|
Post by phunk on Sept 1, 2006 0:47:41 GMT -4
True but the windsor building had a concrete core, intact fireproofing, and wasn't hit by a plane doing 600mph. Which brings us back to the point that it was nothing like the WTC and CTs aren't helping their case by mentioning it.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Sept 1, 2006 1:31:24 GMT -4
True but the windsor building had a concrete core, intact fireproofing, . What about (see link) section Analysis Figure 2 Buckling of unprotected steel perimeter columns at the 9th floor (Photo: Colin Bailey)" Quote "The main factors leading to the rapid fire growth and the fire spread to almost all floors included: * the lack of effective fire fighting measures, such as automotive sprinklers * the “open plan” floors with a floor area of 1000m2 * the failure of vertical compartmentation measures, in the façade system and the floor openings It was believed that the multiple floor fire, along with the simultaneous buckling of the unprotected steel perimeter columns at several floors, triggered the collapse of the floor slabs above the 17th floor. The reduced damage below the 17th floor might provide a clue. The fire protection on the existing steelworks below the 17th floor had been completed at the time of fire except for the 9th and 15th floors. When the fire spread below the 17th floor, those protected perimeter columns survived, except for the unprotected columns at the 9th and 15th floors which all buckled in the multiple floor fire (see Figure 2). www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/Edited to fix a quote
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Sept 1, 2006 8:03:54 GMT -4
What feelfree fails to mention is that “chunks of facade started falling off”, i.e. the perimeter columns began to fail, after only 2 - 3 hours.
Mitigating factors: -The Windsor wasn’t by a plane -The steel columns bore relatively little load and weren’t attached to horizontal steel structural elements presumably damaged by the fire
Aggravating factor: -the columns had no vs. damaged / destroyed fireproofing.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Sept 1, 2006 18:05:35 GMT -4
True but the windsor building had a concrete core, intact fireproofing, . What about (see link) section Analysis Figure 2 Buckling of unprotected steel perimeter columns at the 9th floor (Photo: Colin Bailey)" Quote "The main factors leading to the rapid fire growth and the fire spread to almost all floors included: * the lack of effective fire fighting measures, such as automotive sprinklers * the “open plan” floors with a floor area of 1000m2 * the failure of vertical compartmentation measures, in the façade system and the floor openings -In the WTC towers and in #7 there was no effective FF such as automatic sprinklers. There was no water pressure to supply them where they did exist. -The WTC towers also had a open floor area concept - the fires in the WTC were multiple floor fires at the OUTSET of the fire since they were lit by the aircraft impacts. They then did spread more slowly to floors above the impact zone. However it should be noted that the WTC towers were so much bigger than the Windsor building that the entire Windsor's foot print could almost fit in just the core area of the towers! As seen in the south tower the aircraft impact had a lot of debris in the one corner. This contained both aircraft and office debris. Thus it likely contained oxygen containers that would make the fire at that point much hotter than NIST anticipated. The corner columns are a critical support. It is not visible but likely then that in the north tower such a fire was burning in the core area due to the location of the impact. In this case that means that the core suffered a hotter fire than even NIST anticipates in its studies.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Sept 1, 2006 22:10:56 GMT -4
What feelfree fails to mention is that “chunks of facade started falling off”, i.e. the perimeter columns began to fail, after only 2 - 3 hours. Mitigating factors: -The Windsor wasn’t by a plane -The steel columns bore relatively little load and weren’t attached to horizontal steel structural elements presumably damaged by the fire Aggravating factor: -the columns had no vs. damaged / destroyed fireproofing. My reply was to point out that the exterior steel framed columns at Windsor building collapsed because they were submitted to a 23 hours intensive fire-raging inferno- and were caused by level 9 and 15 which were unprotected in reply to the specific point made by Data Cable "The steel-framed exterior sections of the Windsor Tower's upper floors to collapsed due to fire. Do you dispute this?" The fire protection on the existing steelworks below the 17th floor had been completed at the time of fire except for the 9th and 15th floors. When the fire spread below the 17th floor, those protected perimeter columns survived, except for the unprotected columns at the 9th and 15th floors which all buckled in the multiple floor fire (see Figure 2).www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 2, 2006 0:13:30 GMT -4
It does NOT say that they were trying to replicate the collapse, in fact it says the opposite, they stopped the tests before they were allowed to collapse. It says they were investigating factors that led to the collapse. They were trying to replicate the event to the point of collapse, if you want to be more specific. But you are missing my point - they tested their hypothesis by constructing fire models to identify the factors that initiated the collapse. But the tests falsified their hypothesis. And that is specifically the very important finding. But even though NIST admitted in their final report that fact, they waved off the results from inclusion in their hypothesis..... NIST says they were "...cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypothesis." What they should have correctly said is that they could not use these results in their collapse hypothesis because they did not support it, so they simply said the tests "raised issues" and left them out completely. The computer models "raised issues" of validity far greater than the UL models did, but since they were favorable to their theory (at least in a couple of extreme case models), they shrewdly included them in their "formulation of collapse hypothesis". The last sentence is worth noting again, because NIST certainly should have....
