Anyone catch this video? 14 story steel building collapses from fire

[jberryhill]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ff1_1210707903

Tony Fretton, a visiting professor at the department, said the fire -- which broke out on a mid-level floor around 9am local time and rapidly spread upwards - is believed to have been started by a short circuit in a coffee machine caused by a faulty water pipe.

“The faculty building caught alight, then spread to the library and the historic chair collection - which includes Rietveld's Red and Blue chair,” Fretton said. “The fire brigade couldn't get close to it and decided to stand back and let the fire burn itself out. The whole building is gutted. The effect will be enormous - there are 3,000 students. It's a complete calamity.”

Remarkably, during the fire, one news report said:

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2008/05/massive_fire_destroys_delfts_a.php

"The area around the building has been sealed off because of the risk of collapse. Fire fighters from three regions were involved in tackling the blaze."

My goodness. Another fire in a steel-framed building, and those mysterious agents telling people that there is a risk of collapse.

[Bolo Boffin]

1. My goodness, indeed.

Where are all the flames?

ETA: That story said the fire spread to the whole building. Where are all the flames?

And did you see that pyroclastic cloud? Unbelievable.

[jberryhill]

7. "Where are all the flames?"

Well, there's some black smoke, so it must be small, isolated, oxygen-deprived fires.

You can see the squibs exploding at a couple of points.

[MinM]

2. Good catch. That video draws a clear distinction...

between, a collapse due to fire, and a...

controlled demolition.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. How do you figure that?

The differences in collapse can easily be found in the different structures and the different sizes of the buildings.

[MinM]

4. Rather than the uniformity of collapse due to controlled...

demolition. Chunks of the building in Holland fall away. As would be expected, given the random nature of fire.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. But WTC 7 fell in uneven sections as well.

Your little video clips out the entire collapse.

[mhatrw]

9. Show us the video that shows the "uneven" collapse, then.

This should be good!

[jberryhill]

25. Order 7 coming up....

Next?

[mhatrw]

29. That's a classic CD implosion.

Blow out the middle columns first so the building collapses on itself.

[Bolo Boffin]

27. Watch the east penthouse.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=G86yuunRBIw

The eastern third of the interior falls into itself first, followed by the shifting core and the rest of the building. Uneven collapse.

[mhatrw]

30. The core was blown out first, causing a classic CD implosion.

http://static.howstuffworks.com/flash/building-implosion-diagram.swf

[Bolo Boffin]

46. No, column 79 failed first, caused a vertical progressive collapse under the penthouse.

Then, that falling material destroyed the critical transfer trusses holding the core up. THEN the core failed, and then the rest of the building fell.

This is a classic progressive collapse. First this, then that, then everything else. Your little clip doesn't show the entire collapse, and the actual collapses happens in uneven chunks.

[mhatrw]

51. What a complicated way to achieve a classic CD implosion!

http://static.howstuffworks.com/flash/building-implosion-diagram.swf

[Bolo Boffin]

55. Unassisted collapses tend to be complicated. n/t

[wildbilln864]

56. how would you know?

No other steel framed buildings have ever completely collapsed before unless it was a CD. So how do you know? :popcorn:

[jberryhill]

6. Ummm....

And if you put another 40 stories on top of that, and make it as large as a city block, then you think it would look just the same, eh?

Steel buildings can't collapse from fire, remember? This must have been Delft University's Larry Silverstein Building of Architecture.

I'll bet they've got at least 350 architects, engineers, and students interested in an investigation, too.

[mhatrw]

10. Fire-proofed steel-frame high-rises don't collapse to the ground due to fire.

Plenty of 5-15 story buildings have partially collapsed due to fire. This is a non-issue.

[jberryhill]

11. Ah, I see.... that 16th story makes it collapse resistant

Got it.

[mhatrw]

13. The claim has ALWAYS been that no steel-framed high-rise has

ever collapsed due to fire. The claim still stands. Plenty of reasonably small apartment buildings and the like have collapsed due to fire. Was this building even a high-rise? How tall was it? Was it even a steel-framed building?

[jberryhill]

15. LOL - Where are ur research skillz

Watch the video slowly:



Hmmm.....

[mhatrw]

19. This building has nothing in common with the average high-rise.

It's far wider than it is tall. It could easily be less than 40 meters tall, and the section most affected by fire collapsed, leaving the rest of the building standing.

[jberryhill]

21. What happened to the floors below the fire zone?

Get out your stopwatch...

[mhatrw]

31. How many meters of building are we talking about?

It's something like the top 15 meters of small part of a 35 meter tall, wide-framed building.

[AZCat]

26. Do you know what defines a "high rise"? n/t

[mhatrw]

32. A vertical construction for which wind is a more significant load factor than weight. n/t

[jberryhill]

37. Wind? Where does that definition come from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-rise

* The International Conference on Fire Safety in High-Rise Buildings defined a high-rise as "any structure where the height can have a serious impact on evacuation"

* The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines a high-rise as "a building having many stories".

* Massachusetts General Laws define a high-rise as being higher than 70 feet (21 m).

* Most building engineers, inspectors, architects and similar professions define a high-rise as a building that is at least 75 feet (23 m) tall.


None of these definitions appear to have your wind.

Here's a group of architects discussing the term...

http://www.houstonarchitecture.info/haif/index.php?showtopic=4632

The Houston Association of Realtors defines a high rise as a building with 9 stories or more.

[mhatrw]

44. If the HAR says it, you must acquit!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyscraper

Some structural engineers define a highrise as any vertical construction for which wind is a more significant load factor than weight.

[jberryhill]

48. An uncited statement from wikipedia - congrats /nt

[mhatrw]

50. HAR, HAR, HAR n/t

[AZCat]

58. That's not a definition I've ever seen used.

Most engineers I know use the NFPA definition.

[mhatrw]

60. Why would engineers use the NPFA definition?

What does an arbitrary cut off of 75 feet above the lowest level of firefighter access have to do with construction design? I'm not disputing your knowledge of this. I'm just curious.

[AZCat]

61. Because your construction requirements change.

I'm at home right now so I can't look up the code references, but basically if a building meets the NFPA definition of a "high rise" the requirements for construction are different than if it does not meet the definition. I'm not very familiar with the specifics because we mostly avoid designing buildings that qualify (sometimes by a few feet) but the fire system requirements are different and maybe the construction types (regarding levels of fireproofing, etc). There might be a basis for the 75 feet (length of hose, height a truck can spray) but I don't know what it is.

[mhatrw]

8. It wasn't a steel-framed hise-rise and it didn't implode.

One of the wings on one side of the building partially collapsed leaving the rest of the building intact.

[jberryhill]

12. The wing that was on fire completely collapsed

Aside from which, there is a big difference between the 5th floor of a 14 story building, and the 7th floor of a 47 story building.

But you suppose the Dutch don't fireproof their buildings?

What made the Dutch firefighters clear the area, thinking that a steel building might collapse from fire.

Was this the Larry Silverstein Wing of the building?

[wildbilln864]

14. Got a picture?

The video doesn't show what's left after the smoke clears. You can't claim the whole thing collapsed. It didn't! :eyes:

"What made the Dutch firefighters clear the area, thinking that a steel building might collapse from fire."

That thinking may have been the reason they cleared the area. But that doesn't mean it collapsed completely. Snide remarks don't help your weak arguments.

[jberryhill]

16. Plenty

This is the back portion, not involved in the fire:



Notice how the entire rectangular front wing is gone.

Notice how long after the event, they are spraying water on it. That lasting heat can only mean thermite.

And then, watch the video closely:



Seen something like that before. Might be a set-up WildBill, you better check this one out thoroughly.

I can't believe you are missing all of the "classic signs of controlled demolition" here. See the stuff being ejected out the side?

[wildbilln864]

17. the tinyurl link's not working for me. nt

[jberryhill]

23. fixed it

[wildbilln864]

18. only a section of the building collapsed....

And nothing like in the WTC collapses. How long did this building's fire burn?

[mhatrw]

20. It's not a high-rise. It's all of 5 stories tall on the ends.

It's far wider than it is tall. It didn't need to be constructed to withstand high winds like high-rises.

[jberryhill]

22. The section that collapsed is 14 stories tall, Mr. Hatter

So, let me see if I have this right.

A steel building that is taller than the magic 15 stories is better able to resist structural damage and fire than one that is not as tall. Is that what they taught you?

Winds? This is Holland. Are you making a joke?

Are you at all familiar with the Netherlands? Have you ever been there?

Do you have any idea of WHY we commonly associate windmills as symbols of Holland?

(I guess what you are not seeing, in pictures of the intact complex, is that the horizontal planes of that back section are each 2 stories tall. You can clearly count the floors... indeed you can look up a wealth of information on that particular building complex, since architecture buildings themselves tend to be showpieces. But, I know, unless someone has found it all for you and told you what to think, actually doing research is kinda hard.)

[mhatrw]

33. Something like the top 15 meters of 35 meter building partially collapsed.

And it's not a high-rise. It was this little tiny wing with under 10 meters exposed to the wind on all sides.

[jberryhill]

36. Are we looking at the same video?

It's a 14 storey section that collapsed to the ground, Mr. Hatter.

[mhatrw]

45. The top of one section of the building partially collapsed after burning for many hours.

Much later the rest of this section of the building collapsed after burning for many more hours.

[jberryhill]

35. Please link to a definition of "high rise"

Because I have never seen "high rise" defined in terms of wind.

The section of the complex that completely collapsed was the section where the fire was burning. It is 14 stories (depending on whether one counts the double-height first story) tall.

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2008/05/massive_fire_destroys_delfts_a.php
A short-circuit in a coffee machine is thought to be the cause of the fire which swept through Delft University's architecture faculty on Tuesday, destroying a large part of the 14-storey building.

Here's the thing, Mr. Hatter, if there were 20 more stories on top of the part that collapsed, it too would have come straight down.

[jberryhill]

24. There are several sections to the complex

Unlike any of WTC1, 2, or 7, this complex consisted of several rectangular unitary sections. The one involved in the fire here completely collapsed, and even in that video, you can see the unit behind it at a level where non-burning portions of the collapsed unit previously were.

Not every building in the WTC complex collapsed either, Bill. In fact, the non-collapse of some WTC buildings, but not others, is constantly trumpeted as truth of something-or-other around here.

[wildbilln864]

28. "In fact, the non-collapse of some WTC buildings, but not others, is constantly trumpeted as truth..

...of something-or-other around here."

That's your tale. I'm sitting on mine. You're correct thought that not every building in the WTC complex collapsed. Some were damaged a lot more than building seven and didn't collapse.
Do you know how long this building burned before it collapsed?

[mhatrw]

34. What a bullshit comparison.

It was just one building and it was concrete framed.

[jberryhill]

40. Concrete framed?

Wow.

Just wow.

You think concrete is more susceptible to fire damage than steel, eh?

[mhatrw]

43. I think that it was not a steel-framed high-rise.

You, for some bizarre reason, think it is.

Wow. Just wow.

[jberryhill]

47. There is some ambiguity about that...

Since that may have been a reference to the floor construction or the elevator shafts.

But, nonetheless, you really don't see how, if it IS a reinforced concrete structure, that it should be *more* fire resistant than a steel structure would be?

Mr. Hatter, just what materials courses did you take?

[mhatrw]

52. It was a crappy 40 year old structure, slapped together when

at a time when building codes were purposefully shitty to encourage needed redevelopment. It is unknown whether this building was even fireproofed. One upper floor of the building had been flooded with about 6 inches of standing water for several days before the fire broke out, and that alone was enough to cause doubts about the building's structural integrity. Because of this, the water main had been shut off so if there was any sprinkler system or fire hoses on site, they were inoperable. Unlike a modern office building, it was densely filled with books and papers and other highly combustible materials, typically stored on open shelves. The fire was allowed to burn unabated for over 24 hours. Finally, the building wasn't a steel-framed high-rise, so it wasn't built to withstand wind loads like steel-framed high-rises must be.

[jberryhill]

57. 6 inches of water was enough to cast doubts about it's integrity...

...but taking a wallop from a nearby collapsing building wouldn't?

[mhatrw]

59. One was a steel-framed high-rise. The other was not.

One completely imploded. The other did not.

[mrgerbik]

38. well...

So... you are legitimately allowed to use this example as a comparison to the towers - but a CTer isn't allowed to use, lets say, the Madrid fire as an example?


"What made the Dutch firefighters clear the area, thinking that a steel building might collapse from fire."

This is simply towing of the line. They trust what they were told, hence they speak what see as the truth. They connect 9/11 with any building that is on fire and assume they may collapse. Job #1 for these people is the safety of others - so why take a chance, right?

I find it strange that you wouldn't consider simple human behavior in your argument.

[mhatrw]

39. Here's a far better video.

http://www.vimeo.com/1013894

[jberryhill]

41. Much better....

Yes, there is no collapse at all in that one, since it mainly shows the south wing fire first, and then not all of the north wing.

[mhatrw]

42. The building was thought to be in danger of collapse because of the water load.

http://www.eikongraphia.com/?p=2439

At the moment the fire broke out Tuesday morning, some friends of me were inside the building. Everybody thought it was a drill and left all their stuff behind. The fire started, I heard in bits and pieces, when a mechanic was repairing a water pipe and some water spilled on the coffee machine below. When some students ordered their coffee from the machine, they started a small fire because of an electric short-circuit.

As the mechanic had cut the water into the building, there were no means to stop the fire. In the seventies Sprinkler installations weren’t that common. I have heard that the building was evacuated because of the water leak seven centimeters of water stood on one of the floors and people thought the structure of the building could not handle that kind of weight. The fire brigades had already been called to clean up the water. By the time they arrived the fire had broken out.

Because of the danger of collapse the fire brigade did not fight the fire inside, but from the outside. Soon the fire had spread of the sixth floor, as there was no serious partition to stop the fire. From there first the whole southern part of the building burned from the inside out, to then take the northern part. At the end of the afternoon one half of the northern wing of the slab collapsed. The image was the kind that was shown to us in the lessons structural engineering. ...

But to set some things straight about the start of the fire, the fire started due to a short circuit in a coffee machine, however the leakage on the 7th floor was already the whole morning, even the weekend if I believe the rumours. On the floors on the 6th floor were a few cm’s of water before the fire started. and then the fire started, and the rest is history.

http://www.expatica.com/nl/articles/news/RNW-Press-Review_-Thursday-15-May-2008.html

Old buildings make fire fighting impossible

The AD reports that blazes in many high-rises constructed in the 1960s and 1970s would be difficult for the fire services to fight, because building regulations then were less rigorous than those of today.

An expert says that many of the buildings have "a high narrow tower surrounded by broad lower-level constructions" which "makes fire fighting from the outside impossible".

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2008/05/delft_university_fire_burns_al.php

Delft University fire burns all night

Wednesday 14 May 2008

The fire which ripped through Delft University’s architecture faculty continued to burn all night under fire brigade supervision, according to early newspaper reports.

The fire, which broke out after a short circuit in a coffee machine on the sixth floor early on Tuesday morning, quickly spread upwards through the 13-storey building. Later the blaze moved down to the lower floors. One wing collapsed late on Tuesday afternoon.

‘We are watching the building fall apart in front of our eyes,’ a fire brigade spokesman told the Volkskrant.

http://gallery.tudelft.nl/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=1159089&g2_serialNumber=2

http://gallery.tudelft.nl/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=1169416&g2_serialNumber=1

[jberryhill]

49. You forgot to scrub the references to....

The "13 storey" bit about your five story building, and the "7th floor" of your five story building.

[mhatrw]

53. It was a 13 storey building, standing about 40 meters tall.

It was not a steel-framed high-rise.

[wildbilln864]

54. How long did the goddamned fire burn before the building partialy collapsed?

:popcorn: