Can a jet fuel/hydrocarbon fire collapse a steel structure? An experiment.

[spooked911]

I set up the following experiment using steel rabbit fencing as the steel structure supporting a heavy cement block.

Note, this fencing is easily bendable, has no significant rigidity, and was not reinforced in any way. The fencing was bent into an outer square and an inner rectangle (the core):


Then I damaged the "columns" by cutting them with wire cutters:



Just inside where the gash was made in the outer wall, I placed a cup of kerosene (jet fuel), and there was newspaper around the bottom on the structure.

Then I put a heavy cement block on top, weighing about 15 pounds. I don't think the wire structure would hold more than three of these blocks, so the "safety factor" was not particularly high.


Then I tipped over the cup and lit the kerosene:



Then fire burned for about twenty minutes, and toward the end, I put my foot on the structure to see if it would extra weight. It still did:


The structure held up fine after the fire died:


After the fire was hot, the "columns" were not hot at all:



In a second experiment, I used the same wire fence and block set up, but increased the amount of "airplane damage", added in newspaper all around the inside of the structure, and soaked everything thoroughly with kerosene. In this expt, the fire was more intense and lasted significantly longer, but... the structure held up just fine. (Sorry no pictures of this one).

What I conclude is that a fairly flimsy steel structure does not distort and bend and collapse very easily from a simple hydrocarbon fire. And thus, it is not clear why the much stronger steel columns in the WTC towers weakened so much from fires that the towers underwent global collapse.

If kerosene/jet fuel/hydrocarbon fires can indeed cause steel structures to collapse, it should be quite simple to show this in an experiment-- right?

[MrSammo1]

1. keep adding

more weight (more bricks) to your test.

That way a few mouths here will drop to the floor.

[Make7]

2. Can a non-jet fuel/hydrocarbon fire collapse a steel structure? Reality.

When you enter a lightweight steel bar joist building on fire and you hear popping, cracking, creaking and metal to metal rubbing together, get out, the trusses are failing. It is not safe to enter for any reason. At 205 West Jefferson Street Captain Patterson, Engine 108, the first engine on the scene reported hearing popping sounds, cracking sounds and things that just did not sound right. After moving in about twenty feet attacking the fire, he wisely evacuated the building. The roof collapsed shortly after they evacuated. All of these sounds were steel I beams and trusses failing. At a recent warehouse fire in Prince George’s County MD companies were operating on the interior of the lightweight steel bar joist building. When Volunteer Chief 33, Ricky Riley, arrived on the scene and radioed his engine crew, he asked them, "what do you hear, do you hear anything", the response from the company officer was "yes, there are popping sounds" He ordered all interior companies to evacuate the building. The roof collapsed approximetley ten minutes after evacuation. Again, the sounds were the roof trusses failing.

http://www.mutualbox.com/a_building_fire_and_structural_f.htm

In Chicago, Illinois, the McCormick Place Exhibition Center collapsed as a result of a fire in 1967. In this structure, the steel-frame of the building was unprotected. The reference to McCormick Place is significant because it illustrates the fact that steel-frame buildings can collapse as a result of exposure to fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not only steel.

http://www.iaei.org/magazine/02_d/berhinig.htm

[spooked911]

4. The WTC was not a "lightweight steel bar joist building"

and the the McCormick Place Exhibition Center was a special case-- it was under construction and not a high-rise.

[Make7]

10. Was it a chicken wire building? ( n/t )

[spooked911]

24. Of course not-- all the more reason why it would resist collapse.

[Make7]

33. So your original objection, to my posted real world examples,...

...was that the construction method was different.

Yet to set up your experiment, you make absolutely zero attempt to approximate anything resembling the structure of the World Trade Center buildings. Shouldn't your objection apply to your own experiment?

-Make7

[petgoat]

39. the construction method was different.

Your examples involve unfireproofed trussed-roof spans that failed from
big fires. The columns didn't fail.

