The Madrid fire revisited

[hack89]

Proof that fire alone can buckle and deform steel. Large portions of it also collapsed after aprox 3 hours of fire.

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm

[Sweet Pea]

1. But...but...but....

I thought a high-rise fire didn't get HOT enough to cause steel buckling!

:dunce:

*sob*

[LARED]

2. You mean this part

The Windsor Tower was completely gutted by the fire on 12 February 2005. A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed (see Figure 1). It was believed that the massive transfer structure at the 17th Floor level resisted further collapse of the building.

I can only assume the Spaniards suspended the laws of physics that day. :)

[dailykoff]

3. Except that it wasn't a steel building, and it didn't collapse.

More devastating illogic from the "talking points are science" crowd.

"Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire. Despite a complete burn-out, the strength provided by a technical concrete floor, plus the passive fire resistance of the building's concrete core and frame, prevented the building from collapse."

http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1205

[hack89]

4. Read the next bullet down ...

The only part of the building to collapse was the network of steel perimeter columns supporting the slab on the upper floors.

So highrise fires are hot enough to cause steel columns to fail - I'm not sure how this supports your case.

Look at the pictures again and tell me how hot you think those steel beams got.

[petgoat]

32. The Madrid steel wasn't fireproofed. And it burned for five hours before

it collapsed. And it was an inferno.



The WTC jet fuel burned up in ten minutes and there was no inferno. Brian Clark walked
down from the 84th floor and saw only a few flames. Then he stopped at 31 to make phone
calls.

[hack89]

33. Sure, and those massive smoke plumes were created by what?

consider for a second the massive release of energy they represented.

And you forget that the Madrid fires started tiny and grew large. The WTC fires started large and grew massive.

[petgoat]

39. those massive smoke plumes

Carpet burns very smokey, I guess.

"the Madrid fires started tiny and grew large."

The Madrid fire started on one floor and ultimately involved the entire building.



The WTC fires were limited to a few floors. There's no blazing inferno.

[hack89]

41. OK n/t

[hack89]

35. Lets do some math concerning Mr Clark..

each floor of the WTC was approximately 40,000 square feet. Even if only 50 percent of it was on fire, that's 20,000 square feet of fire - by any standard that is a huge fire, especially since it was repeated on multiple floors. If it involved half the floor space of multiple floors, the fire was hundreds of thousands of square feet in size - that is an inferno. With the large floor areas of the WTC, it is perfectly reasonable that there would be large areas without fire - that is why Mr Clark's story is not indicative of anything significant. But even if it was, you conveniently omitted the fact that the vast majority that died were above the impact zones. What trapped them if it wasn't fire? Why couldn't they just walk down like Mr Clark. If Clark's story is proof that there was no inferno, what were thousands of deaths in the upper floors proof of?

[petgoat]

37. What trapped them if it wasn't fire?

I'd guess what trapped them was smoke, heat, dark, stairwells clogged with drywall.
Basically laziness, fear, inertia. Clark and three others walked down the stairs.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/above.html

[hack89]

40. OK n/t

[dailykoff]

5. "The tower was built using normal strength concrete

and before modern fire proofing standards, without any sprinkler system."

That bullet? :eyes:

p.s. the point is that the non-structural facade of a concrete-frame building is in no way comparable to the structural steel frames of the Trade Center towers.

[hack89]

6. But the temperatures were hot enough to buckle steel ..

that's my take away. Certainly applicable to the WTC.

How could it be non-structural when over 50 percent of almost 10 floors collapsed. It would appear to me that those steel beams were integral to the integrity of the building

Don't you also find it interesting that this fire has long been held up as proof by CTrs that "steel framed buildings don't collapse due to fire."? Are you implying that your CT brethren have been playing fast and loose with the facts? Or were they simply unable to comprehend what they were reading?

[dailykoff]

7. Evidently there were unprotected steel columns in the facade

supporting a glass curtain wall which failed. These are in no way comparable to the heavily fireproofed built-up core columns of the Trade Center towers, or to the asbestos-and-vermiculite encased perimeter columns, which were additionally protected by aluminum and gypsum cladding.

