This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Are Millions of Business People At Risk of Dying In Collapsing Buildings?
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 -
Dang, Dude! Do you realize what you just said?
I said a lot.
I meant to apologize for being snarky while implicitly respecting your shop skilz in my earlier post, and imply there was more thought and experience than just looking at specs that went into what I wrote.
But what I didn't write was that the specs are important and sometimes they're all you get on the engineering (and even the fabrication) side, and the underlying science has to hold up.
A while back, I was contracted to build some hangars to house and service Russian built military aircraft. The hangar itself is simple, it's a big building, with big doors, and a big floor. But then you get to cranes and some other machinery for servicing the aircraft... The cranes have to make very specific lifts within very tight tolerances. Otherwise that precision piece of titanium you crafted with a water saw gets bent and alters the aerodynamic stability of the plane, or the engine gets dinged against a sidewall while being replaced after service and a hose gets crimped or cut, or some piece of conductive metal creates an electrical circuit that really should never exist outside of aerial combat. The Russian design bureau sure as fuck isn't giving me a sample plane to test or play with, or even the full schematics to their aircraft and all the onboard systems that I theoretically need to take into consideration, I do get a lot more than the publishers of Jane's do, but at the end of the day- I (and everyone else responsible) have to precisely understand the design criteria and the applicable physics and chemistry in order to find a machine that meets the criteria and doesn't violate the laws of physics or chemistry.
Otherwise someone can get hurt or worse, and then the accident investigators and lawyers make the lives of anyone and everyone who ever had anything to do with the hangar or the airplane MISERABLE (unless we're talking about failures of the WTC towers in NY or the OKC Federal Building - then we all get a free pass to party on from Wayne and Garth at the NIST).
BTW - if you simply run an aircraft engine in an enclosed space, something as innocuous as pieces of gravel that become dislodged from wheel treads can (and have) be made to punch through steel walls with simple air pressure and kill people, so the number of unknowns that are excluded from even the most thorough models built by the best engineers when dealing with something as complex as 9/11 is mind blowing.
Other than that I have no idea what I wrote.
You did say a lot. Look bro. I'm not a trained engineer. I'm just someone who schools the trained engineers. The trained engineers are pretty much useless, to me. When they matriculate skool, many of them look at me and my 'stuff' and say "Wow!, I wish I had toys like this." I say, "Did you bring your checkbook."
They get quiet, upon that.
The degree demonstrates an ability to retain basic knowledge, learned from a book or lecture (short term) and it open doors to job opportunities. A guy could have a PhD in automotive engineering, but it doesn't mean I'll let him work on my car. And engineers routinely produce things things that look good on paper, and can pass computer-model validation, but don't work so well in the real world (even a few that I've intellectually waterboarded before hiring). The Pauli Principle (distinct matter occupying the same space and time) should be inviolate to a trained engineer. However, a structural slab can be designed on a computer, reviewed, stamped, re-reviewed by the AHJ over building permits, and yet until people with real world experience go to construct the slab - no one catches the problem that two pieces of rebar don't give a damn about Wolfgang Pauli, or what AutoCad "thinks" will work. Knowledge without experience is BS (or BA, MA, MS, or PhD).
Yes, and you and Tall Tom are basically, and unequivocally full of the very worst kind of shit. Intellectual shit, is without doubt, the very worst variation of shit. The intellectuals always take credit for the 'discoveries' they stumble upon by virtue of their students.
I won't even give Tall Tom that much credit. He seems to think that wikipedia is the end all and be all of knowledge.
Fuck both of you.
See you on the other side, dipshit.
The waterjet I use is not a portable tool. From your words, you seem like a tile man. That's honorable work.
So, design a mosaic for your living room. It would be better if you do so in .dxf. Over a course of a few years, the denizens of ZH will provide a most beautiful floor.
Duplicate deleted.
No. The leading Wing Edge were not Silica Tiles. They were not called "Tiles".
Here is a link for the wing leading edge material...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforced_carbon%E2%80%93carbon
From the article...