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Sept 2, 2006 8:16:46 GMT -4
Turbonium: The steel-framed exterior sections of the Windsor Tower's upper floors to collapsed due to fire. Do you dispute this?
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Sept 2, 2006 12:32:19 GMT -4
What feelfree fails to mention is that “chunks of facade started falling off”, i.e. the perimeter columns began to fail, after only 2 - 3 hours. [...] Aggravating factor: -the columns had no vs. damaged / destroyed fireproofing. My reply was to point out that the exterior steel framed columns at Windsor building collapsed because they were submitted to a 23 hours intensive fire-raging inferno feelfree I quoted your own source to show that the columns started failing after 2- 3 hours of fire exposure. You follow this with the bit about the "23 hour fire". What did you fail to comprehend or if you understood why do you continue to ignore that the columns fell off long before then?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 2, 2006 15:25:05 GMT -4
Thus it likely contained oxygen containers that would make the fire at that point much hotter than NIST anticipated. Oh. Wow. I hadn't thought about that before. Yeah, that would be messy, wouldn't it?
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Sept 2, 2006 22:04:22 GMT -4
My reply was to point out that the exterior steel framed columns at Windsor building collapsed because they were submitted to a 23 hours intensive fire-raging inferno feelfree I quoted your own source to show that the columns started failing after 2- 3 hours of fire exposure. You follow this with the bit about the "23 hour fire". What did you fail to comprehend or if you understood why do you continue to ignore that the columns fell off long before then? Do you talk about "02:15-Chunks of facade started falling off (news report)-" If so I dont see any mention of columns falling after 2 or 3 hours?
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Sept 3, 2006 10:30:18 GMT -4
What do you think the facade was made of?
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Sept 3, 2006 15:12:44 GMT -4
What do you think the facade was made of? Cladding -a building envelope-applied over the external steel columns www.cwct.co.uk/design/home.htm"The building was subjected to a three year refurbishment programme of works when the fire broke out. The major works included the installations of: .... # A new aluminium cladding system"
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Sept 5, 2006 9:32:40 GMT -4
Thus it likely contained oxygen containers that would make the fire at that point much hotter than NIST anticipated. For accuracy, planes do not carry oxygen in the form of pressurized bottles. Rather they carry oxygen generators which produce oxygen through a chemical reaction that also put out a lot of heat. Improper handling of some placed in a airplane cargo hold led to activation and caused a fire that spread rapidly through the passenger compartment of a ValueJet airplane out of Miami before it crashed into the everglades. Activation of just a few of those in one area would put a lot of oxygen into the fire.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Sept 5, 2006 13:58:49 GMT -4
What do you think the facade was made of? Cladding -a building envelope-applied over the external steel columns www.cwct.co.uk/design/home.htm"The building was subjected to a three year refurbishment programme of works when the fire broke out. The major works included the installations of: .... # A new aluminium cladding system"
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 8, 2006 10:59:25 GMT -4
Dr. Jones has been put on paid leave by BYU while they conduct a review of his actions as chairman for "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" and decide if they want him working for them anymore. "BYU has repeatedly said that it does not endorse assertions made by individual faculty," the statement said. "We are, however, concerned about the increasingly speculative and accusatory nature of these statements by Dr. Jones." His paper "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Collapse?" has been removed from the university website. The news story can be found at : DeseretNews.com(edited by LunarOrbit to fix your link)
|
|