NIST says that because the fireproofing was removed from the core
columns, therefore the columns failed. They do not put forth the
pancake theory that collapsing floors brought the towers down. They do
say that weakened and sagging floors pulled on the perimeter columns and
buckled them, but their evidence for this is photographs that can
easily be explained alternatively by optical distortions produced by
heat waves.

Spooked's experiment tested the strength of vertical columns in a fire.

[MercutioATC]

48. Spooked's experiments DID test the strength of vertical columns in a fire.

...the vertical strength of chicken wire weighed down by a concrete block (and a foot) exposed to a fire fueled by a spilled cup of kerosene.

Please show me how, with absoultely NO scaling to an actual building, this is anything other than an opportunity to post pictures of his foot.

[Make7]

53. LOL! ( n/t )

[Make7]

55. Let me see if I understand this.

In the real world examples I posted, fire caused a failure of horizontal steel structural elements.

But if the steel structural elements are vertical, fire will not have any effect on their strength?
____________________

The fact remains that increased temperatures caused by fires will have an effect on the strength of steel.

Spooked911's experiment does not model any structure enough to make any conclusions based on his results.

-Make7

[spooked911]

70. Do you think heat will affect vertical and horizontal steel

structural elements the same way?

[Make7]

73. If it is the same type of steel and is raised to the same temperature...

... over the same sized area, I think the reduction in strength would be very similar. Of course, what effect this has on any structure the steel is part of would depend on the type, size, and direction of any loads on the steel members and the ability of those members to handle them.

-Make7

[Make7]

16. McCormick Place officially opened in 1960. The fire was in 1967.

"In addition, McCormick Place officially opened in 1960, but a fire destroyed the building on January 17, 1967."

http://www.meetinchicago.com/meet_history.html

[spooked911]

22. I can't find the link right now, but someone on this board had a post

about McCormick place and how it wasn't completely constructed.

Perhaps he was referring to the fact that the building code wasn't complete at the time and the steel roof wasn't protected? In any case, the McCormick place collapse, although it apparently involved fire causing a steel roof to buckle, was a unique case.

[Kevin Fenton]

25. L'Enfant Plaza

If I remember rightly it was the steel building at L'Enfant Plaza which was not finished but collapsed.

McCormick Place just didn't have any fireproofing on the steel, bad wiring and a shit load of combustibles. Obviously, the WTC originally had fireproofing but whether the fireproofing was knocked off 82 of the 84 vertical columns and 140,000 square feet of floor area by the impacts, as NIST claims, is still open to question IMHO. Also, NIST found that the WTC had a significantly below average amount of combustibles, but then ignored this finding when it ran its severe case models.

[Make7]

32. Do they have exhibits in convention centers still under construction?

Six-year-old McCormick Place was thoroughly damaged in a fire that started during the National Housewares Manufacturers Association 46th Semi-Annual Exhibit. One security guard was killed.

A janitor noticed smoke coming from the back of a booth about 2:05 a.m. Within 5 minutes the entire booth was involved and the fire department called at 2:11 a.m. The fire department responded rapidly, entering the building and ordering a second alarm at 2:16 a.m. Nine alarms were struck, bringing 500 persons and 94 pieces of fire equipment. Initial attempts to fight the fire were frustrated by an almost immediate failure of the water supply. By 2:53 a.m. firefighters were able to establish a relay from hydrants 1/4 mile away and the first fire boat arrived, but by then the whole building was involved in the fire and the roof had started collapsing. The fire was struck out at 9:46 a.m. with only parts of the lower level and the theater undamaged.

A number of factors contributed to the catastrophe. Most of these would have been sufficient by themselves to cause great destruction. The 1,250 exhibits were constructed of highly flammable wood, paper and plastic. The temporary wiring used to rig exhibits was often not up to the building code.

http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/disasters/mccormick...

So the fact that a building with steel structure has actually collapsed due to a fire does not lead one to believe that it is possible for fire to have an effect on the structure of a building constructed with steel? Because it was a unique case? Whereas the World Trade Center collapses were a common occurrence?

-Make7

[MrSammo1]

34. Steel

expanding.

Beware of a lot of planted BS on the Internet.