Carbon–carbon is well-suited to structural applications at high temperatures, or where thermal shock resistance and/or a low coefficient of thermal expansion is needed. While it is less brittle than many other ceramics, it lacks impact resistance; Space Shuttle Columbia was destroyed during atmospheric re-entry after one of its RCC panels was broken by the impact of a piece of foam insulation from the Space Shuttle External Tank. This catastrophic failure was due in part to original shuttle design requirements which did not consider the likelihood of such violent impacts.
Here is a link which desribes the Entire TPS system of the Space Shuttle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_thermal_protection_system
Frome the link...
The HRSI tile was composed of high purity silica fibers. Ninety percent of the volume of the tile was empty space, giving it a very low density (9 lb/cu ft or 140 kg/m3) making it light enough for spaceflight
Now writing of "Hardness"...
Diamond is the hardest of all materials known to man. It has a Hardness of 10 on the Mohs Scale. Diamond is also extremely brittle due to its Four Cleavage Planes.
Hardness and Brittleness are two Different Physical Properties.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond
Diamond has the highest hardness and thermal conductivity of any bulk material.
Diamonds are extremely hard, but also brittle and can be split up by a single blow.
Now as for my personal work in the Steel Industry... FROM EXPERIENCE.
FROM...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_control
A water jet cutter, also known as a waterjet, is a tool capable of slicing into metal or other materials (such as granite) by using a jet of water at high velocity and pressure, OR a mixture of water and an abrasive substance
Note the key word, "OR"
FUCK YOU. Don't you EVER CONTRADICT ME AGAIN. I can source ANYTHING that I decide to publish.
"I did not know" IS NOT A FUCKING EXCUSE.
Are we clear?!?
Struck a nerve, huh? So, which is it? Carbon fiber or carbon-carbon (refractory material, dipshit)? You contradict yourself there, egghead.
So, is it metal and other materials or steel? Yes, cardboard converters and gasket makers do use straight water- but that ain't steel.
SOOOOOOO MUCH "KNOWLEDGE", and so little practical experience makes you the fool. Wikipedia? LOFL!
Oh, and I'll contradict you, ('til you don't know whether to shit or go blind) anytime I like, egghead.
What, exactly was your experience in the steel industry, btw? How did you cut steel with aluminum? Enquiring minds want to know.
Too stupid to pay attention to Detail? I pay very close attention to detail as the Science which I practice is a precision Science.
You claimed that the Wing Leading edges on the Shuttle were tiles.
Instead of being so God Damned arrogant perhaps it will serve you better to ask me what I am writing about rather than labeling me clueless.
I can source the information about the Shuttle through NASA if I chose.
In fact I did. You can knock yourself out.
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/orbiter/tps/
Did you know that the RCC PANELS were partially made with Silicon Carbide? That stuff has a Hardness of 9.5 on the Mohs Scale, the Second Hardest Material known to man.
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/orbiter/tps/carbon.html
To provide oxidation resistance for reuse capability, the outer layers of the RCC are converted to silicon carbide.
And Foam punched a hole in that? You can watch it...
http://youtu.be/e6mDrMlKqKE?t=56s
I can source the information about Diamonds through the Gemological Institute of America if I chose.
I worked in the Steel Industry as an Engineering Draftsman. I programmed those CNC Waterjets. and Lasers. I worked with a lot of A36.
(I also cost the company a couple of Grand making a mistake once. That poor fuckin' checker...He got too damned used to my precision, got lazy, and let the mistake slip by. Still LMAO about that one.)
We used straight water in the Steel Industry, sometimes along with abrasives, sometimes not, depending upon the job. Of course cutting was slower with water.
Silica wears down the Corundum heads too rapidly. Diamond heads were too damned expensive back then. You do not want to lose a head in the middle of the job. If the job was large and there was a risk of losing the head then we slowed down.
Have you ever been cut by a waterjet? What experience do you have?
Yeah. I enjoy being an egghead. It is much better than being clueless.
So fuck you. Buy into the Bullshit that a Jet cannot penetrate into a Building. The sad part is that IT HAPPENED.
Yes. and all of this experience you have came at the expense of your employer. When are you gonna tell me of your exploits while leading your own enterprise? Yer just another stupid fuck who thinks he's smart.
I never once called you stupid. Corundum? Silicon Carbide? When did I bring those up?
Uh no, I've never been cut by a waterjet. I OWN a motherfucking waterjet. It's a noisy, nasty and seemingly malevolent (at times) piece of machinery. I never felt compelled to put any part of my body under the nozzle.
The diamond mixing tubes are pricey, but worth it in the right environment. There's an outfit in NY developing a material they call "cerbide" for the orifice, looks good so far.
Still, even with a 60kpsi intensifier, I won't be cutting any steel, other than maybe feeler stock, without garnet.
Water is amazing, but it gets less respect than Rodney Dangerfield. A bunch of Ex-Commie PR whores blowing untold amount of hot air out their asses were nominated an Academy Award for some mythical fantasy propaganda piece about how the Kuwait oil fires were put out in '91.
All it really took was some crazy American engineers modding water saws to hot rod cutting performance and little sand which was rather plentiful in the sandbox, and some cash from of people's favorite MIC boogeymen.
But stepping away from what science can actually explain (yet), I've also witnessed homeopathic preparations from Mother Solutions work - which would defy both the Laws of Chemistry and the politics of AMA quackery. There are certain things that have to be killed with relatively high doses of high doses of tetracycline, cipro, or something similar but which tend to wreak havoc on the body particularly with extended regimens, and are grossly inefficient when administered orally. Yet a transdermal application of what is chemically tap water with some microscopic residual contamination of what used to be a prescription drug can result in the same outcome of a traditional and profitable foe Big-Pharma higher dose application. Go figure...
It is funny that you write that. I have Lyme. I think that the antibiotics which are Orally ingested spend most of the time killing off Gut Bacteria.
So I buy Penicillin Injectable from the Animal Feed Stores and IM inject. It hurts a little but is far more effective. Screw Big Pharma.
Most Docs are just pimping Big Pharma's products. But there are more efficient and affective methods out there to cobat chronic Infrection.
Now only if I could get some IV Doxycycline I would do that for six weeks and kill this bug off....
I owe you one for the Nicotinamide suggestion the next time I lay off cigarettes for a couple weeks and can find a Swiss doctor willing to write a prescription, Lobelia inflata tincture helps me with some physical symptoms of withdrawal but not the brain dysfunction.
It sucks that you can't find a competent and reasonable Doc in that huge state. But if don't mind the veterinary route- I know we use various tetracyclines in high density aquaculture (talapia, mudfush, etc) in Ghana, so if you can find a full line (fish) Farm Supply in the People Republic of the Delta Smelt they may be able to help you (or at least direct you to someone who can if the FDA regs are different for aquaculture).
i owe Tom big time too for the niacin connection, that was the missing link for me as well. Lobelia is a beautiful plant -- just read you can burn it as a mosquito repellent, which is always helpful in the summer.
Tom, have you investigated japanese knotweed as a potential remedy for lyme?
http://www.foundhealth.com/lyme-disease/lyme-disease-and-japanese-knotweed
find it fascinating that it's growing as an invasive in exactly the same areas where lyme is spreading, as if nature knows something we don't. also, if you can find a good chinese herbalist in your area, see if they have andrografis. as UR noted, tinctures are best, dropped under the tongue to bypass the gut.
BIG FAT DISCLAIMER (in case you don't know already): you should always err on the overly cautious side and don't mix western medical treatments with herbal/homeopathic remedies, rather try a regimen of one or the other, and give your body a rest before switching over.
Lyme Disease is politicized as it was Genetically Modified at Plum Island. The US Government does not want to claim responsibility. So denial is the SOP.
Thus Docs, when diagnosing Lyme, and who prescribe "overdoses" of antibiotics, are forced out of practice.
It is not that there are no decent Docs. I found one actually. But her Welfare Queen staff fired me as a Patient.
(Welfare Queens were FORCED by Government Edict, to go and become "Medical Assistants". Of course their "Lack of Work Ethic" folowed. This will get much worse under the ACA. DO NOT GET SICK.)
