The "impossible fire induced collapse" claim

[Carlos]

Statement #1 - Building collapse is the result of multiples and successive structural failures that occur at a certain period of time. The collapse (global or partial) occurs when the structure (or part of it) becomes no longer able to support the loads.

Statement #2 - Fire can cause structural failures on a steel framed structure, i.e. structural elements can fail due to excessive deformations and loss of strength of the steel at high temperatures.

I believe everyone here agree that both statements are true, so would like to ask you truthers a question:

Why fire induced collapse of a steel frame structure building is impossible?

PS. It's not a thread about NIST's analysis and findings, but a thread about the CLAIM, by itself.

 

[thedopefishlives]

I believe the point most argued by Twoofers, as will readily become apparent, is #2. There are two primary arguments against this point:

1) Steel is a good enough heat conductor that the heat should have dissipated through the structure before reaching the point of failure.

2) The temperatures were not high enough to cause enough weakening to bring the structure down. (aka "Fire can't melt steel")

Both of these arguments have been roundly debunked, of course. Against argument #1, steel is, of course, a much better heat conductor than concrete, but that does not mean that it is a superlative conductor of heat. In fact, steel as compared to common heat conducting materials such as aluminum is rather poor. There is no way the steel structure could have distributed the heat energy of those large infernos in the manner truthers describe. Against argument #2, this argument usually takes the form of either incredulity in the temperature of the fire, or incredulity in the rate of steel's strength loss as a function of temperature.

 

[phunk]

The "steel is a good conductor of heat" argument can be debunked in one picture.

http://www.freefoto.com/preview/13-33-2/Traditional-Blacksmith

Note the lack of gloves.

 

[thedopefishlives]

As far as point #1, I see some Truthers on this board argue that nothing short of complete removal of one or more floors could have initiated total collapse. I'm at a loss as for how they arrive at this conclusion, because only a select few have even bothered to provide math, and they do not even claim a need for total core removal.

 

[Edx]

They wont deny that steel can fail in fires thats why they have keep moving the goal posts back to "steel frame high rise" and "complete collapse".

 

[Oystein]

My best rendering of the truther-argument, as perhaps most prominently hinted at by ae911truth, goes something like that:

Fire, working slowly, could at most cause a single concurrent point of failure. Such a single point of failure would be extremely unlikely to cause
a) total collapse
b) symmetric collapse
Instead, for a) and b) to arise, it would be necessary to have multiple and (almost) concurrent initial points of failure.

It isn't totally clear what "symmetric" is supposed to mean, but I think the following comes closest:
All three buildings have a considerable horizantal size, yet it appears that theor entire cross-sections fall almost in unison. I.e. parts of the structures as far as part from each other as 200 feet and more start falling within only a fraction of a section, and this could not come from a single point of failure.


So my best guess is that these truthers contend that the horizontal progression of failure could not go as fast as it did, but they never make that explicit and are perhaps even unaware of what their argument is. I say this because they never get tired to yell from all the roofs how they disbelief the speed of vertical collapse progression. If they understood that their argument about collapse initiation is really an argument about the speed of horizontal collapse progression, they'd make that more explicit.

 

[Miragememories]

"Statement #1 - Building collapse is the result of multiples and successive structural failures that occur at a certain period of time. The collapse (global or partial) occurs when the structure (or part of it) becomes no longer able to support the loads.

Statement #2 - Fire can cause structural failures on a steel framed structure, i.e. structural elements can fail due to excessive deformations and loss of strength of the steel at high temperatures.

I believe everyone here agree that both statements are true, so would like to ask you truthers a question:

Why fire induced collapse of a steel frame structure building is impossible?

PS. It's not a thread about NIST's analysis and findings, but a thread about the CLAIM, by itself."

Simply put, a total steel highrise building collapse can only occur that quickly when its core is rapidly and progressively removed.

The NIST went with a politically-popular conclusion that stood in defiance of the well documented history of fires in steel-structured highrise buildings.

The NIST hypothesis accepts the notion that office-furnishing's fires were able to 'structurally-snap' the damaged, but structurally stabile steel highrise building.

The NIST hypothesis requires nature's fire on that infamous day, to perform this miraculous feat not once, but 3 times (WTC2, WTC1 & WTC7).