[MrSammo1]

35. Can a non-jet fuel/hydrocarbon fire collapse

steel expanding!

Beware of any post 911 sites that talk about collapsing buildings.

spooked911 is on the right track.


===============================================================
The word "conspiracy" has become a meaningless cliche-word. In fact, remember that the printed word is no longer a means of testing reality!
===============================================================

[MercutioATC]

3. Well, I"M convinced...

Who am I to argue with a plastic cup of kerosene, a concrete paver and some chicken wire?

[spooked911]

5. I assume you can show us how the fires caused the collapse then?

[MercutioATC]

6. No, obviously you can't either...

The difference is that I wouldn't take an aluminum can and some kerosene, fail to make a working jet aircraft, and use that as evidence that flight was impossible.

[petgoat]

7. "an aluminum can and some kerosene"

That's an unfair example because a jet engine is a complex mechanism and
the fact that a crude model doesn't work is meaningless.

Spooked is modeling a much simpler phenominon: The behavior of steel
under load in a fire. The model is crude but successful. Of course it
models only the behavior of the vertical elements. But I don't think
NIST is asserting the pancake theory, anyway.

Spooked is to be much commended for getting his hands dirty and actually
testing this.

[MercutioATC]

8. You don't think a hi-rise building is a little more complex than some

chicken wire and a cinder block?

Glad you're not designing any buildings in MY neighborhood.

My point is that there were absolutely NO measured parallels to the WTC collapses. Was the fire proportionally the right temperature? Was the steel proportionally as thick? Were the welds in the chicken wire proportionally equal in strength to the welds/rivets of the WTC columns?

Does setting a concrete paver on top of some chicken wire and lighting the thing on fire measure ANYTHING? No.

[petgoat]

9. You don't think a hi-rise building is a little more complex

Of course a building is more complex and of course it's a crude model
and of course there's an inherent problem in simulating big things with
small models. Does it measure anything? Yes it does. You can
calculate the square inches of steel in the vertical members in the
model and you can calculate the load on it and you can say that a
twenty-minute kerosene fire did not lessen the vertical load-bearing
capacity of this mild steel loaded at so many pounds per square inch.

Of course it would be interesting to try a bigger load, and see how much
load you need before the fire will weaken the steel.

[MercutioATC]

11. Then go ahead and calculate it...

Spooked911 sure as hell didn't.

[spooked911]

18. I'm asking YOU or LARED or someone who supports the official story

to show it. Because no one has yet.

The fact is, I didn't know what to expect with my model when I set it up.

I did NOT try to rig the model so it wouldn't collapse. I used easily bendable wire fencing as a support. I used ample kerosene and some newspaper as fuel.

Obviously it is not a perfect model but that wasn't the point.

The point is that it is not so easy to weaken steel with a hydrocarbon fire.

[MercutioATC]

29. I'm not accusing you of manipulating the results.

I'm simply stating that there is zero correlation between your experiment and the collapse of the WTC towers. Had your little tower of chicken wire collapsed during or after the fire, that wouldn't have had any correlation, either.

[petgoat]

110. Had spooked's cage failed, we could have criticized his study

on the basis that the perimeter columns were too few in number, or they were 50 times too long,
or they were a weak kind of steel, or there was too much oxygen in the fire, or the weight was
too great and out of scale.

[Totallybushed]

107. Actually, it is.

Hot rolling of steel, for example, requires heating. Gas does the trick in many mills. All it takes is for the steel to get red hot and undergo the ferrite to austenite phase change.

[petgoat]

259. There's no point in calculating it. The model is too crude

to be meaningful.

If we refined a model so that we had two slightly different versions, one of which repeatedly
failed and one of which repeatedly endured, then we might have something worth calculating.

It would also be interesting to study the effect of asymmetrical damage and asymmetrical
fires. I wish NIST had spent a few million dollars burning up giant rabbit cages instead
of producing a "trust us, we used a big computer and we have lots of pretty graphics!" snow-job.

But they couldn't do that because they've found that their empirical experiments have a
uncanny habit of producing the wrong results.

