Entire Building on Fire Does Not Collapse-Beijing

reply to post by Griff

Fire protection

Sprayed-fire resistant materials (SFRMs) were used to protect some structural steel elements in the towers, including all floor trusses and beams.[60] Gypsum wallboard in combination with SFRMs, or in some cases gypsum wallboard alone, was used to protect core columns.[60] Vermiculite plaster was used on the interior-side and SFRMs on the other three sides of the perimeter columns for fire protection.[60] The 1968 New York City building codes were more lenient in some aspects of fire protection, such as allowing three exit stairwells in the World Trade Center towers, instead of six as required under older building codes.[61]

WTC Design

So instead of concrete, it was gypsum wallboard protecting the core columns and sprayed-fire resistant materials. No concrete.

Also a firefighter's take on the WTC fireproofing:

After WWII the builders complained about building codes. They said they were too restrictive and specified every detail of construction. They called the old building codes “specification codes”. They complained the codes specified the size and type and some times even the make of a product used in construction. They decried the specification code as old fashion. They wanted the building codes changed to what they called “performance codes.” They wanted the building codes to specify the performance requirements only; and, not specify the size and type of building material to use. For example, with fire resistive requirements they wanted the code to state just the hours of fire resistance (one, two, three or four hours) required by law; and not to state the specific type and material used to protect structural steel and enclosures for stairways and elevators shafts. For example, a performance building code states: the steel has to be protected against heat of flames for one, two, three or four hours during a fire. It does not state what to use as a fire resisting material. This performance code signaled the end to concrete encasement fire protection and allowed a spray on fire protection for steel and plasterboard enclosed stairs and elevator shafts. Builders hailed the New York City building code of 1968 as a good performance code. However, some fire chiefs decried it as a law that substituted frills for real construction safety. The asbestos spray on coating of steel trusses used in the WTC towers was considered by Chief of the New York City Fire Department, at the time, John T. O’ Hagan to be inferior to concrete encasement of steel.

www.lafire.com...

And if you look at all the photos of the clean up, there are no columns surrounded by concrete at all. Even in a collapse of this magnitude, there would be visible evidence on most of the core beams of concrete on it. The "powder" we see is the gypsum wallboard (drywall) that was surrounding the core which got pulverized in the collapse and it is very easy to crush.

Originally posted by GenRadek
WTC Design

So instead of concrete, it was gypsum wallboard protecting the core columns and sprayed-fire resistant materials. No concrete.

Again, quoting NIST to prove NIST correct is like quoting the Bible to prove the existence of God.

Here's something from NIST if you insist on using them though:



This is the scan from Skilling's (the structural engineer) own calculations on the fireproofing of the floor inner core beams. Notice the lightweight concrete and stone aggregate concrete listed? Now, why would the structural engineer include these loads if these materials were not present?

Here's another: This is from the floor inside core column fireproofing.



Notice that there is a listing of "cementitious"?

Here is a blown-up view of a column as shown in the "leaked blueprints":



Notice that there are definitely more than just 2 layers of fireproofing shown? Also notice that the third row of words starts with "cement". I believe it says "cement cant". But, this proves there was cementitious material used and not just gypsum and spray-on.

And if you look at all the photos of the clean up, there are no columns surrounded by concrete at all. Even in a collapse of this magnitude, there would be visible evidence on most of the core beams of concrete on it. The "powder" we see is the gypsum wallboard (drywall) that was surrounding the core which got pulverized in the collapse and it is very easy to crush.

This is not true. I have noticed what looks like cementitious material clinging to the steel.

Seymour: There is no creed that says I have to educate you. But, I have many times anyway.

[edit on 2/21/2009 by Griff]

reply to post by Griff


But did you check where was the concrete placed? Was it only on the first floors, sub-levels, or throughout? I never said there wasn't any on the floors of the core. Afterall, people did have to be able to stand up to be able to get into the elevators and stairs, so its no surprise there was a light concrete floor on each floor of the core, plus the stairs..

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Griff

 

But did you check where was the concrete placed? Was it only on the first floors, sub-levels, or throughout? I never said there wasn't any on the floors of the core. Afterall, people did have to be able to stand up to be able to get into the elevators and stairs, so its no surprise there was a light concrete floor on each floor of the core, plus the stairs..

I'm pretty sure the lightweight concrete listed under the "fireproofing" is not the decking, and then what is the "concrete, stone aggregate" used for? And why are they both listed under "fireproofing"? Especially when we see that the concrete slab (floors) have their own section of dead load calculations directly below the fireproofing section? Why would Skilling add these loads twice if they were the same product?