[hack89]

8. No - the columns were supporting the floor structure..

thats why the floors collapsed. If they weren't structural they wouldn't have collapsed.

As for the WTC, are you talking about the fireproofing that was not only never tested, but was considered so inadequate that the WTC had an ongoing project to more than double its thickness? To bad none of the floors on the impacted area had been upgraded by 9/11.

[dailykoff]

10. The photos tell a different story. See below. (n/t)

[petgoat]

13. "steel framed buildings don't collapse due to fire."

They don't. The Windsor Towers building was not a steel-frame building.
And it didn't collapse. The steel columns were not fireproofed at all and
the fire raged five hours before the partial collapse.

Most of the WTC jet fuel burned up outside the building in the fireballs.
What remained in the building burned up in ten minutes, says the head of the
NIST investigation.

[hack89]

15. So why have I been hearing that refrain from CTrs for so long..

and why is it so prominently mentioned in so many CT sites? What are you going to do to correct your brethren?

[dailykoff]

9. If anything, this proves again that the NIST theory is a crock.

The whole NIST thesis is that "collapsing" perimeter columns somehow caused the cores to fail, but that's exactly what didn't happen in Madrid, as can be clearly seen in this photo:

[hack89]

11. Except that the design was completely different

and in no way resembles the WTC.

A typical floor was two-way spanning 280mm deep waffle slab supported by the concrete core, internal RC columns with additional 360mm deep steel I-beams and steel perimeter columns.

The WTC didn't have those reinforced concrete support columns between the perimeter and the core.

This irrelevant to the NIST report.

[dailykoff]

12. Bingo.

Correct you are. The Trade Center towers were a) built entirely of steel, b) infinitely more robust, and c) fully fireproofed and equipped with an operational fire sprinkler system, unlike the Madrid building, which in any case did not collapse after burning 26 hours.

But you go ahead and compare apples to oranges. :)

[hack89]

14. Now, are you going to tell the rest of the 911 world..

that Madrid is irrelevant to the WTC. It will be hard considering how many times I have been shown that picture as "proof" that "steel framed building don't collapse due to fire." Can I refer them to you if the matter comes up again?

[dailykoff]

16. The point is that a lesser building survived a greater fire.

A much better comparison can be made to the 1988 First Interstate Bank Fire in Los Angeles, which burned through 4 floors of a 62-story steel frame highrise with the same sprayed-on fireproofing as the WTC, but caused no significant damage to the structural steel:



http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/interstateBank.htm

[dailykoff]

17. The 1991 Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia is also instructive:

38 stories, 8 floors completely gutted, but the building still stands:



http://structural-forensic.com/Fire.html

http://sgh.com/projects/pictures/Buildings/One%20Meridian%20Plaza,%20Philadelphia,%20PA.jpg

http://sgh.com/projects/buildings/list/meridian.htm

[hack89]

18. How was it a greater fire?

do you have a comparison of the energy output for each or is this a rectal extraction? I know the the WTC figures are available - what about Madrid?

I know I will always get hammered when I mention real science but here is a perfect place where the matter could be settled with some hard numbers. I know such precision is anathema to you but could you perhaps try it once?

[dailykoff]

19. 26 is greater than one.

Are those numbers hard enough for you?

[hack89]

20. I keep forgetting you have no technical background ... sorry.

The floor area of the WTC fires was over 100,000 square feet per tower - what was the area for the Madrid fire? This easy enough for you?

[dailykoff]

21. Speak for yourself. (n/t)

[hack89]

23. Ok - have a good evening. nt

[we can do it]

26. Thank You -

Hacky also failed to notice that the Meridian Plaza and First Interstate Bank Building were given as examples. The Madrid fire burned for more than a day without a total collapse. And guess what else - all of these buildings had office furnishings on fire.

One more question - what firefighter would ever enter a high rise building if a fire burning for an hour or less would bring it down - answer - NO ONE WOULD. Buildings simply don't collapse after such a brief fire - if it did the moment there was a fire the building would have been completely evacuated, too.