[spooked911]

17. Thank you, exactly my point.

[LARED]

12. The behavior of steel under load in a fire

FYI, The NIST guys have been studying this for years. You should check out what they think about the fires and collapse of the WTC.

[petgoat]

30. I have checked out what NIST "thinks"

They think they can draw a pretty rainbow picture of the temperatures
achieved in such detail that you'd think they had sensors arranged on an
8" grid. They think we'll believe that even though they have NO, NONE,
NOT ONE PIECE of core steel showing heating above 250 degrees C.

They think that collapse initiation inevitably leads to total
progressive collapse--because that's what happened, right?--so they need
not model the collapse.

They think that it's not necessary to test the steel samples for
explosive residue.

[spooked911]

71. Exactly!!!

[WoodrowFan]

13. I'm just surprised

I'm just surprised that they let you use matches. BOL!!!! This is a funny as the RWer that tried to proved that Vince Foster was "murdered" by shooting a pumpkin!!!

[LARED]

14. If you want to improve your model

Make it 6 feet high for every foot wide.

Add enough fuel to last at least thirty minutes.

Enclose the outer cage with somthing solid that does not burn easily. Leave an inch or two at the bottom to have an air supply. so theheat is trapped inside.

Let us know how you made out.

[spooked911]

19. How about YOU try it, since you believe the official story?

[LARED]

21. Because

the NIST already provided an excellent model that far, far exceeds anything I am capable of doing.

My suggestion was to help you design a model that better characterizes the WTC structure. The height to width ratio, and fire loading, is critical if you want a model that is representative.

[spooked911]

23. where is their model of the collapse, please?

[LARED]

27. Good Lord man, it's here

http://wtc.nist.gov /

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-6Draft.pdf

[spooked911]

28. No, I don't want that. I want their model of how fire

induced the column weakening, which columns failed, their calculations, and how it precipitated global collapse.

If you know where that information is in there, please point me to it.

[spooked911]

72. Where is the detailed NIST model of the collapse?

Where are the calculations? The details on what columns failed and when and how global collapse ensued?

All I've seen from NIST regarding the collapse is a lot of pretty pictures showing heat patterns on damaged WTC floors, all of which may well be completely fabricated.

As far as I can see, they assume the heat (which is not evenly distributed) causes one floor to collapse (by some unclear mechanism), and from then on, their assumption is that this will bring down the whole building.

If I have it wrong, please let me know.

[Sinti]

99. Actually, the NIST is still trying to duplicate what happened on 9/11

With physical scale models in the lab. They haven't managed it just yet. There are many more questions than answers, regardless of what folks would have you believe. What they can say is that the jet fuel burns off in about 10 minutes. Most (if not all) of those government scientists are really good people, trying to do a hard job there. FWIW, if you are told not to find something, well, you just don't find it or you find another job. Explosives are not permitted as part of the possible theory of failure.

Computer models are no substitute for the real thing. It's like comparing a fire drill to an actual fire.

[petgoat]

121. According to Kevin Ryan,

NIST fudged their model tests, and then ignored the results if they didn't turn out
"right".

Their workstation burn test achieved desired results (in terms of
gas temps, not steel temps) by doubling the amount of hydrocarbon
fuel and over-ventilating.

WTC1 had new fireproofing upgrade with 2X the amount NIST used
in its floor models. NIST doubled the floor load.

After two hours in a high-heat furnace, NIST's 35 foot floor deck model
sagged only a few inches if at all. In the computer they turned the sagging
to 42 inches and doubled the time.

(That's what my notes say anyway, from one viewing of the video below. Wish I
had time to watch it again. Caveat lecteur! And if anybody should view the
video I would appreciate a heads up about any errors above.)

http://www.911blogger.com/2006/06/presentation-by-kevin...

[Carefulplease]

145. NIST's fudged models

Did Ryan mention that one of the two 35 foot test assembly was brought to the brinks of collapse within 2 hours?

Keeps in mind also that some floors spanned 60 foot in the towers and that these fire resistance tests were performed with undamaged structures that had intact fire proofings, unlike some damaged floors of the WTC. Also, the effect of diconnecting them from a few columns weren't modeled in these tests.