Notice there are two different listings for the "fireproofing" concrete and the "concrete slab"? The concrete slab is the decking (flooring), but then why are there 2 types of concrete listed under "fireproofing"?

Also, have you checked where the concrete was placed? Other than where NIST has told you it was?

[edit on 2/21/2009 by Griff]

reply to post by Griff


The "cementitious" is referring to the fireproofing on the columns, ie the "sprayed on" fireproofing that is always mentioned:

Cementitious Fireproofing

And what does "cementitious" means? Lets ask the experts:

What is meant by cementitious?

The term cementitious as defined by ASTM or Underwriters Laboratories Inc. applies to all fireproofing that is wet mixed and then pumped as a slurry. Cementitious does not refer to portland cement content.

Fireproofing

Sounds about right for "cementitious". A wet mix that is pumped as slurry. Now, in the context of the WTCs, it means this, not the cement content.

As to the actual concrete that may have been there, what about the elevator shafts? Could that be a reason? I'm sure you saw this pictures of the WTCs during construction:




I do see two areas blocked off in the tower on the left. These would be the elevator shafts and stairwells. Feel free to correct me but, I know that the two places they would need concrete would be the shafts and stairwells, right? So, could this be what they are referencing in the construction plans of the core? The core columns themselves not being used in the shafts were surrounded by gypsum boards, while those relating with the shafts probably did use concrete. I do appreciate adding those scans from Skilling. But you do have to look into what exactly they were using what material where. The blown up scan of the column detail is a little blurry though, I wish there were clearer and less sloppy handwriting versions. (I know not your fault, its Skillings! ) Also we have a number for the column, so it would be prudent to see where this column was in the building.


Edit to fix link and minor spell


[edit on 2/21/2009 by GenRadek]

reply to post by Griff


I do recall that they did use some heavy slabs as decorative objects around certain core areas.

But did you check what it says right above the circled area?
"Criteria for Design Floor Inside Core Unit Dead Load"

So it could also go back to what it means with the stairs and shafts.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Griff

 

I do recall that they did use some heavy slabs as decorative objects around certain core areas.

But did you check what it says right above the circled area?
"Criteria for Design Floor Inside Core Unit Dead Load"

So it could also go back to what it means with the stairs and shafts.

Why would the concrete used in the stairs and shafts be listed under "beam fireproofing" if they were not used to fireproof the beams?

reply to post by Griff


I really wish we didn't have to ask these questions.

How can we trust NIST (or even peer review them ) when all data is filtered trough and from them? Especially when they have been caught lying about free-fall accelerations at WTC 7?

It goes back to my analogy of the sky being green. I could write a report proving the sky was green to you (if you had never seen the sky before) and give you my data that only shows the green color spectrum (i.e. not the complete data) and you would be none the wiser for it.

reply to post by Griff


Just speculation on my part, but it could be, in reference to loads on the beam from having the concrete flooring, or concrete partitions. Though I maybe wrong on it, I'm no engineer

And you are right, it would be easier if we could get our hands on the original documents from years before 9/11, and nothing that could have been tainted by either side afterwards. (ie the "Truth Movement or NIST)

[edit on 2/21/2009 by GenRadek]

Originally posted by GenRadek
Just speculation on my part, but it could be, in reference to loads on the beam from having the concrete flooring, or concrete partitions. Though I maybe wrong on it, I'm no engineer

The loads on the beams wouldn't be added twice if there were no need to. This would give a load twice as much. Which leads to twice the strength of steel beams needed (i.e. bigger beams needed).

And you are right, it would be easier if we could get our hands on the original documents from years before 9/11, and nothing that could have been tainted by either side afterwards. (ie the "Truth Movement or NIST)

I have my doubts on how authentic the "leaked" architectural drawings are. Especially when the scans are so blurry. Wouldn't it have been better to take a digital picture of the drawings? That way, more detail would be saved instead of a crappy scan?

reply to post by Griff


My problem with the idea of having concrete that was poured around the columns is the extra weight, and doesn't it make it a little more rigid, kinda cutting down on the whole flexibility idea behind the design? I was also thinking of the stairs themselves. Those had to be concrete, as most stairs usually are. (But hey! If the columns WERE encased in concrete, then how would they have been able to be cut by any sort of "thermite"? Right? )

Heh, you are right about the scans though. In this day and age you'd think we'd get something better than this.

[edit on 2/21/2009 by GenRadek]

reply to post by Griff


Hey Griff, hang on a sec on that one slide with the columns and concrete. I was just looking through the entire NIST report on that part and here is something I noticed.

wtc.nist.gov...

If you can go see the pages of the PDF from 43-45, there are two different references. One is the "Beam fireproofing" where you correctly got the concrete fireproofing addition, and the next one on page 45 has the "Column fireproofing". The column fireproofing does not have any concrete, but just the sprayed on "cementitious fireproofing".
So wait a minute. Looks like you and I were overlooking something obvious. Would you call a core column a beam and vice versa? It doesn't make much sense as it should be obvious that a core column is a column, and a beam is a beam. Can you really use the two terms interchangeably in such plans? It seems that the core columns did not have the alleged concrete encasement as is being suggested. Maybe something else in the core (ie the "beams") had some sort of concrete, but it appears the core columns themselves did not. What do you think?

[edit on 2/21/2009 by GenRadek]

Originally posted by GenRadek
My problem with the idea of having concrete that was poured around the columns is the extra weight, and doesn't it make it a little more rigid, kinda cutting down on the whole flexibility idea behind the design? I was also thinking of the stairs themselves. Those had to be concrete, as most stairs usually are. (But hey! If the columns WERE encased in concrete, then how would they have been able to be cut by any sort of "thermite"? Right?

)

I never said there was concrete around the columns (just cementitious material and gypsum). Columns run vertically while beams run horizontally.

All I said is that in the original dead load calculations for beams inside the floors of the core, Skilling included lightweight concrete and aggregate concrete (normal concrete) as part of the fireproofing load calculations for the beams. If these concrete materials were used for something other than fireproofing then why are they listed under "fireproofing"?

Heh, you are right about the scans though. In this day and age you'd think we'd get something better than this.

Well, if someone did have the originals, then why do we only get crappy scans of them? A digital picture can also be zoomed into like a scan but the zoom would be much more clear. I don't put much faith in those "leaked" drawings.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Griff

 

Hey Griff, hang on a sec on that one slide with the columns and concrete. I was just looking through the entire NIST report on that part and here is something I noticed.

wtc.nist.gov...

If you can go see the pages of the PDF from 43-45, there are two different references. One is the "Beam fireproofing" where you correctly got the concrete fireproofing addition, and the next one on page 45 has the "Column fireproofing". The column fireproofing does not have any concrete, but just the sprayed on "cementitious fireproofing".
So wait a minute. Looks like you and I were overlooking something obvious. Would you call a core column a beam and vice versa? It doesn't make much sense as it should be obvious that a core column is a column, and a beam is a beam. Can you really use the two terms interchangeably in such plans? It seems that the core columns did not have the alleged concrete encasement as is being suggested. Maybe something else in the core (ie the "beams") had some sort of concrete, but it appears the core columns themselves did not. What do you think?

[edit on 2/21/2009 by GenRadek]

Correct. Go back and read my posts about it. I never interchanged beam and column.

reply to post by Griff


Ok I apologize for that Griff! It seemed like you did.

So there may have been concrete in the core, just not where we think.

It could just be reference to the concrete stairs and floor areas of the stairwells and shafts. Those have to be concrete, at least the floors, and they have to have some fireproofing capability, though the stairwells were surrounded by the gypsum wallboarding, which was dislodged in the impacts and people did say the walls were messed up after the impact and twisting of the building..

[edit on 2/21/2009 by GenRadek]

Originally posted by GenRadek
It could just be reference to the concrete stairs and floor areas of the stairwells and shafts. Those have to be concrete, at least the floors, and they have to have some fireproofing capability, though the stairwells were surrounded by the gypsum wallboarding, which was dislodged in the impacts and people did say the walls were messed up after the impact and twisting of the building..

You could be right that they included these materials in the calculations but why add them in twice?

Also, this all goes back to my beef about having to put together the pieces selectively given to us by NIST to "peer review" their (NIST's) work. Transparency is not in NIST's dictionary I guess?

reply to post by Griff


Heh, you know how incompetent any federal organization can be. Or even a professional one. But still, I'd rather take their version a little more seriously than something created by certain prominent groups in the "Truth Movement". Some do give interesting ideas and analysis, but to be honest, majority wise don't have the credibility as those on the NIST group. But that is just IMHO.

But I am glad we somewhat cleared that up though, Griff!

Originally posted by GenRadek

But I am glad we somewhat cleared that up though, Griff!

Don't kid yourself. Griff isn't interested in clearing up anything.

It is NOT in the best interests of the TM to have clear answers. It is always better for them to try and muddy the waters.

To the point - the question is not about cementious, or cement, or any of that. It is whether or not the Bejing building was of reinforced concrete.

Any other points he's tried to make are clearly just trolling.