Ground Zero Footage

originally posted by: lexyghot

originally posted by: Another_Nut


Google wtc fireproofing . My quote is from the first link

And shows the fireproofing wasn't applied as per my quote.

lexyghot
Your quote says, and I believe it, that IN SOME AREAS, fire protection was never applied.

no

Fireproofing was applied directly to the long joists that supported each of the floors. Inspections of the floors with asbestos-containing fireproofing (up to the 38th floor in the North Tower) found that there were NUMEROUS areas where the fireproofing had never been applied. Top and bottom chords and truss web members were exposed, and the red lead on the trusses was clearly visible in many locations. Photo 1 shows a truss with fireproofing missing from its end where it meets the outside wall. Also, the fireproofing was frequently thinner than the 3/4 inch described in the Federal Emergency Management Agency-funded ASCE BPAT report on the collapse of the towers. Many of the problems observed were clearly the result of poor workmanship.

lexyghot
You have zero evidence whatsoever that it wasn't applied in the areas affected in the '75 fire.

no, the above quote shows that in NUMEROUS areas it wasnt applied (numerous is adj many, abundant
big diverse great large plentiful various copious infinite legion not this adj few a few a bit a little aka some)

but heres SOME for fun

The initial material used for most of the fireproofing ....This was sprayed on structural steel up to the 36th floor and parts of the 37th and 38th floors of the North Tower.....
Inspections of the floors with asbestos-containing fireproofing (up to the 38th floor in the North Tower) found that there were NUMEROUS areas where the fireproofing had never been applied. Top and bottom chords and truss web members were exposed, and the red lead on the trusses was clearly visible in many locations.....
Applying fireproofing to a long-span or any type of joist construction is difficult. The round rods and small angles making up a truss are difficult targets for the installer. Spray fireproofing materials are typically applied from the floor with an extended spray nozzle. The installer may be unable to reach or see certain areas of the trusses that must be covered. This frequently results in thin or absent fireproofing on surfaces hidden from the floor by the bottom of steel members (photo 2). In the WTC, this resulted in sections of the top surface of the bottom chord of the trusses receiving an inadequate coat of fireproofing

that includes the fire affected areas (north tower up to floor 38 ...guess which floor the fire was on )

lexyghot
there are numerous quotes from the fire chief about the '75 fire, and nowhere does he mention a lack of fire protection in that area. No one else mentions it either.

the fire chief is not an insprctor. the inspector mentions it

here

I inspected core columns up to the 78th floor but was unable to access them above that point. These inspections revealed that the bond of fireproofing on core columns had failed in many locations and the fireproofing was falling off the columns in floor-high sheets

here

Photo 1 shows a truss with fireproofing missing from its end where it meets the outside wall.

here

To make matters worse, there were no field tests to determine if fireproofing materials were properly installed until 1977, when the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) published tests for adhesion, cohesion, thickness, and density of applied fireproofing. If these tests had existed in the early 1970s, when the towers were built, then the deficiencies outlined below could have been discovered and corrected.

lexyghot
Instead, he mentions the need for sprinkler systems. Not a peep though about fire protection, SFRM, etc.

no

The fireproofing in any building constructed before the ASTM standards became available in 1977 should be considered suspect.

here were a number of locations in the WTC towers where the work of other trades obstructed the installation of the fireproofing

Fireproofing on joist-to-wall connections was also deficient.

lexyghot
And you can't find one either, otherwise you'd post it and make a valid point.

see above quotes

now time for u to defend this

lexyghot
Fire science and building codes requires that steel buildings have their columns and floor supports have fire protection. Therefore, it is important to understand that fire can indeed collapse steel structures. Denial of this cannot be supported logically.

so now ive proven that in the 1975 fire of the north world trade tower we had

APPLICATION DEFICIENCIES
LACK OF QUALITY ASSURANCE TESTING
DAMAGE TO FIREPROOFING

therfore proving that if this was true

lexyghot
"Fire science and building codes requires that steel buildings have their columns and floor supports have fire protection. Therefore, it is important to understand that fire can indeed collapse steel structures.

the north tower would have fallen in 1975

from here not wiki

a reply to: Another_Nut

You forgot a couple things:

Mr. Morse made his inspections in the 1990s. He discovered the deficiencies then. WTC Towers were completed in 1970 and 1971. Fire was in 1975. WTC1 was complete in 1970. So five years after construction the fire hit on the lowest floors 9-14, with most damage to 11. Asbestos fireproofing was used up to the 36th and 37th floors in the North Tower. Above it, it went to asbestos-free fireproofing. Is it not reasonable to assume that at that time, the fireproofing was still in "new" condition and largely intact during the fire, saving the structure? Also, at the lower levels, the core columns were far thicker including the exterior columns as well.

About all you have done is twist the text into something completely different. Like here:

so now ive proven that in the 1975 fire of the north world trade tower we had

APPLICATION DEFICIENCIES
LACK OF QUALITY ASSURANCE TESTING
ACCUMULATED DAMAGE TO FIREPROOFING

therfore proving that if this was true

lexyghot
"Fire science and building codes requires that steel buildings have their columns and floor supports have fire protection. Therefore, it is important to understand that fire can indeed collapse steel structures.

the north tower would have fallen in 1975

You fail to remember that the fireproofing during the first fire was A) Five years old; B) Asbestos based; and C) not impacted by a 767.