[dailykoff]

154. Every single lightweight web truss could have failed

and the towers would still be standing, because there were also beams in every floor assembly tying the core columns to the outer walls.

[Carefulplease]

181. Are you sure about these beams?

Can you point them out to me on this
floor plan or elsewhere? (The plan is on page 5)

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6C.pdf

[dailykoff]

187. Yes.

I can point them out on an actual floor framing plan.

The NIST drawings are cartoons, and don't show or identify the floor beams. But that's only one of the ways they're inaccurate.

[Jazz2006]

216. Link, please. n/t

[dailykoff]

217. File an FOIA request.

WTC construction documents are "classified."

For national security reasons.

[Jazz2006]

219. So, you can point out these beams even though you have never seen any

evidence upon which to believe that they exist? Is that what you're saying?

The floor plans actually do exist, you know.

See here, for instance, and call them up ~ they're still located in downtown Manhattan:

http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/video_september11....

Scroll down to the 6th video, watch it and you'll see close ups of the originals. Then give them a call and ask them if you can come by to point out the beams that you are so sure existed.

Oh, and please be sure to post images here of the results of your research.

[dailykoff]

220. Yes.

I can point them out on an actual floor framing plan.

[Jazz2006]

221. And your evidence that they existed is?????

I've given you a roadmap to the original plans, but that aside, upon what basis do you assert that they existed at all?

Or is this just something that you "believe" without any basis upon which to believe it?

[dailykoff]

222. Find a framing plan and I'll explain it to you.

That should be easy with your "roadmap."

[Jazz2006]

223. Can't answer the question, I see.

It's simple, really, and I've asked it twice now.

Upon what basis do you assert that these beams you've described ever existed?

Still can't answer?

And yeah, I gave you a link to a source that shows that the originals exist, and suggested a simple way to follow up on your as yet unfounded assertion, and yet you have obviously not looked at it.

And you still can't answer the very straightforward question.

So, once again, upon what basis do you assert that the beams you describe ever existed?

Edit: to make it clearer than clear:

You said

"there were also beams in every floor assembly tying the core columns to the outer walls"

And all I am asking is that you provide some basis for this assertion of yours. Frankly, it looks like something that you pulled out of your ass thusfar.

[dailykoff]

224. I believe I've answered it four times. Good night. (n/t)

[Jazz2006]

225. No, you haven't even answered it once.

But you know that.

So, I'll ask again: upon what basis do you assert that these beams you describe ever existed?

Should be a simple question for you since you insist that they existed. You must have some reason for thinking that they did. What is that reason?

[Jazz2006]

226. It seems apparent that she can't.

No big surprise, that.

There also used to be a poster here who insisted that the towers had a concrete core and that all the evidence of its existence had been co-opted by the government.

Stick around and you'll get used to the outrageous claims made by certain CT posters with absolutely nothing to back up their assertions. But you'll also find that there is a whole lot more that is great and wonderful about DU and that very few here wear tin foil hats, particularly once you check out other areas of DU and if you do not confine yourself to the "dungeon" like so many of the tinhatters do.

It's really a terrific place, with an amazing and wide ranging spectrum of fora, groups, journals, etc. that is unrivalled among other online boards.

And welcome to DU

[dailykoff]

227. I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make it think. (n/t)

[Jazz2006]

239. Lol. Talk about non-sequiturs....

Of course, photographic proof of your ability to even lead a horse to water is required in light of your prior posts, as is seems open to debate whether you even know where the water source is located.

[mirandapriestly]

240. I prefer the Dorothy Parker version

in reference to who you are dealing with

[Jazz2006]

242. Oh, and you think that's clever, I'll bet.

If you want to call me a whore, miranda, just come out and say it.

Don't bother trying to pretend to be clever and cute about it.

It's neither clever nor cute.

You're just continuing to demonstrate your weird fixation on me.

Creepy, that.

