UAF World Trade Center 7 Draft Report

a reply to: neutronflux

The obvious answer is fire code gentleman.
How pathetic that you couldn't even admit an obvious difference in two separate
incidents. What were you so afraid of anyway?

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: neutronflux

The obvious answer is fire code gentleman.

But you're only guessing

a reply to: mrthumpy

But you're only guessing

You sure about that?

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: mrthumpy

But you're only guessing

You sure about that?

You're making it very obvious

a reply to: mrthumpy

Yes it seems your wit got the better of me!

a reply to: carsforkids

You can claim code all you want. Still doesn’t mean the WTC buildings didn’t have deficient fire insulation. I guess your argument is a moot point.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: mrthumpy

Yes it seems your wit got the better of me!

No, you did that to yourself

a reply to: neutronflux

Deficient fire insulation compared to what? The fires in the
WTC buildings certainly don't seem to exhibit any deficiencies
do they? In fact it looks to me like the insulation performed
perfectly compared to that building in Brazil. I wonder can you
even admit that? No I suppose not. Too scary.

a reply to: carsforkids

I am not sure what your implying? It seems you think there is a connection between fire intensity and fire proofing?

FIREPROOFING" AT THE WTC TOWERS
10/01/2002
www.fireengineering.com... -wtc-towers.html#gref


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. Photo 3, taken in 1994, shows a core column from which the fireproofing had fallen off in a sheet that is several stories high. The red circle and date was the Port Authority's response to the missing fireproofing. This resulted because the steel had not been properly prepared at the time of the initial spray application. Rust scale had not been removed prior to applying the fireproofing. The fireproofing had adhered well to the rust scale, but the rust was coming loose from the steel (photo 4).

In addition, there were a number of areas in the elevator shafts where fireproofing on core beams had been knocked off by elevator cables or had been damaged by foot traffic during installation of the elevator equipment (photo 5).
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 (photo 6).

At least for the towers, they were designed under one set of codes, then there was a code changed during/around the time of their constructing. Can you be specific on what set of codes your are referring to? Then I think the port authority was in a position to pick how they implemented code.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Construction of the World Trade Center

Design elements
Edit
Structural design
Edit
As an interstate agency, the Port Authority was not subject to local laws and regulations of the City of New York, including building codes. Nonetheless, the Port Authority required architects and structural engineers to follow the New York City building codes. At the time when the World Trade Center was planned, new building codes were being devised to replace the 1938 version that was still in place. The structural engineers ended up following draft versions of the new 1968 building codes, which incorporated "advanced techniques" in building design.[87]

So what year of codes are you referring to? And how much / how closely did the Port Authority follow the 1968 code change?

And you are still ignoring the WTC buildings were built to minimize cost by minimizing concrete usage beyond normal practice. The WTC buildings had longer floor spans beyond normal practice, with less mid length support than common practice. And WTC 7 had odd angles floor connections not normally used.

a reply to: carsforkids

Soooo.

I guess I am looking forward to you outlining 1938 NY fire Code. Then you outlining what the port authority picked to follow from the 1968 revision, what the port authority did not follow from the revision.

Then compare that for the codes in countries where the Plasco Building collapse occurred, and the Sao Paulo, Brazil high rise collapse.

a reply to: neutronflux

None of what you just posted means squat partner. I do appreciate you
making a decent attempt at something intelligent but it's really just
much more simple than that. But if you can't follow a long and just be
honest this really is pointless. I know how things are built and the last
thing you're gonna do is tell me about structural iron. Believe me all that
garbage about minimal concrete use is retarded.

Your source is a joke! You can't use minimal concrete but you can use
lightweight concrete.See each deck has to be a certain thickness according
to code period.I don't even want to get into this with you. If you can't be
honest enough and admit WTC 7 was in no way engulfed in the kind of fire
it would take to bring it down?. Then keep blow''n smoke up in ya. That's fine
with me. Try tell'n those guys from the Mohawk nation they put up
inferior buildings see what happens to ya?

All you're doing is regurgitating the science some one is using to lie about a
ton of #. To much to hash over with someone who's likely never been on
a construction site. But thinks he can sit there and argue with someone who's
hung structural red iron and glass in high rise buildings for almost thirty years.

You don't even understand that the more high profile a job is the more everyone
on site, every trade there and the inspectors also. Put more pride into their work
not less not no how no matter what. The towers were put there by old school pal
and they wouldn't allow anything under code on their site. They know the codes
and to say they're just a bunch knuckle draggers. You're looney. They would risk
their lives with inferior anything. So ignorant!

a reply to: carsforkids

None of what you just posted means squat partner.

You too

The obvious answer is fire code gentleman.

But now you don’t want to talk 1938 fire code, 1968 revision, what the port authority did or didn’t adopt? Vs fire code for the other two high rise fire collapsed buildings?

I do appreciate you
making a decent attempt at something intelligent but it's really just
much more simple than that.

Ok? So your ranting? And your the one that brought up fire code? And now you don’t want to cite or reference any actual fire code?

You

But if you can't follow a long and just be
honest this really is pointless. I know how things are built and the last
thing you're gonna do is tell me about structural iron. Believe me all that
garbage about minimal concrete use is retarded.

How is it “retarded”? Concrete is effected by heat differently than steel. Concrete has a different heat transfer rate than steel and fire insulation. And concrete expands differently than steel.

If the WTC buildings didn’t have long unsupported spans, but had spans supported by concrete columns that is normal practice, then they would have behaved very differently in a fire, is that false.

Your source is a joke! You can't use minimal concrete but you can use
lightweight concrete.

You wanted to about fire code, now your talking about me?

Lightweight concrete is often used as flooring backed by metal sheeting and floor trusses. Lightweight concrete is not used as structural support such as a load bearing columns. Please provide an example where lightweight concrete is used in load bearing columns in high rise buildings.

If you can't be
honest enough and admit WTC 7 was in no way engulfed in the kind of fire
it would take to bring it down?.

Yet there was structural failures of connections in WTC 5.

For WTC 7, the long unsupported floor trusses, the minimal concrete usage, the deficient fire insulation, and odd floor angle connections made the building more susceptible to thermal stress. Uneven heating is often more devastating than heat. Why refractor linings often need hold and soak times when bring refractory brick up to operating temperatures. Uneven heating, too rapid heating, to rapid cooling caused failures.

Then it is known heat does degrade the load bearing capabilities of steel.

All you're doing is regurgitating the science some one is using to lie about a
ton of #. To much to hash over with someone who's likely never been on
a construction site. But thinks he can sit there and argue with someone who's
hung structural red iron and glass in high rise buildings for almost thirty years.

Your not really arguing anything?
You started talking about fire code? Then when asked about the 1938 fire code, the 1968 revision, and what the port authority did and did not do, your revert to talking about yourself.

a reply to: neutronflux

Who cares about a 1938 firecode !

talk to me about the absence of fire and therefore heat in WTC in
comparison to a building of inferior design without hiding behind scientific
lies. Just look at the vid, do you see any flames? I'll answer for you because
you don't seem to have a spine. No you don't see any flames.

Kind a makes that pile of science you hide behind worthless if you ask me.

Have a good day!

a reply to: carsforkids

And what is the cost per square yard of lightweight concrete vs more standard concrete used in load bearing columns. And how much larger in diameter would a column be if made out of lightweight concrete vs standard concrete? Wouldn’t larger columns cut into rentable space and profit. The WTC was built at minimum cost, and maximize rental space. Things often at odds with code. And the port authority was in a position to be selective.

a reply to: carsforkids

You

Who cares about a 1938 firecode !

Did you miss the part the WTC buildings were being designed when the 1938 code was still law, and the port authority got to pick or choose between the 1938 code and a draft version of the 1968 code? So? How many years of experience was the 1968 code built upon for the known performance of “all steel” buildings 110 stories tall?

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: neutronflux

None of what you just posted means squat partner. I do appreciate you
making a decent attempt at something intelligent but it's really just
much more simple than that. But if you can't follow a long and just be
honest this really is pointless. I know how things are built and the last
thing you're gonna do is tell me about structural iron. Believe me all that
garbage about minimal concrete use is retarded.

You'll have no problems in describing the differences in design you were talking about then

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: neutronflux

None of what you just posted means squat partner. I do appreciate you
making a decent attempt at something intelligent but it's really just
much more simple than that. But if you can't follow a long and just be
honest this really is pointless. I know how things are built and the last
thing you're gonna do is tell me about structural iron. Believe me all that
garbage about minimal concrete use is retarded.

You'll have no problems in describing the differences in design you were talking about then

You dodging what I showed you?
Where you mate neutronflux response?

All the bull# science in the world can't erase what people see
with their own eyes. WTC 7 did not experience the type of fire
it takes to weaken it. Any one who can't see that by just looking
at it. Certainly doesn't need prices of concrete and load bearing
data to prove their ignorance.

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: neutronflux

None of what you just posted means squat partner. I do appreciate you
making a decent attempt at something intelligent but it's really just
much more simple than that. But if you can't follow a long and just be
honest this really is pointless. I know how things are built and the last
thing you're gonna do is tell me about structural iron. Believe me all that
garbage about minimal concrete use is retarded.

You'll have no problems in describing the differences in design you were talking about then

You dodging what I showed you?
Where you mate neutronflux response?

I didn’t know I was your personal keeper? Sort of creepy you demand specific attention? If you got a valid argument, then repost it.

originally posted by: carsforkids


All the bull# science in the world can't erase what people see
with their own eyes. WTC 7 did not experience the type of fire
it takes to weaken it. Any one who can't see that by just looking
at it. Certainly doesn't need prices of concrete and load bearing
data to prove their ignorance.

How about less ranting and citing sources for logical and structured arguments?

You haven’t addressed the deficient fire insulation. The minimization of concrete, the unusual long floor spans, the lack of mid floor length columns, the unusual floor connection angles.

And WTC 5 shows fire related failures are a thing