-
He would love to massage your blighted ego over there.
I've noticed something very peculiar about some in the alt-media...they will admit and entertain the ideas of VAST historical and concurrent conspiracies...but 9-11 is a bridge too far.
It's as thought they deeply fear to examine the issue, because the implications, if true, are literally more than their minds can handle.
"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
...by deception...
John Fitgerald Kennedy's SOTU, just before he was killed by a lone (lmfao) gunman in Deely Plaza by a bullet that entered (from behind) the right eye socket, deposited his brains on the trunk of the open lincoln he was riding in and subsequently went into John Connaly's knee, who was riding (well) in front of him.
The fukin' "magic bullet". I was 6 when this happened. It was bullshit then, it is bullshit now.
"John Fitgerald Kennedy's SOTU, just before he was killed by a lone (lmfao) gunman in Deely Plaza by a bullet that entered (from behind) the right eye socket, deposited his brains on the trunk of the open lincoln he was riding in and subsequently went into John Connaly's knee, who was riding (well) in front of him.
The fukin' "magic bullet". I was 6 when this happened. It was bullshit then, it is bullshit now."
JFK's head exploded, thus the blood and brain matter went in all directions. That brain matter was on the trunk, does not prove the direction of the bullet. The upper right side of the skull was blown out, as shown by the flap of scalp whch hung over the right ear. The shot was not fired from the right front.
There was no magic bullet, there was a single bullet. The bullet that sruck JFK in the upper back had to strike elsewhere in the limo when it exited him.
The Zapruder film showed that both Kennedy and Connally suddenly and rapidly moved at the same time. No one else in the limo moved in such a manner at that moment. At the same time JFK's arms jumped up, Connally's right arm jumped up. During the shooting Connally was struck in the wrist.
How old were you, moneybots, when this ACTUAL FUCKING EVENT happened?
He's not real. He is actually a software program controlled by a depressed and middle aged government employee working in some basement in a Rockville, MD office complex. He hasn't seen sunlight for 3 years, and survives by only eating mold covered cheesy poofs.
"The Zapruder film showed that both Kennedy and Connally suddenly and rapidly moved at the same time. No one else in the limo moved in such a manner at that moment. At the same time JFK's arms jumped up, Connally's right arm jumped up. During the shooting Connally was struck in the wrist."
Yeah, and yo' momma got a titty wit' a kickstand. Kennedy clutched his throat a second or two before the back of his head blew off. Flaps notwithstanding. His arm did not "jump up". He clutched his throat as your incompetent snipers hit the governor, too. Why do I call them your incompetent snipers? Forget it, you'll never know."The Zapruder film showed that both Kennedy and Connally suddenly and rapidly moved at the same time. No one else in the limo moved in such a manner at that moment. At the same time JFK's arms jumped up, Connally's right arm jumped up. During the shooting Connally was struck in the wrist."
"Yeah, and yo' momma got a titty wit' a kickstand. Kennedy clutched his throat a second or two before the back of his head blew off. Flaps notwithstanding. His arm did not "jump up". He clutched his throat as your incompetent snipers hit the governor, too. Why do I call them your incompetent snipers? Forget it, you'll never know."
JFK's arms did jump up, elbows out to the side. The back of his head did not blow off. The upper right side blew out, leaving his scalp hanging over his right ear. JFK's arms jumped up simultaneously with Connally's right arm and both men simultaneously moved extremely rapidly, indicating that the same bullet hit both men.
learn the history of the fake zapruder clip.
here a link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLL8diz-7bw
.
they had a decade to "fix" it and couldn't
bother to do it properly.
.
again, an historic "event" played for
profit but most likely manufactured for
just that purpose.
You dis-info agents are fast! First !
Oh, I'm an agent. Funny, I thought I was an ex-aerospace engineer. So sorry.
Shmuck.
cpnscarlet...
