of 2 world Trade, tipped over to the east, as it began to collapse, as the jetliner crashed through the east side of the building, concentrating the fire in that section of the building. 

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 01:40 | 4435529 buyingsterling
buyingsterling's picture

/s?

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 02:23 | 4435600 old naughty
old naughty's picture

wtHeck, we assume the planet is safe until some gore-y guy tells us there's global warming (or climate change)...

and then we assume there'd be war-less after UN's established...

and then then we assume there'd no crisis after Im-f and wb/cbs, and BiS (oh, lest we [wouldn't]4get the 1913-thinge were made 'appeared'...

and then we assume god knew what s[he]'s doing when he created us...

we deserve all things happened to us...f-us !

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 03:56 | 4435669 barliman
barliman's picture

 

OR ... if you grew up in that neck of the woods, knew "how business got done" in NYC when they were building the WTC complex, had a background in structural engineering, knew how expensive and difficult it is to apply fireproofing to structural steel in order to get it to work the way it is supposed to in a fire AND weren't dumber than a sack full of hammers ...

THEN ... you would call Bullshit! on the various reports, conspiracy theories et al and put forward an extremely simple explanation of why ALL the buildings fell down on 9/11.

The construction firms that built the WTC complex used NYC UNION LABOR at a time when organized crime directly controlled every union in the city. Want to skim significant money with no one the wiser? Instead of fucking around with the fireproofing application and testing and re-application where necessary - you pay off the building inspectors (What?!? You crazy when has a high rise in this city EVER had a major fire? Or better question, when was the last time you had enough cash to buy a new house?) and have some of your guys make up some dirt cheap shit that looks the fireproofing is supposed to look, slap it on, get the inspection signed off and if somebody notices in 100 years when they tear this place down everybody who "made the job go smoothly" will be dust.

EXCEPT ... somebody flies a plane full of JP3 into both towers and it doesn't matter WHICH grade of steel is in the fire because WITHOUT PROPER FIREPROOFING ... NONE OF IT ... ZERO ... is going to withstand ANY type of sustained fire for an hour, much less two.

BONUS QUESTION: Can anyone guess what happens to structural steel when you heat it up to 1200 F or a shit ton hotter without fireproofing?

ANSWER: IT FUCKING FAILS - suddenly and dramatically because it can no longer support its OWN WEIGHT ... MUCH LESS THE WEIGHT OF THE 30 FUCKING FLOORS ABOVE IT. And the exact same thing is true of WTC 7 with just a "furnishings and fixtures" fire.

GW: Seriously? 1200 tons?  Your expert has done a 2 story steel framed building of moderate size that would normally be designed by someone their first year out of college?

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 09:26 | 4439147 blindman
blindman's picture

are you saying you believe that wtc7 collapse was not a controlled
demolition? i just want to be sure that is your belief if that is
the case and what you have concluded.

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 10:59 | 4436333 KnightTakesKing
KnightTakesKing's picture

Wake the fuck up, barliman. 

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 14:17 | 4436987 barliman
barliman's picture

 

"Math is hard" - general explanation for progtards

"Science requires a SHIT TON of MATH" - general explanation for conspiracy wackos who think ONLY THEY have a clue.

The ONLY conspiracy you need to explain the building collapses at the World Trade Center complex is ORGANIZED CRIME cutting corners to STEAL money.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 10:12 | 4439152 blindman
blindman's picture

@".. ORGANIZED CRIME cutting corners to STEAL money."
i could agree with that if you include in the term "organised
crime" the national security state, government at some levels,
the federal reserve, the banks and rent seeking landlords,
the monarchy/s and the military industrial contractors or
related who "wired" wtc7, etc.. for a controlled demolition well
before the day of 9/11/2001. oh, and not to forget the insurance
industries, the health care complex, big pharma and the petrochemical
cabal and last but not least the media and entertainment organised
mind control crime syndicate.
.
the crime was committed, then officially covered up and then
exploited to great benefit by the many participating co
conspirators. yea, "organised crime" at the highest levels
all were involved to pull of the three components.
execution of the crime, cover up and fruition of the benefits,
the profit. and some people argue on their behalf for a fee.
lie and obfuscate to support the false narrative that excuses
the crime of murder for money.
it is the same story with jfk. etc ...
as old as the bible, older even.
maybe the origin of a kind of uncivil "civilization".
".. ORGANIZED CRIME cutting corners to STEAL money." exactly!