[hack89]

30. The question though,

would be how long they would stay up if their structural integrity was severely compromised before the fire? Don't forget that it was a combination of fire plus structural damage plus the weight of the building above the impact zone that brought down the WTC. Madrid had only one of those factors yet it still suffered a partial collapse.

You are also missing a major point - the Madrid fire started tiny and grew large. The WTC fires started very large and grew to a huge size. Even then, without the structural damage there is no certainty that the towers would have collapsed due to fire alone so it is no surprise that the firefighters did not hesitate to go fight the fires. They simply had no way to know how severely damage the buildings were - it was a circumstance completely without precedence that they had no previous experience with.

[dchill]

27. "the design was completely different..."

"and in no way resembles the WTC."

So why are we revisiting the Madrid fire? There can be no valid point here, except that the building did NOT collapse into its own footprint. This works for you how?

[hack89]

28. Well,

it has been an article of faith in this forum that Madrid was proof that steel framed buildings could not collapse due to fire so I put this link out partially to see how CTrs would spin it - I haven't been disappointed.

The only thing I take away from the Madrid fire is that highrise fires are hot enough to weaken steel. Since I already believe that the WTC collapsed due to fire, I don't really think that the Madrid fires are vital to the discussion - just an interesting sidebar that confirm some aspects of what happened at the WTC.

[dchill]

29. I'll admit that I don't believe the official theory...

of much of what happened on 9/11. My approach is not scientific, and it doesn't have to be. In fact, it CAN'T be, because of the lack of remaining physical evidence that has been deliberately removed from availability to the public. My point is this: your data is as bad as my data, as bad as everyone's data.

I have yet to see an example of the current administration telling any kind of truth - even relatively - regarding anything that has transpired vis a vis our "government" since before the 2000 election. It is the science of logic that tells me that to believe them in the case of 9/11 would be a very stupid act. Especially when the evidence of my own senses and all the available facts tell me different. That is NOT an article of faith - that is skepticism, plain and simple. It is commom sense.

For you to bandy such condescending terms as "article of faith" or "CT"/"CTers" or to refer to your opposition as "stupid" or "pathetic" does not make your "beliefs" any more right or reasonable. I have no faith in any of the "investigations" - government or otherwise, so there is no article of it in any of my thinking. All I know is what I've seen on the TV and the internet, and what I've read. What more do any of us have?

The bottom line is that we are being asked to accept a government theory, based on a lack of evidence, rather than on anything that can even be perceived as a serious effort to find the truth. In my opinion, THAT would be an extreme article - or leap - of faith. If you know any different, or have any real evidence that can be proved, I'd like to hear it.

Truth and the Official 9/11 Theory. Like someone said about the Madrid fire, it's apples and oranges. Comparisons are futile.

[hack89]

31. OK n/t

[jschurchin]

22. I don't think the question.....

is one of, does fire cause a collapse. It is more of what type of collapse should we expect to see, caused by a fire.

The Madrid fire is exactly the type of collapse you would expect from a fire weakening a steel structure. It is asymmetrical, different areas collapsing at different times as they lost their structural support.

None of the WTC collapses resemble this, they are all symmetrical. The most puzzling of all is WTC 7 because of it's lack of structural damage. For a fire to cause the collapse of WTC 7, in the manner it fell, all of the exterior columns and the core columns must have weakened simultaneously, except for 79, 80 and 81, they weakened first and caused the kink.

I try not to believe my lying eyes because they might see the truth.

[spooked911]

24. right

[spooked911]

25. Key differences: the Madrid fire RAGED for almost a day

and it wasn't fireproofed and didn't have sprinklers.

And it only suffered a partial asymmetric collapse.

[MrSammo1]

34. Didn't the WTC.....

have sprinklers?