You are well aware on how a Jet engine functions...being an aerospace Engineer. The temperature and pressure of exhaust gasses far exceed that of the melting point of the Housings. Hell the Turbine Blades are made from Titanium. The Housings and mounts sure in the hell are not. Can they be air jacketed or other insulator jacketed?
The NIST Report stated that the Fires were only burning for FIVE MINUTES in any particular part of the building.
But what you do not consider is that the Steel that was exposed to fire acted as a HEAT SINK, transferring heat to other Steel Elements. I am certain that you know about Conduction.
Can it be that the housings in Jet Aircraft radiate heat to the atmosphere. Likewise can it be that the heat of the fires in the towers was radiated to the air? Furthermore is it possible, knowing about conduction and Heat Sinks, that the heat was also conducted into the rest of the Steel in those buildings?
Oh yes the buildings fell. There is no doubt about that. But the Government has lied about how it happened. It is clear from the evidence that we do have.
Now if they had claimed that they did not know then it might have been believeable. The evidence of the crime, after all, was, for the most part, destroyed.
But they did not. They came up with a piss poor storyline. And that is the Smoking Gun of the Cover Up.
Do you think that we are all uneducated here on ZH???
For what it is worth.
Was that aerospace structures?
Light weight aerospace structures versus heavy weight structural steel, no comparison.
Unfortunately, some engineers and their designs are failures due to their own stupidity.
However, it was not poor design which destroyed the WTC towers,
but instead destroyed by controlled explosive demolition.
Unlike the aerospace engineer, I had ten years experience with structural steel stress analysis,
including Finite Element Model stress analysis by PATRAN/NASTRAN,
and like all computer work, the results are only as good as the input.
Garbage In, Garbage Out, as the saying goes.
The NIST computer models were GIGO.
"However, it was not poor design which destroyed the WTC towers,
but instead destroyed by controlled explosive demolition."
It was the out of control fires, after the jetliiners had plowed through them, which caused the Towers to collapse.
Oh, out of control fires like this one?
The February 13, 1975 North Tower Fire has been carefully hidden from you. Here are a few reports concerning it.
This 110-story steel-framed office building suffered a fire on the 11th floor on February 13, 1975. The loss was estimated at over $2,000,000. The building is one of a pair of towers, 412 m in height. The fire started at approximately 11:45 P.M. in a furnished office on the 11th floor and spread through the corridors toward the main open office area.
A porter saw flames under the door and sounded the alarm. It was later that the smoke detector in the air-conditioning plenum on the 11th floor was activated. The delay was probably because the air-conditioning system was turned off at night. The building engineers placed the ventilation system in the purge mode, to blow fresh air into the core area and to draw air from all the offices on the 11th floor so as to prevent further smoke spread.
The fire department on arrival found a very intense fire. It was not immediately known that the fire was spreading vertically from floor to floor through openings in the floor slab. These 300-mm x 450-mm (12-in. x 18-in.) openings in the slab provided access for telephone cables. Subsidiary fires on the 9th to the 19th floors were discovered and readily extinguished. The only occupants of the building at the time of fire were cleaning and service personnel. They were evacuated without any fatalities. However, there were 125 firemen involved in fighting this fire and 28 sustained injuries from the intense heat and smoke. The cause of the fire is unknown.
More from the New York Times (Saturday 14th February 1975):
"It was like fighting a blow torch" according to Captain Harold Kull of Engine Co. 6,........
Flames could be seen pouring out of 11th floor windows on the east side of the building.
Listen you stupid fucking shill...WTC was 300 yards away with WTC 6 in between it and the towers. Wtc 6 was stripped down to its steel sructure and remained standing. Don't come here spreading your lies about how damaged WTC 7 was. Everyone here knows is wasn't damaged enough to cause a freefall collapse.
I wish assholes like you would die in a skyscraper collapse
Its strange how only WTC7 fell due to foundation disintegration, but no other surrounding buildings needed enhanced structural foundation support after 9-11.
If "1000s of tons of steel" destroyed WTC7's foundation, why didn't it affect any other buildings in the immediate vicinity other than WTC7' foundation?
I'd be curious as to the makeup of those other buildings. If they are similar then this most certainly does raise an interesting point.