You have really gone off the handle on this attempt to use the inspector's words against him. Reading comprehension is not your strong suit either I see. lexyghot was correct.

a reply to: GenRadek

nope

You fail to remember that the fireproofing during the first fire was A) Five years old; B) Asbestos based

and it had...

never been applied.

so it doesnt matter how long it had been there or what kind of fireproofing it was IF IT WAS ABSENT

and for 3...

"Fire science and building codes requires that steel buildings have their columns and floor supports have fire protection. Therefore, it is important to understand that fire can indeed collapse steel structures.

where were planes mentioned?

see how when this fails

Fire science and building codes requires that steel buildings have their columns and floor supports have fire protection. Therefore, it is important to understand that fire can indeed collapse steel structures. Denial of this cannot be supported logically.

you just add a goal?

Denial of this cannot be supported logically.

a reply to: Another_Nut

Plus you missed this part about how well the asbestos fireproofing worked:

Eco-Freaks: Environmentalism is Hazardous to Your Health!

Pay close attention to what was said about the asbestos fire-proofing.

originally posted by: GenRadek
a reply to: Another_Nut

Plus you missed this part about how well the asbestos fireproofing worked:

Eco-Freaks: Environmentalism is Hazardous to Your Health!

Pay close attention to what was said about the asbestos fire-proofing.

PAY VERY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THIS

asbestos fire-proofing only works WHEN IT IS APPLIED

and this ... you cant escape it by ignoring it

Inspections of the floors with asbestos-containing fireproofing (up to the 38th floor in the North Tower) found that there were numerous areas where the fireproofing had never been applied

eta this

Also, the fireproofing was frequently thinner than the 3/4 inch described in the Federal Emergency Management Agency-funded ASCE BPAT report on the collapse of the towers

and this

truss with fireproofing missing from its end where it meets the outside wall.

right where the towers supposedly started thier fall

a reply to: Another_Nut

I'm sorry what? Asbestos fireproofing was not on the 11th floor of the North Tower during the 75 fire? Where did you pull this nugget from? Do you know how logic works? If asbestos-based fireproofing was applied to the North tower from Floor 1 to Floor 38, then that means, Floor 11 was also covered.

Also Dr. Maines confirmed that there was asbestos fireproofing on that floor at that time. You may want to pull up this book and read through it:
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214154576&sr=1-5

a reply to: GenRadek

are you having problems with this quote

Inspections of the floors with asbestos-containing fireproofing (up to the 38th floor in the North Tower) found that there were numerous areas where the fireproofing had never been applied

numerous areas where the fireproofing had never been applied

that is including floor 11

a reply to: Another_Nut

Did he say which floors? No. A general statement was made. Numerous areas. Where? There were 38 floors. Each one 1 acre in size.

Also it was found that:

A subsequent fire analysis report from an engineering firm noted that the fire, “while reported in the press to have been very hot, did not damage a single primary, fireproofed element.

So it is safe to say that the affected floors may very well have been covered by the fireproofing and saved the structure. If it was missing on that floor, then there would have been far more damage noticed and reported.

a reply to: Another_Nut

Really? They said floor 11? Where? Specifically floor 11?

originally posted by: GenRadek
a reply to: Another_Nut

Really? They said floor 11? Where? Specifically floor 11?

i didnt say that

(up to the 38th floor in the North Tower)

that includes floor 11

numerous areas where the fireproofing had never been applied

so lets say it like this

numerous areas where the fireproofing had never been applied ....(up to the 38th floor in the North Tower)

does that help u?

or here from your own mouth

... to the North tower from Floor 1 to Floor 38, then that means, Floor 11 was also covered.

so if he says

(up to the 38th floor in the North Tower) found that there were NUMEROUS areas where the fireproofing had never been applied.

then logically

that means, Floor 11 was also covered.

a reply to: Another_Nut

Ok, numerous areas. That is the most general statement on can make when talking about 38 acres of office space. Numerous areas. Ok, where? Entire floors? just a couple of trusses here and there? A few columns? I see what you are trying to do here but it wont work. Focusing on a simple wording to try and discredit everything else.

You havet proven anything other than saying fireproofing was not even throughout the structure, which was acknowledged. However, based on the engineering firm that inspected the fire damaged area, found that the fireproofed members there did NOT suffer any damage and the fireproofing did its job. This would mean that the fireproofing was mostly intact and properly applied. This is a world of difference when comparing it to its condition after nearly 30 years.

originally posted by: GenRadek
a reply to: Another_Nut

Ok, where? Entire floors? just a couple of trusses here and there? A few columns?

well lets ask shall we?

here were a number of locations in the WTC towers where the work of other trades obstructed the installation of the fireproofing

Fireproofing on joist-to-wall connections was also deficient.

Photo 1 shows a truss with fireproofing missing from its end where it meets the outside wall.

I inspected core columns up to the 78th floor but was unable to access them above that point. These inspections revealed that the bond of fireproofing on core columns had failed in many locations and the fireproofing was falling off the columns in floor-high sheets

The installer may be unable to reach or see certain areas of the trusses that must be covered.

Top and bottom chords and truss web members were exposed, and the red lead on the trusses was clearly visible in many locations.....

and just for fun

GenRadek
This would mean that the fireproofing was mostly intact and properly applied.

nope did u even read what he wrote?

. The fireproofing in any building constructed before the ASTM standards became available in 1977 should be considered suspect.

The WTC was built before there were accepted standards for determining if the fireproofing as applied in the field would perform properly

Fireproofing on joist-to-wall connections was also deficient. The long-span joists were supported by an angle seat welded to the face of the exterior columns. The fireproofing applied in some places was so thin that the angle seat, the shape of the bolts connecting the joist to the seat, and the bolts holding together the spandrel panels could be readily discerned. According to building drawings, these areas should have had a fire rating of four hours. For such a rating, properly applied fireproofing should be at least one to 11/2 inches thick. At this thickness, the bolts and even the angle seat itself would not be discernable

there are more quotes ...shall i continue?

a reply to: Another_Nut

But he does not say WHICH FLOORS were directly affected. Mind you, he did his investigation in the 1990s. The fire was in 1975, five years after completion. The fires burned on floors 9-13, but most intense fire damage done to 11th. Investigators discovered that the steel structures were NOT affected by the fires. This would mean that the fireproofing WAS SUFFICIENT on that particular floor. Is this fact sinking in yet? The asbestos fire proofing did its job protecting the structural members. It would be helpful to ask him directly which floors had lacking fireproofing. What he discovered 20 years later would explain the conditions that were present on 9/11 and may have contributed to the collapses.

originally posted by: GenRadek
a reply to: Another_Nut

This would mean that the fireproofing WAS SUFFICIENT on that particular floor.

not even he can say that

The fireproofing in any building constructed before the ASTM standards became available in 1977 should be considered suspect.

eta notice how i am quoting a professional and the person who did the inspection

and you are just speculating because u dont like what he said

a reply to: Another_Nut

But was there damage to the steel structure after the fire? If not then, I wonder what that means???

originally posted by: GenRadek
a reply to: Another_Nut

But was there damage to the steel structure after the fire? If not then, I wonder what that means???

it means this

lexyghot
Fire science and building codes requires that steel buildings have their columns and floor supports have fire protection. Therefore, it is important to understand that fire can indeed collapse steel structures

is false and

cannot be supported logically.

a reply to: Another_Nut

???

Ummmmm what?!!!? Did you just??? Seriously?? Did you just do the equivalent of 1+1 = 11?



Seriously? You did not just say that steel structures cannot be affected by fire, did you? Oh Lord. God help you if you did.

This is a lot of bluster from a guy that can't provide any evidence.

I Find it sad that this is the sorry state of today's truthers. Back in the day, you could actually learn something discussing things with truthers.

Nowadays, we get this.

People that don't understand, or choose to ignore, that a statement of insulation missing on "numerous floors" doesn't trump a statement that the insulation was present in the '75 fire.

You have indeed chosen your handle well....

a reply to: Another_Nut

I think some professionals may disagree with you:
ceas.uc.edu... f

www.fireengineering.com...

www.structural.net...

rolla.k12.mo.us...

Also you may want to read up on the McCormick Place fire and what happened to its roof.

Edit to add:

fire.nv.gov...

www.lbfdtraining.com...

Unprotected Structural Steel “I” Beams supporting a lightweight metal building. This type of construction is quite common in industrial and commercial areas of Long Beach and Signal Hill. The term “Unprotected Structural Steel” should be an instant indicator of a lack of fire resistance. Any building with steel structural elements which are not protected by either permanent encasement (masonry materials or concrete) or a sprayed-on intumescent coating such as Gunnite should be noted during walk-through inspections. This type of unprotected construction will result in structural failure if the structural steel elements are exposed to extreme heat (anything over 850 degrees according to some references, which is reached very early in the average interior fire) or direct flame impingement for as little as 10-15 minute time frames (the more heavily loaded the structural element is, the quicker it will fail). The presence of a full sprinkler system which operates correctly will normally double this failure time.

a reply to: GenRadek

ahh osers so easily confused

a little recap perhaps?

lexyghot
Fire science and building codes requires that steel buildings have their columns and floor supports have fire protection. Therefore, it is important to understand that fire can indeed collapse steel structures. Denial of this cannot be supported logically.

Another_Nut
Care to explain the wtc fire in the 70s then?

By your logic it should have collapsed then

Right?

lexyghot
Fires can collapse buildings if they lack their fire protection and not fought.

Another_Nut
Inspections of the floors with asbestos-containing fireproofing (up to the 38th floor in the North Tower) found that there were numerous areas where the fireproofing had never been applied"

ill stop there u can reread the thread if u need to