[mirandapriestly]

244. Why is it when I post to you it's a "weird fixation"

but when you constantly make personal attacks on me and others it's business as usual? And, actually I don't even think you're a woman, I just couldn't resist the pun, and I'm sure you had to look it up, Ms Parker wouldn't be in the library of your trailer.

[Jazz2006]

245. I've never made any "personal attacks" on you

despite your repeatedly saying so at every opportunity on numerous threads.

But you know that.

As for the rest of your post, which is pure insult and nonsense, I am not going to be drawn into your game of taking the bait so that this subthread will be deleted, as I would prefer that your ridiculous comments stand for everyone to see.

[mirandapriestly]

282. So what was on all those deleted posts?

Some of them were so bad I didn't even get to see them, first.

[Jazz2006]

246. And

I'm posting this separately rather than editing my last post so as not to disrupt the sub thread in the event that you manage to get it deleted in whole or in part in an effort to hide your unwarranted and ridiculous posts above.

It is wholly disingenuous for you to now say that you "don't even think I'm a woman" in order to try to get around the fact that you are calling me a whore when you went out of your way to ascertain my gender previously and you've long known that I am, in fact, a woman. (Not that it's any secret - I've even posted photos, as you well know.)

And as for your fixation, it is a fixation because 9 times out of 10 your posts ABOUT me are not directed TO me or in response to my posts, but are directed to others with whom you share an affinity on conspiracy theories. Just like the one above in which you started your not so clever, not so cute crap. You weren't responding to me, you were responding to someone else for no other purpose than to call me a whore.

There's much more, of course, but like I said, I don't want these posts deleted. I want them to stand just where they are.

[mirandapriestly]

247. Stop stalking me

it's making me feel uncomfortable. You are also putting words into my mouth. Everyone thought you were male until you said you were female. People are usually right about being able to tell that sort of stuff. Creepy, that.

[Name removed]

248. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jazz2006]

250. delete dupe.

when threads get over to the right hand side of the page and no longer show up as indents, it gets difficult to ascertain whether they're in the right place or not, but I now see that my original response was, in fact, in the right place.

[Name removed]

255. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

261. Sing....sing a song...

Sing it loud, sing it strong!

[Jazz2006]

268. Buddy, Rewind and replay "Bush supporters" "neocons" "paid shills" ...

Don't you know any other tunes?

As you well know, just because some of us do not buy into many of the conspiracy theories touted here, that does not make us Bush supporters, neocons, shills, trolls, etc.

[mirandapriestly]

281. Funny , I didn't see him say ANY of those words.

So tell us, how DID 911 go down?

[Carefulplease]

249. Do no truss conspiracy sites about trusses.

Could this be the source of your belief about NIST
and others having suppressed information about
the real design of the WTC towers?

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/they-l...

However, could "they" have forgoten to suppress this?

"The distances between the rectangular core and the square
exterior wall were approximately 36 ft and 60 ft. The areas
outside of the core were free of columns and the floors were
supported by truss-framing in the tenant areas and beam-framing
in the mechanical rooms and other areas. The primary structural
systems for the towers included exterior columns, spandrel beams,
and bracing in the basement floors, core columns, core bracing
at the mechanical floors, core bracing at the main lobby
atrium levels, hat trusses, and the floor systems."

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixb.pd...

In short, spandrel beams are located on floors
1-14 and mechanical floors 41-42 and 75-76.
Fires, structural damage, etc. all occured on
floors 92-98 of WTC1 and 78-83 of WTC2.

[Carefulplease]

251. Trusses and beams.

Edit: Notice that conspiracy sites display photos
taken during the early construction of WTC floors
below the 15th as "proof" that "they" are lying
about trusses and beams.

[dailykoff]

292. You should try reading the NIST report .

Along with lots of laughs, you'll find that it says on page B-53 that floors 41, 42, 43, 75, 76, 77, 107, 108, 109, 110, and the roof of both towers, in addition to the lower floors, were all beam-framed.

Elsewhere in the same section it says floors 44 and 78 were also beam-framed.

Nowhere does it say that those were the ONLY beam-framed floors.