I really don't have the time or patience, but I suspect some background on blast-loading would help to understand this whole thing. For those so inclined:
www.ejse.org/Archives/Fulltext/2007/Special/200707.pdf
Larry 'pull it' Silverstein only buys the shoddest of skyscrappers, everyone was talking about that prior to Sept 10th and asking themselves why he'd buy these dodgy buildings?
He's simply a genius who knew WTC 1, 2 & 7 would fall down one day while the others would stay standing, so he over insured those 3 buildings and by pure luck and without any conspiracy, hit the jackpot on 9/11.
Fun-fact: He always wins the powerball every year too, only buying 1 ticket in 1 draw, he just gets it right every time.
Indeed. What a swell guy that Larry is/was taking on those asbestos filled structures ... now we got some glass buildings in place ya hoo we're open for business!
OK Mr. Pink - Hit a nerve there.
So let's try it this way...what part of my original post was "disinformation"? What data is false? What FACT do I have wrong?
cpnscarlet
try this on for size--if I catch you telling lies about 9/11 to my kids I'll stick a shot gun in your mouth and blow your ugly face off your stupid head. Just want to get things in perspective for ya-- understanding where we stand on this issue is important IMHO.
Here's a start:
Jet fuel can only achieve a temperature of around 495 Degrees F in atmospheric conditions.
It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.
"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington 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 beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."
Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.
Conclusion:
The jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World Trade Center.
My goodness cpnscarlet - you certainly know how to get the trolls out from under the bridge and spinning in little crazed circles. "Facts? I got your fuckin' facts right here - right next to my truss."
Priceless. Keep up the good work and don't let the bastards get you down. Somehow I sense that you won't.
i sense that he will go down and stay there.
i also think you need to pay me a visit beneath my bridge...you are invited!
i am the bastard that will gleefully put you down, like a mange-ridden and snaggle-toothed dog.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI-mDTdeKR8
no, you didn't 'touch a nerve', you preening ass; you're thoughtlessly trafficking in balderdash.
did you just make up "never trust a tress" from whole fucking cloth, thinking its lyric element a suitable substitute for debate? and, furthermore, do you submit 'never trust a tress' as 'data' or a 'fact'? and as to 'data' & 'facts', i see very few, if any. where is your data and facts about these inferior tresses, their tinsel strength's diminution at a given temp...you're not backin up a fuckin thing. you then go on to prattle about how we should 'expect' random skyscapers to shatter from within whenever there's a big bang in the neighborhood.
this is fight club, bitch...take your thin gruel over to huffpo.
you're simply tossing shit against the wall hoping something will stick.
put a sock in it, old fart...you're a boring pedant.
you're defending the indefensible; and, yes, telling people the sky ain't blue has a way of pissing them off.
so, fuck you and your paper aero-planes...go brag about the irrelevance of your experience somewhere else. that, or craft a cogent argument.
btw, i now view all of aerospace in a very dubious manner. for shame, aerospacers; you pass this piece of shit off as a respected professional? i think i'm going to rethink my adventures in the skies after reading cpnscarlet...i think i'm now more terrified of aeroplanes than tall buildings.
love,
janus
One of my structural engineer co-workers would sometimes joke about being afraid to fly in airplanes designed by engineers,
knowing too well how poorly engineering sometimes works in the real world, and not in theory.
Just like any other profession, some are good, and some are bad.
But in any case, WTC was controlled explosive demolition.
"I thought I was an ex-aerospace engineer"
holy shit....that is fucking scary, so now i have to stay off planes as well!!!
So master aerospace engineer, explain the magical flight recorder data that survived the pentagon incident that according to the NTSB would have flown over the pentagon by almost 400 feet rather than crashing into it. It's their data. It must be right! Oh, and how many Gs will a commercial airframe take before being torn apart?
Oh, please explain the maximum airspeed of a 767 at 500 feet ASL. This should be good too.
BUT... the best part is the melting aluminum and appearing DNA! Another Hollywood production, enough to promote suspension of disbelief... Edward Bernays would be proud.