[hack89]

36. About those sprinklers ..

1. Do you really think they survived the impact of a 767?

2. By design and code, they were effective for an area approximately 15 percent of the area for each floor. Remember that sprinklers are designed to prevent small fires from becoming large fires. The WTC fires started very large. The pipes and pumps needed to get water for every nozzle on multiple floors would have to be so huge as to be impractical.

3. Water is the worst thing to use on gasoline fires (first 10 minutes of WTC fires) - the gas simply floats on water and all the sprinklers would do is spread the fire, not put it out. AFF or halon is used to put out gas fires - google aviation fires for plenty of sites.

[we can do it]

44. Having A Little Trouble keeping Your Story Straight?

hack89 ...It was not a gasoline fire!The gas was the igniter for the contents of the building. And no one is claiming that the fires had to be hot enough to melt steel only hot enough to weaken steel. This MIT professor not only thinks the fires were hot enough to weaken the steel, he has the calculations and references if you care to prove him wrong.
and this...Stop talking about the jet fuel - it was not a jet fuel fire.

almost forget this one...hack89
it was not a gasoline fire - the fuel was burned out in minutes. The fact you have not grasped this fact tell me you have not read any of the reports on the WTC - not a single one makes the claim that the jet fuel burned for more then a few minutes.

[hack89]

47. Sigh...

One would assume that faced with these statements: "the fuel was burned out in minutes"; "The gas was the igniter for the contents of the building" a reasonable person would not see a major conflict with the statement "first 10 minutes of WTC fires" - but I guess not.

Just for you - let me make it clearer: The jet fuel was burned off within a relatively short time (probably 10 minutes or less). In that brief time it did two things:

1. As it was sprayed throughout the large open spaces in the WTC, it ensured that the fires started out covering a very large area.

2. By releasing a massive amount of heat(in the order of megawatts) in a very short time, it ensured that the fires rapidly transition to post-flashover phase and reached full strength with in minutes as the contents of the office spaces ignited.

[we can do it]

38. Yes and At Least Some Were Working

<``It was dark, about an inch of water on the floor and sprinklers were going off. People were covered with thick soot,'' she said. >

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/11_APsurvivorspeak.html

[hack89]

42. Sure - on the 37th floor or lower

thats sounds reasonable - more reasonable than a sprinkler system surviving the impact from a fully loaded 767.

[we can do it]

43. Why Would Sprinklers Activate? There Was No Fire That Low In the Buildings

http://www.basa.org.uk/how.html

[Make7]

48. The 37th Floor

From the source you quoted in Post #38

Carrie Kennedy, an economist for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, made her way down safely from the 37th floor of Building 1 shortly after it was hit.

"I was just sitting at my desk going through my e-mail, when the building started to shake. The noise actually followed the movement," said Kennedy, who turns 29 on Saturday.

Kennedy and several co-workers made their way down emergency staircases to the darkened concourse that connects the towers at ground level.

"It was dark, about an inch of water on the floor and sprinklers were going off. People were covered with thick soot," she said.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/11_APsurvivorspeak.html

Perhaps you should resolve the issue of why the sprinklers were going off that low in the building, since you are the one that brought that information into the discussion.

- Make7

[jschurchin]

49. Sprinkler heads are designed.......

to discharge at a given temperature. I have installed 165, 180 and 210 degree Celsius heads. They normally are shock resistant to prevent accidental discharge, although they will break if struck with enough force.

I can think of two thing's that would cause the water where she was.
1) The aircraft broke the riser carrying the water supply to the upper floors. I do not think this is the case though as the water would be pouring down the core and flooding from the lowest point upwards.
2) Something caused the temperature to rise in that area triggering those heads. What would cause this rise in temperature, I do not know.

[we can do it]

50. It Could Be That the Water Was Flowing Down the Staircase?

She did not say the sprinklers in her office were going off. She said the staircase had an inch of water which had to be coming from above the staircase.

[jschurchin]

51. It is a possibility.

being that both the stairwells and the sprinkler riser were located in the core of the building.

[MrSammo1]

45. Have you noticed.......

that the shills will always jump in and answer?

[we can do it]

46. Too Funny!

:rofl: