NYC 28th floor high-rise fire - Building still standing??

Massive fire breaks out on the 28th floor of a high-rise building in NYC. I thought what we learned from 9/11 was that steel melts and buildings collapse on it's own footprint. Please can anyone answer why it hasn't collapsed yet? Or someone going to tell me that buildings don't collapse due to fire?

More than 120 firefighters responded Friday evening to a fire on the 28th floor of a 41-story building downtown. The 2-alarm fire inside 120 Broadway, at Pine Street, was contained by 6:45 p.m. but there was still heavy smoke afterward. No injuries have been reported. The building is across the street from Zuccotti Park, where the Occupy Wall Street protest is taking place.

Source

Blaze at NY landmark Equitable Building hurts 8 firefighters - Washington Post

The buildings that collapsed on 911 were the first and only skyscrapers to collapse due to fire or external damage.

Originally posted by douglas82391
The buildings that collapsed on 911 were the first and only skyscrapers to collapse due to fire or external damage.

And it will never happen again.

Unless of course it serves another agenda.

Just a guess, but could it be the lack of thousands of pounds of burning jet fuel that prevented this building from collapsing?

Originally posted by ZeroReady
Just a guess, but could it be the lack of thousands of pounds of burning jet fuel that prevented this building from collapsing?

you mean like building 7? And its all ready been proven that most of the jet fuel was burnt in the fire ball blaze. Its not like gas.

reply to post by ZeroReady


does jet fuel make fire hotter? lol

reply to post by OzTruth


Yes different types of fuel will burn at different temperatures. A burning candle is 1,830°F
Red embers of a wood fire are at about 2192°F
A lit cigarette is about 1,085 °F
Kerosene about 1200°F

I think it didn't collapse because no one has yet taken out a huge insurance policy on the building. Once that happens you can expect the building to fall.

It's physics, man.

reply to post by OzTruth


what are the changes the OWS people will be blamed for this.

Originally posted by OzTruth
Massive fire breaks out on the 28th floor of a high-rise building in NYC. I thought what we learned from 9/11 was that steel melts and buildings collapse on it's own footprint. Please can anyone answer why it hasn't collapsed yet? Or someone going to tell me that buildings don't collapse due to fire?

Whatever you (or I, or anyone else) believes happened to the World Trade Center, let's at least start with correct information. I hear over and over again that "the Towers collapsed into their own footprints, just like a controlled demolition!". Bull(censored). Take a quick look at photography or video footage taken immediately after the collapse. Note the size of the debris field. Now note the towers' footprints...they're still there today, having been integrated into the new World Trade Plaza project. The towers collapsed more-or-less vertically, but it wasn't by any stretch a 'neat' or 'contained' collapse. Whatever *caused* them to collapse, be it a combination of physical shock and fire, or placed demolition charges, the towers weren't going to fall like a chopped tree...they weren't strong enough to fall like that.

Rant aside, the answer to 'Do buildings collapse due to fire?" is "sometimes". It really does depend on what a building is made of, how its internal loads are distributed, how intense the fire is, and even the proportions of the building. That's one of the (many) things that made being a firefighter so....interesting. Don't take my word for any of this, though...if you live in a major city, go to a local fire station and talk to the crews. Talk to a fire inspector, if you can get in touch with one. Better yet (and this works in smaller towns as well), go down to your local fire department and ask to join the volunteer force. Be warned, that will take some of your spare time, and possibly drag you out of bed at some really odd hours...but once you go through the training, and participate in a few scenes, you'll know enough to judge these questions much more accurately. In the process of learning, you'll also meet some really cool people, and have the personal satisfaction of doing a Good Thing.

I am somewhat in agreement with Brother Storm on this one. WTC 1 and 2 did not fall into their own footprint, building 7 did.

I also want to add it is tough to compare this fire to what happened at WTC. This building burning was not hit by a plane. I am the first person to stand up and say that I do not believe the official fairytale of 9/11, but you really have to admit that a plane impacting a building is a game changer. It adds a whole new dimension and element. So in my opinion, this fire burning now just proves that fire can not melt steel, nothing more. It is proof that building 7 should not have fallen but it can not be compared to Towers 1 and 2.

Obviously not all skyscrapers were built using the shoddy materials and/or flawed construction methods employed at the WTC (and since covered up)

Originally posted by ZeroReady
reply to post by OzTruth

 

Yes different types of fuel will burn at different temperatures. A burning candle is 1,830°F
Red embers of a wood fire are at about 2192°F
A lit cigarette is about 1,085 °F
Kerosene about 1200°F

melting temperature of Iron 1536 °C or 2797 °F
if kerosene is 1200 °f then that can not ever be the reason the iron melted.

Originally posted by DutchBigBoy

Originally posted by ZeroReady
reply to post by OzTruth

 

Yes different types of fuel will burn at different temperatures. A burning candle is 1,830°F
Red embers of a wood fire are at about 2192°F
A lit cigarette is about 1,085 °F
Kerosene about 1200°F

melting temperature of Iron 1536 °C or 2797 °F
if kerosene is 1200 °f then that can not ever be the reason the iron melted.

This is another of those little facts that get tossed around by various parties in the 9/11 argument. As I noted above, I'm not taking a 'side' in the 9/11 screaming match, but I would like to see both sides use as much accurate data as possible to support their positions. To that end, I'd like to point out that it's not necessary to melt structural iron or steel to initiate a collapse. Long before metals melt, they reach a point where they begin to lose substantial amounts of structural strength.

Also, just to further complicate the issue, there is no "melting point of steel". You can take a fast look across the internet and find vendors who produce several hundred types of steel, each with its own physical properties, and melting point.

Things are rarely as simple as they seem....