It also doesn't say a word about the fact that all the floors required joist girders -- beams -- to support the outstanding legs of the joists in the two-way grids at each of the four corners of the beam- and truss-framed floors. That's at least eight beams per floor that the NIST is, ahem, reluctant to speak about.

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixb.pd...

[Carefulplease]

295. Any evidence for these joist girders?

Along with lots of laughs, you'll find that it says on page B-53 that floors 41, 42, 43, 75, 76, 77, 107, 108, 109, 110, and the roof of both towers, in addition to the lower floors, were all beam-framed.

Elsewhere in the same section it says floors 44 and 78 were also beam-framed.

No. Those are floors 78 and 79, both elevator floors. Floor 44 is not relevant to the model. They do not mention it anyway. These floors are truss framed in the long span areas and beam framed in the short span areas. How naughty of NIST to hide this fact from the public. (Although they go to great lengths to explain and illustrate all this in their "secret" reports. This is also detailed in the main Structural Models and Performance Analysis report.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-2ADraft.pdf

Nowhere does it say that those were the ONLY beam-framed floors.

Nowhere does it say that the core columns aren't filled
with thermite either. So?

It also doesn't say a word about the fact that all the floors required joist girders -- beams -- to support the outstanding legs of the joists in the two-way grids at each of the four corners of the beam- and truss-framed floors. That's at least eight beams per floor that the NIST is, ahem, reluctant to speak about.

The truss framed floors do *not* require beams because all primary trusses run from perimeter beams to core -- except for "the short span truss at the corner of the core (which) was heavier than the typical ones because it did support the long span trusses that framed to it."

This is also detailed in the secret report that I've referenced to you and that you now ask me to read. None of these floors that were beams framed were involved in the fires and structural damage except maybe for floor 78 of WTC2. And NIST modeled this.

I think you are grasping at straws.

[dailykoff]

296. I said you should read it, not believe it.

The NIST report is a grossly flawed and highly deceitful document and you won't come to any clear understanding of how the WTC was built by studying it. It's full of half-truths and missing information and that includes information on the joist girders.

Of the two tiny scraps of actual floor framing plans I've found in it, one has the lettering over the beams erased and the other is covered with big red text balloons. I can't get the .pdfs to open on this dialup PC so I'll give you the page references later if you want them.

Anyway all the elevators (except for tenant modifications) were in the cores and all the core floors were beam framed, so we're only talking about the floor diaphragms to begin with, which makes the whole progressive collapse fairy tale impossible.

You must be thinking of the escalator floors, which the report does in fact say were beam framed.

[Carefulplease]

302. Where did you hear about these mystery girders?

The NIST report is a grossly flawed and highly deceitful document and you won't come to any clear understanding of how the WTC was built by studying it. It's full of half-truths and missing information and that includes information on the joist girders.

Are the Scholars of Truth and all the other conspiracy sites and organizations also involved in the cover-up? You seem to be the only person on earth to claim knowledge of these 8 joist girders laid out on each of the the truss framed floors. (Never mind that four of them would be useless -- parallel to the primary long span trusses, they would have no truss legs to support!) Were all the pictures and videos of the WTC construction era doctored also? Were these girders installed by secret agents under the cover of night?

Anyway all the elevators (except for tenant modifications) were in the cores and all the core floors were beam framed, so we're only talking about the floor diaphragms to begin with, which makes the whole progressive collapse fairy tale impossible.

So you say. Horizontal beam framing contributes nothing to vertical load capacity. They distibute it. The hat truss and floor assemblied already performed that function. The core works structurally in tandem with perimeter columns. The planes damaged quite a few core columns also. When floors sagged as a result of fires they pulled the exterior walls inside. There are photographs and eyewitnesses to this. The load bearing capacity of the bowed perimeter columns was reduce and the damaged core had to take up the slack. There is only so much weigh it can bear. Both system failed in tandem.

[dailykoff]

303. What tipped me off

was the fact that the NIST report says virtually nothing about how the corner truss joists were supported. At the very least, double joists would be needed at the corners, in both directions, because there were trusses running both ways (primary and bridging). That's eight joist girders.