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 10:30 | 4439215 blindman
blindman's picture

"cutting corners",
also cutting core columns to accomplish
controlled demolition; sounds like the
federal reserve to me, analogically speaking
in a foreshadowing sense.

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 19:54 | 4438125 Lost Word
Lost Word's picture

Just like Organized Crime was the only conspirator in the JFK killing?

The Pentagon Joint Chiefs of Staff directed the killing of Kennedy.

The Pentagon Joint Chiefs of Staff directed the destruction of 9-11.

False Flag attack that targeted its own building.

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 22:17 | 4438511 barliman
barliman's picture

 

Let me guess, you believed the FBI nonsense that organized crime has been eliminated?

You don't know fuck all about the military if you believe the JCS has the collective intelligence of the average rodent.

There are 'black operations' that literally don't exist - but they DON'T report into the JCS - the largest collection of politically appointed jack-offs in DC.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 12:50 | 4439507 xavi1951
xavi1951's picture

Barliman - See how fast the libtards on ZH can get off the topic and end up discussing their conspiracy theories?  Everything is a conspiracy!

They can't see that this article is really just another GW 'the sky is falling' article that he will use to support another article as fact.

GW writes about conspiracies and the libtards love conspiracies so they love GW and give -1 to anyone that speaks contrary to their beliefs.

They will call you names, call you a moron, idiot...... they can't think for themselves so calling names is their response.  Have fun, I do.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 23:18 | 4440816 barliman
barliman's picture

 

I've been on here forever ... long before the Axel-trolls, Conspirati and even the Chinese government sponsored "participants". Unfortunately, the "good old days" only lasted as long as it took for the media to realize there was a website getting quoted MORE than their experts. As I said above:

"Science requires a SHIT TON of MATH" - general explanation for conspiracy wackos who think ONLY THEY have a clue.

The one chart I posted is all anybody with two brain cells needs to review to understand what every motherfucking licensed structural engineer in the world said when they watched the first tower fall,

"There was no goddam fireproofing on the steel." - if you've done that professionally there IS no other cause that brings that down in that period of time.

Asshats with art degrees speculating about controlled demolition AGAIN don't know jack shit about what it takes to pull it off, structures or what happens in a tall building burning that hot.

Controlled demolition is an exercise in DYNAMICS - ALL the explosions CANNOT happen at once, which means you have to design the demolition process allowing for the motion of ALL the stuff already falling in addition the the things you plan to put into motion. 

  • Those arguing it was put in place when they built the Towers, sorry maroons, the state of the art in controlled demolition design & engineering was not at the level that would have allowed for the result you are claiming when they were built. 
  • It was put in just before 9/11, again maroons, watch Youtube videos of what has to be done to SET UP a controlled demolition collapse. Lots of precisely shaped charges contained to maximize their effect with a crap ton of precisely measured, redundant wiring because you ONLY get one shot.
  • Most importantly, maroons, the explosives and the wiring would NOT have survived the fires raging for 30 minutes BEFORE the collapse.
Fri, 02/14/2014 - 16:06 | 4437397 The Black Bishop
The Black Bishop's picture

Great fucking explanation. You are so full of fucking bullshit.

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 18:06 | 4437811 barliman
barliman's picture

 

And just for you ... "Truth hurts and you can't fix stupid."

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 05:51 | 4435769 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

He happens to be right, especially about people being dumber than a sack full of hammers ...

