|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Mar 6, 2007 17:55:16 GMT -4
Remember that the piston like effect was made as a consequence of the intact pile driver theory. I have difficulty believing it is still as powerfull with broken pieces falling on the floor below. It must behave at this point like a broken piston.Right ? Edited spelling Not exactly. There is still a large volume of air being displaced by the falling mass of rubble - more like a pyroclastic flow pusing the air ahead of it out of the way (but without the volcanic heat) than like a broken piston pumping nothing.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Mar 6, 2007 18:02:25 GMT -4
“However, in the 100-year history of structural-steel framed buildings, there is no evidence of any structural steel framed building having collapsed because of fire.”Incorrect STS60 or someone else provided a link to an article about 3 steel building that collapsed due to a fire. Mr. Rice must be unaware of the ‘Sight and Sound Theater’ and ‘McCormick Place’ fires. But have they collapsed leaving mostly only a pile of rubble in only 10 to 16 seconds after a 40 minutes fires localised on few floors .?- I know they were not damaged by a plane crashing into them and their fireproofing was still intact.-
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 6, 2007 18:07:02 GMT -4
This also demonstrate that the calculated collapse time based on the video you refer is not very precise.
Well one of the problems is that in that last 4-5 secomnds of the collapse the camera man is running for his life, so you don't see the end of the collapse. You see it up to 16 seconds and it still has a way to go, there are flashes of it as the camera swings back and forths and it appears to keep going for around another 4 seconds before being totally lost in the cloud of dust, but since the camera isn't on it continuously after 16 seconds, it's impossible to tell when it actually ends.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Mar 6, 2007 21:04:44 GMT -4
Lenbrazil wrote “The subsequent 2006 repackaged documentary Building on Ground Zero explained that the connectors held, but that the columns failed, which is also unlikely.”
He doesn’t say why this is unlikely. I try an explanation Because that suppose that the weldings whose fixed the connectors to the steel columns have not broken under the weight and pressure of the broken floors debris falling onto the floor they support.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Mar 7, 2007 23:54:00 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Mar 8, 2007 10:27:46 GMT -4
He said no evidence of any structural steel framed building having collapsed because of fire (emphasis mine). I wasn't making comparisons; I was merely pointing out that statement is false.
And it was someone else who had provided links. Don't know who.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Mar 8, 2007 11:29:42 GMT -4
He said no evidence of any structural steel framed building having collapsed because of fire (emphasis mine). I wasn't making comparisons; I was merely pointing out that statement is false. Rice point is about a total collapse not a partial collapse because of fire.So Rice is right. “However, in the 100-year history of structural-steel framed buildings, there is no evidence of any structural steel framed building having collapsed because of fire.”
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Mar 8, 2007 11:58:35 GMT -4
“However, in the 100-year history of structural-steel framed buildings, there is no evidence of any structural steel framed building having collapsed because of fire.” A statement which is absolutely, 100%, patently FALSE. Structural steel framed buildings HAVE collapsed because of fire.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Mar 8, 2007 15:19:24 GMT -4
Data Cable beat me to it, but yeah, Rice is simply wrong on this point. It's not a matter of opinion or comparison. His statement, taken literally, is factually incorrect. Examples have been cited before.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 8, 2007 16:19:10 GMT -4
May 10th 1993. The Kader Industrial toy factory in Bangkok caught fire. The main building was a series of three four story steel framed buildings interconnected along a front passageway. The unprotected steel griders started to fail 15 mins into the fire and Building One collapsed 1 hour and fifteen minutes after the discovery of what was then a small fire. Building Two collapsed 15 minutes later, and Building Three half an hour after that. None of the buildings had structural damage previous to the fires. Rice is simply wrong on this pointI thought it needed to be said again.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Mar 8, 2007 17:06:15 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Mar 8, 2007 17:08:21 GMT -4
May 10th 1993. The Kader Industrial toy factory in Bangkok caught fire. A factory is not a high rise Skyscrapers . all the examples you and other cite until now are not about Other High Rise Steel framed Skyscraper Fires Fires Have Never Caused Steel framed Skyscrapers to Collapse 911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.htmlGood try but no cigars.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Mar 8, 2007 17:19:09 GMT -4
A factory is not a high rise Skyscrapers . all the examples you and other cite until now are not about Other High Rise Steel framed Skyscraper Fires Fires Have Never Caused Steel framed Skyscrapers to Collapse There go those goalposts on wheels again. Just to remind you, this thread is about Rice's claims, and he said
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Mar 8, 2007 17:26:55 GMT -4
A factory is not a high rise Skyscrapers . all the examples you and other cite until now are not about Other High Rise Steel framed Skyscraper Fires Fires Have Never Caused Steel framed Skyscrapers to Collapse There go those goalposts on wheels again. Just to remind you, this thread is about Rice's claims, and he said But you and other have taken that quote out of context.... Here the quote in context...demonstrating that he talk about no other high rise steel framed skyscrappers totally collapsed because of fires. "After the 1993 car bomb explosion destroyed columns in the North Tower, John Skilling, the head structural engineer for the Twin Towers, was asked about an airplane strike. He explained that the Twin Towers were originally designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 (similar in size to the Boeing 767). He went on to say that there would be a horrendous fire from the jet fuel, but “the building structure would still be there.” The 10,000 gallons of jet fuel (half capacity) in each jetliner did cause horrendous fires over several floors, but it would not cause the steel members to melt or even lose sufficient strength to cause a collapse. This is because the short-duration jet fuel fires and office combustible fires cannot create (or transmit to the steel) temperatures hot enough. If a structural steel building could collapse because of fire, it would do so slowly as the various steel members gradually relinquished their structural strength. However, in the 100-year history of structural-steel framed buildings, there is no evidence of any structural steel framed building having collapsed because of fire."
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Mar 8, 2007 17:40:51 GMT -4
I don't see anything in his last few sentences that would limit his argument to skyscrapers.
For what it's worth, where he goes wrong in that argument is in ignoring the ten-fold difference in kinetic energy between the design case of an airliner at typical approach speed and the actual cruise-speed impact, with consequently greater structural damage including damage to the fireproofing on the steel beams.
|
|