Regarding statement #2, there is no question that fire of sufficient intensity, duration and distribution, can and has, seriously weakened and partially collapsed small lateral portions of buildings.

But at no time, was there evidence that the office cubicle fires were sufficiently intense, of long enough duration and well enough distributed to make the intact structural steel, supporting the toppling upper WTC1 and WTC2 sections suddenly snap.

A core snap so fast and widespread, that the initial topplings of the towers' upper sections were supposedly arrested by the rapid failure of the undamaged and intact columns below.

MM

 

[MileHighMadness]

Again...let me be clear

This is very simple and straight forward…if you cook a steel frame building long enough, it’s going to collapse. Architects and Structural Engineers who design and construct multi-story steel building for a living understand this. That’s why they place fireproofing on structural steel beams and columns, and install a sprinkler system throughout the building.

I know hundreds of structural engineers, and everyone one of them understands and accepts the findings of the NIST reports.

I there are structural engineers out there, who buy into the conspiracies of the Truthers, I do not know them, and have never met them.

Well, for the record, the theory that WTC buildings where bought down by controlled demolition is probably one the dumbest ideas in the history of mankind. The chance that any of the controlled demolition theories are true is Absolute Zero

 

[The Big Dog]

But at no time, was there evidence that the office cubicle fires were sufficiently intense, of long enough duration and well enough distributed to make the intact structural steel, supporting the toppling upper WTC1 and WTC2 sections suddenly snap.

A core snap so fast and widespread, that the initial topplings of the towers' upper sections were supposedly arrested by the rapid failure of the undamaged and intact columns below.

MM

I assume you've never heard of the McCormick place collapse in Chicago.

You also don't know how a lever operates, and what can cause its failure. Tip? The failure of its fulcrum.

Another tip: don't ever use the word "supposedly." If you need to just use this instead: "here comes an argument from incredulity." In the long run it saves lots of time.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Simply put, a total steel highrise building collapse can only occur that quickly when its core is rapidly and progressively removed.

The NIST went with a politically-popular conclusion that stood in defiance of the well documented history of fires in steel-structured highrise buildings.

[qimg]http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/7466/nistwtcfloorcubiclesbw9.png[/qimg]

The NIST hypothesis accepts the notion that office-furnishing's fires were able to 'structurally-snap' the damaged, but structurally stabile steel highrise building.

The NIST hypothesis requires nature's fire on that infamous day, to perform this miraculous feat not once, but 3 times (WTC2, WTC1 & WTC7).

Regarding statement #2, there is no question that fire of sufficient intensity, duration and distribution, can and has, seriously weakened and partially collapsed small lateral portions of buildings.

But at no time, was there evidence that the office cubicle fires were sufficiently intense, of long enough duration and well enough distributed to make the intact structural steel, supporting the toppling upper WTC1 and WTC2 sections suddenly snap.

A core snap so fast and widespread, that the initial topplings of the towers' upper sections were supposedly arrested by the rapid failure of the undamaged and intact columns below.

MM

Did I call it or what?

 

[Oystein]

Did I call it or what?

I hope you filed this in time with James Randi

 

[Mark F]

But at no time, was there evidence that the office cubicle fires were sufficiently intense, of long enough duration and well enough distributed to make the intact structural steel, supporting the toppling upper WTC1 and WTC2 sections suddenly snap.

MM

And there you go moving the goal posts yet again with the "office cubicle fires" nonsense. Are you trying to delude yourself or just us?

 

[twinstead]

Are you trying to delude yourself or just us?

False dichotomy. He's trying to do both

 

[000063]

Simply put, a total steel highrise building collapse can only occur that quickly when its core is rapidly and progressively removed.

Except that we have both video and photo evidence that the cores went down last.

The NIST went with a politically-popular conclusion that stood in defiance of the well documented history of fires in steel-structured highrise buildings.

[qimg]http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/7466/nistwtcfloorcubiclesbw9.png[/qimg]

The NIST hypothesis accepts the notion that office-furnishing's fires were able to 'structurally-snap' the damaged, but structurally stabile steel highrise building.

Are you incapable of acknowledging fire and impact? Because unless you can prove WTC 1 was a CD, any theories regarding 7 are irrelevant.

The NIST hypothesis requires nature's fire on that infamous day, to perform this miraculous feat not once, but 3 times (WTC2, WTC1 & WTC7).

