It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire.
No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire.
Originally posted by FEMA
No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire.
In light of the answers to the 4 questions, is the above statement fair?
No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire.
"No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to a jet airliner impact."
Originally posted by FEMA
"No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to a jet airliner impact."
On another board I was browsing earlier which is populated by civil engineers, I noticed several comment that no-one would ever likely know the exact causes because there are too many variables and it is such a complex science.
" . . . no-one would ever likely know the exact causes because there are too many variables and it is such a complex science.
2) Has any steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, ever been hit with such lateral force?
WTC Bldg = 208 ft x 1360 ft = 282,000 ft2
Windspeed = 140 miles/hour
Windspeed ft/s = (5280 ft/mile)( 1 hour/ 3600 sec)(140 miles/hour) = 205.4 ft/s
Find: Applied force acting on WTC:
Solution: Force lbf = Cd Q S
Cd = Coefficient of Drag = 1.0 for a flat plate.
Q = Dynamic Pressure lb/ft2 = 1/2 q V2 where:
q = air density @ sea level in slugs ft3 = .00237 lbf-s2/ft4, and;
V = Windspeed in ft/s = 205.4 ft/s
V2 = (205.4ft/s)(205.4 ft/s) = 42,189 ft2/s2
S = x-sectional area bldg = 282,000 ft2
Applied Force lbf = (1)(.5)(.00237 lbf-s2/ft4)(42,189 ft2/s2)(282,000 ft2) = 14,098,298 lbf acting at the center of the bldg.
The bending moment due to this force is: (14,098,298 lbf)(1365 ft)(1/2) = 9,622,088,474 ft-lbf. or 9.622 billion ft-lbf acting at the base.
And consider this: the engineers would have at least a factor of safety of 2 or more for this bending moment!
3) Has any steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, ever sustained itself after the resulting impact of a jet airliner, explosion and burning of 11,000 gallons of fuel?
NIST examined hundreds of samples of steel, both from the core and perimeter, and found NOTHING showing heating above around 250 Celsius. The core columns didn't even reach temps that high! And this is all in their published report.
Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (p 90/140)
Originally posted by bsbray11
Look at the Maracas Tower fire. That fire lasted much longer than the WTC fires - even when put together - and spanned even more floors. The inspectors went in expected to see a mess but found virtually no damage to the steel structure.
Now, the Maracas Tower also had fireproofing, and I don't know whether that aided the Maracas Tower in its fire, but I can tell you that the fireproofing was irrelevant as hell at the WTC, because the steel wasn't even freaking heated to above around 250 degrees Celsius according to all available info. NIST examined hundreds of samples of steel, both from the core and perimeter, and found NOTHING showing heating above around 250 Celsius. The core columns didn't even reach temps that high! And this is all in their published report.
The structure
Although NFPA was not officially invited to investigate the Parque Central fire, I visited the scene the day after the fire to interview Caracas’ fire chief, incident commander Colonel Rodolfo Briceño, who oversaw the incident, his commanders on the ground and other responding personnel, the designer of the building’s original sprinkler system, and building maintenance personnel. I also collected information from newspapers and walked through Parque Central’s West Tower, which is virtually identical to the East Tower.
The twin towers of the building were completed in 1982 as part of a 25-acre (10-hectare) complex known as Parque Central, which was built between 1970 and 1982. The complex also contains more than 1,100 retail stores, seven 40-story residential towers, and a 35-story hotel. The East Tower has 56 floors above ground and 4 underground, with a total height of 725 feet (221 meters). Each floor plate covers an area of 20,450 square feet (1,900 square meters) that includes eight elevator banks and two enclosed, remote fire exit stairwells (see floor plan).
The reinforced concrete structure consists of perimeter columns connected by post-tensioned concrete “macroslabs” that are each 10 feet (3 meters) deep and above the second–floor mezzanine, the 14th, 26th, 38th, and 49th floors. There’s no central core.
Individual floors between the macroslabs have a steel-deck floor supported by steel beams, all protected underneath with spray-on Cafco Blaze Shield DC/F mineral glass fiber wool with cement fireproofing. According to Cafco’s Manny Herrera, the floor was designed to meet U.S. standards for a two-hour fire resistance rating. However, the overall fire compartmentalization of each floor slab was decreased by the addition of several unrated floor panels to provide access to mechanical and plumbing systems.
Five structural bays rest on four lines of columns in each direction supporting the steel deck. In effect, the concrete structure includes five stacked steel buildings, each supported by a macroslab. During the fire, two steel decks partially collapsed; other than that, there was no collapse inside the building. However, deflection in some steel beams was severe
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Uh, I think you mean the Parque Central tower in Caracas. You wouldn't want Dick Cheaney to think you're an agent or something.
The floor beams in the Parque Central. Notice the different between them and the WTC towers?
Originally posted by AgentSmith
Method of construction is just as significant as the materials used.
The steel parts of the Madrid tower collapsed (though again it was of different design to the WTC) so I'm curious how you would compare the Madrid building to the Caracas one? Was the Madrid tower damaged using explosives as well?
Originally posted by AgentSmith
Oh I'm not confused, I realise you havn't. That is why I'm asking you..
Have you any comments regarding a comparison between the Caracas building and the Madrid one? They both employed steel in their structure, but as the construction method appears to be irrelevant, I am curious as to how you can explain the partial collapse of one while the other stays intact? I'm curious if you would explain that with explosives, or if there is an alternative explanation you would like to share with us...
Originally posted by bsbray11
The floor beams in the Parque Central. Notice the different between them and the WTC towers?
Not made of steel?
[edit on 17-1-2006 by bsbray11]