But in all the NIST drawings and diagrams I've seen, and presumably in their "models," the corner joists just frame into ordinary trusses.

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixb.pd...

edit: there's something else that I want to double-check before posting so stay tuned.

[petgoat]

160. Welcome to DU! Please provide links to support your assertions.

We're truth-seekers here.

[Carefulplease]

180. Here is some support...

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6B.pdf

Notice also the mention of the 2x load due to
the 2x scaling factor. Could that be what Ryan
got confused about when he reported that NIST
assumed twice the load?

[pox americana]

40. No, a realistic similulation would have the fencing at about 0.7" high,

assuming that the block is 1 foot square. That would approximate the height-width ratio of each floor.

I wonder what the effect of fire would be on that arrangement?

[MercutioATC]

45. Actually, no.

A realistic simulation would have construction that resembled the WTC towers. A chicken wire box can't do this...not even remotely.

[pox americana]

46. It would also have 60 columns per side instead of 20.

Face it, the more closely you simulate actual WTC construction, the less the likelihood of collapse.

Spook's experiment handicaps the WTC by about 1,000-1 and it still didn't fail.

[MercutioATC]

47. Absolute B.S.

Have you considered the scaled differences between such issues as:

1) The types of steel used,

2) The thicknesses of the steel used,

3) The strengths of the joints/welds,

4) The heat transfer properties of the model vs. the towers,

5) The intensity of the fires...

...there are too many unexamined elements for this "experiment" to be of any use.

If what you claim is true, we would just build skyscrapers out of chicken wire and concrete pavers...

[pox americana]

49. Tell it to the engineers

who rely on scale models to test everything from wind shear to earthquake resilience.

As I recall there was a WTC model used for just those kinds of tests.

[MercutioATC]

50. Yes, but engineers scale their experiments to real buildings...

Spooked's little backyard fire did nothing like that.

Show me where ONE real-world element of the WTC towers was scaled for this experiment.

[pox americana]

52. Let's start with the width-height ratio.

The ratio of each WTC floor was about 1:0.06. Spook's is about 1:1, greatly handicapping the model. But it still survived. And so on. If you accurately scaled the model for steel size, connection strength, and so on, it would obviously be much stronger, even if you factored in the differences of scale.

[MercutioATC]

58. You're kidding, right?

Show me the comparison between the steel in chicken wire and that used in the WTC towers. I want to know how Spooked's chicken wire compares in relation to tensile strength, thickness, joint strength, heat resistance, and heat transfer.

That's just the steel...

I'll let you answer those before we move on...

[pox americana]

60. Evidently you haven't been paying attention.

The comparisons are in the posts above. The point is that Spook's model is a much weaker structure than the WTC, but when subjected to a similar fire, it didn't fail.

[MercutioATC]

61. Evidently, your criteria are much more lenient than mine...

"The comparisons are in the posts above."

All I've seen are comparisons of overall structural dimensions and the number of columns involved. Nothing about the properties of the steel, the dimensions of the steel, or the joints.

Are you saying that these issues don't matter? Would they matter if I constructed the same structure of cardboard and then claimed to have evidence of the physics of a building collapse?

The issues raised (properties of the steel, dimensions, joint strength and type, etc.) have a direct bearing on the question. Are you seriously saying that you don't agree?

[pox americana]

63. Already covered, but here's a make-up session:

On all counts (steel strength, connection strength, height-width ratio, etc etc), Spooked's model is much weaker than the WTC structures, which makes the fact that it survived a similar fire highly significant.

[MercutioATC]

64. Actually, it's not been "covered".

I can claim that my cardboard is stronger than WTC steel. That doesn't make it so.

Give me data. What type of steel was in that chicken wire? What solder was used in the welds and how did that effect strength? How does a wire mesh welded at regular square intervals compare to the construction of the WTC towers?

I really can't believe that you're arguing this point. Are you just hanging on to an argument or are you really not aware that Spooked's model didn't model ANYTHING?

[pox americana]

65. If you want to believe Home Depot uses better steel

than the PA did, fine. But I'm assuming they don't.