Incorrect. Even in 7, fire was only the most dominant cause. 1 and 2 were both fire and impact, your incredulity notwithstanding. Also, why are you bringing NIST into a discussion that was specifically said not to be about NIST? And stop trying to dress up the "first time in history" canard in new clothes; it's still wrong.

Regarding statement #2, there is no question that fire of sufficient intensity, duration and distribution, can and has, seriously weakened and partially collapsed small lateral portions of buildings.

Quit loading with qualifiers so you don't have to admit that the initial statement is right.

But at no time, was there evidence that the office cubicle fires were sufficiently intense, of long enough duration and well enough distributed to make the intact structural steel, supporting the toppling upper WTC1 and WTC2 sections suddenly snap.

Good thing they both got hit by planes, then. Also, office fires, which includes everything else in the joint that would burn. Including people. Much of the steel in question had been damaged by the plane impact, which stripped fireproofing off of it. Heck, some of it was knocked clean out of the building.

A core snap so fast and widespread, that the initial topplings of the towers' upper sections were supposedly arrested by the rapid failure of the undamaged and intact columns below.

MM

Why are you talking about a scenario that's demonstrably wrong? In fact, every sentence in your post is wrong, which is a remarkable achievement.

 

[jaydeehess]

Here's the crux of the matter for me;
while it is known that heat can weaken steel to fail under a load or even buckle while unloaded, that the fuel load in a typical office provides enough heat to do this, and that several thousands gallons of liquid acellerant created a large square footage fire area on several consecutive floors of an already damaged structure.,

the ae911t would instead promote the idea of unknown and unproven explosive devices caused collapse.
Incindiary materials cannot perform the operation MM describes above.

If for no other reason than considering known conditions and mechanisms versus pure conjecture, reason and logic would dictate that one conclude that impact and fire damage led to collapse.

 

[Mikeys]

Statement #1 - Building collapse is the result of multiples and successive structural failures that occur at a certain period of time. The collapse (global or partial) occurs when the structure (or part of it) becomes no longer able to support the loads.

Statement #2 - Fire can cause structural failures on a steel framed structure, i.e. structural elements can fail due to excessive deformations and loss of strength of the steel at high temperatures.

Both statements are irrelevant.The claim has no merit. Where are you going with it? Impact, well, lets call it initial impact, and fire may have severed and collapsed the top, you still have most of the building structurally intact.In reality I doubt it was structurally intact although forces and means used were more calculative than fire.

What happened next is mystify. some kind of progressive collapse from top to bottom would be my guess and one well synchronized and smoothly played out.

 

[jaydeehess]

Both statements are irrelevant.The claim has no merit. Where are you going with it? Impact, well, lets call it initial impact, and fire may have severed and collapsed the top, you still have most of the building structurally intact.In reality I doubt it was structurally intact although forces and means used were more calculative than fire.

What happened next is mystify. some kind of progressive collapse from top to bottom would be my guess and one well synchronized and smoothly played out.

Unfortunately your unsupported contentions just don't carry any weight.

 

[Justin39640]

Both statements are irrelevant.The claim has no merit. Where are you going with it? Impact, well, lets call it initial impact, and fire may have severed and collapsed the top, you still have most of the building structurally intact.In reality I doubt it was structurally intact although forces and means used were more calculative than fire.

What happened next is mystify. some kind of progressive collapse from top to bottom would be my guess and one well synchronized and smoothly played out.

Bowling must amaze you... We all understand that the ball hits the first pin but how the rest fall is just a complete mystery...

 

[twinstead]

Both statements are irrelevant.The claim has no merit. Where are you going with it? Impact, well, lets call it initial impact, and fire may have severed and collapsed the top, you still have most of the building structurally intact.In reality I doubt it was structurally intact although forces and means used were more calculative than fire.

What happened next is mystify. some kind of progressive collapse from top to bottom would be my guess and one well synchronized and smoothly played out.

What happened next has been described in great detail by those greatly more qualified than you to know. Your opinion is noted and rejected.

 

[Oystein]

...
What happened next is mystify.
...

Yes. To you it obviously is all very mystifying.

Any reality sufficiently advanced (relative to the science understanding of the beholder) is indistinguishable from mystery.

You are apparently arguing from a level of understanding that's stuck in some long-gone century, when people were mystified by the work forces greater than that of a couple of oxen.