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 08:56 | 4435987 theliberalliberal
theliberalliberal's picture

steel gets a little bit weaker as it gets a little bit hotter

the side of the build with the fire might fall (slowly) and pull the rest of the build that way with it.  not congruently falling at 9.81m/s

 

we all know the deal

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 14:11 | 4436949 barliman
barliman's picture

 

Amazing - you got ONE thing correct.   "steel gets a little bit weaker as it gets a little bit hotter"

Now take off your tin foil hat, click on the link and scroll down to Table A.3 Critical Temperatures for Various Types of Steel  - compare/contrast fireproofed versus non-fireproofed failure times.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxA.htm

WHAT a FUCKING SURPRISE !!!

Here's another newsflash - when steel gets hot enough - it not only passes its elasticity limit at which point it FAILS - it passes its plasticity limit at which point its like OVERCOOKED spaghetti -  and exactly how fast would 150,000 tons of overcooked spaghetti FALL at Ground Zero?

9.81 meters per second per second - just like ANY OTHER unsupported object at that point on the Earth.

(For those of you on meds - note that the various graphs and charts they are referencing are shown by name and publication date - you WANT to believe the CIA was getting false design data published 30 years BEFORE 9/11 - get your doctor to UP your meds)

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 16:01 | 4437381 The Black Bishop
The Black Bishop's picture

You are a fucking moron and need a fist to the face badly.

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 18:10 | 4437806 barliman
barliman's picture

 

A walk through the combined depth of your intellect, wit and courage would be insufficient to wet the tops of my toes.

Please feel free to vent your unresolved anger issues by pursuing your continued plumbing of the depths of stupidity.

ETA: I grew up with the Mafia - went to school with kids who followed in dad's career track. You are the perfect example of why they never fear the public at large - they KNOW they can always keep YOU distracted and looking at everyone BUT them.

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 21:22 | 4438367 Tall Tom
Tall Tom's picture

The fires were restricted to limited floors. Your spaghetti analogy is quite lacking.

 

By the way I understand that the ACCELERATION due to Gravity is 9.81 meters/sec2. Note that the Time Unit is SQUARED. The unit Meters per Seconde refers to a velocity.

 

Meters per second per second is so High School...er...Grade Schoold. If you do not know how to invert a fraction and multiply then I really do not have time for you.

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 22:09 | 4438477 barliman
barliman's picture

 

Let's see ... try to explain to a maroon who can't visualize the effect of sudden catostrophic failure (but then again, you didn't go to the link and look at the table - that might cause a bit of doubt to creep into that tiny little space between your ears) ... much less the far easier "chimney effect" within the 30 floors above the fire ... nope, would be like pushing on a rope.

Take your semantics to a physicist and see if he slaps you upside your head, ok? OK.

Hold tight to your delusions, folks - the more you chase your own tails, the easier it is for the "man behind the curtain'.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 00:34 | 4438793 Tall Tom
Tall Tom's picture

I am a Physicist.

 

There are many other Physicists on this website. They do not "bitch slap" me, pal.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 00:51 | 4438852 barliman
barliman's picture

 

There are all kinds of loony tunes on ZH.

Didn't look at the chart, did you?

The first statement is proved by the second statement - together they establish you're NOT a physicist.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 21:26 | 4440906 Terminus C
Terminus C's picture

Is that you Dick?

You know we told you to stay off the Internet after you shot your buddy in the face...

 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 23:16 | 4441211 barliman
barliman's picture

 

Loony Tunes Exhibit A

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 13:59 | 4436896 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

You're wrong and clearly have no knowledge of structural engineering or steel framed construction.  I'm willing to bet what's really driving your illlogical beliefs is a strong dislke for dubya.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 09:22 | 4439139 blindman
blindman's picture

@"illogical beliefs." are you claiming to be exempt
from this "deluded" state. my question is do you believe
that wtc7 was not a controlled demolition?
because the "owner" said it was on t.v..
and an expert in the field, when confronted with
the video of the collapse affirmed it most definately
was a professional controlled demolition.
logical people might take those two facts as
significant when forming their opinion on the matter.
just sayin'. not to mention the naked eye has a way,
when connected to a thinking brain and what not, of discerning
some basic and obvious causes from observed effects.
not always reliable, granted, but sometimes pretty damn good.
.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!