1975: WTC tower on fire, no collapse

[rman]

On February 13, 1975, the WTC North Tower was beset by a fire, which "burned at temperatures in excess of 700°C (1,292°F) for over three hours and spread over some 65 percent of the 11th floor, including the core, caused no serious structural damage to the steel structure. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced" <8>.
- New York Times. 15 February 1975.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center#February_13.2C_1975_fire

[Ezlivin]

1. That was NEW steel

The steel had aged since then. Old steel loses strength like old people.

They had to keep people from smoking in the building because the heat from just one cigarette would have caused the floor trusses to sag.

[rman]

2. Peculiar that no-one has mentioned that before,

since it's such an important aspect of explaining the collapse (if it's true).

[piobair]

3. Dis lodged fire proofing

In the 75 fire there was not a violent incident to dislodge the fireproofing. Also the fire did not burn for three hours without being fought. The actual time the fire burned at peak temps would have been a lot shorter. According to FDNY records, the total area damaged was approx. 9000 square feet which is about 20% of the area of one floor. I really don't think you can compare the two events.

[mhatrw]

4. Where is the scientific evidence that the plane crashes caused

any widespread dislodging of fireproofing and that fires burned above 600C in exactly the areas where this happened?

We'd all like to see any physical evidence that suggests this was the case, if you please.

[piobair]

5. NIST Report

The NIST report from Oct 2004 addresses this directly. I don't know how to post a link so I can only point you to the report.

[JackRiddler]

8. NIST report

hypothesizes extensive damage to the fireproofing, exposing steel directly to the fire, however with no proof that this actually happened in the way of physical evidence. Because such stripping of the fireproofing would have been a necessity for the collapse model adopted by NIST (as suggested by the UL real-world test of a floor brace in an oven), this assumption is thrown in. It's central to the model, but it's also a circular argument.

NIST testing of real physical evidence cannot show any available core metal was subject to temperatures above 250 C.

NIST advisor, the fire engineer Glenn Corbett, who dismisses any idea of explosives, nevertheless states unequivocally that there is no way to know what kind of damage was done by the plane impacts/explosions to the core columns or the fireproofing. Only the perimeter columns can be seen, otherwise it's all speculative.

He has been very critical of the rapid disposal of the WTC debris. At the time of its disposal, he was among those calling for finding a good spot on the Jersey shore to lay it all out and reconstruct the collapse dynamics using the actual evidence.

See: http://www.improbablecollapse.com/screens2/corbett.html

[mhatrw]

10. No, it doesn't. No physical evidence was recovered that

offers even a shred of evidence for NIST's unscientific speculations--none whatsover.

[piobair]

11. hardly unscientific

The NIST modeled the predicted path of the plane and it is entirely reasonable to assume that the fireproofing was dis-lodged in those areas. Are you at all familiar with the properties of 30 yr. old fireproofing? It becomes friable and shrinks making it susceptible to being knocked off. The newer fireproofing is more elastic and bonds to steel better. While there may not be a video of the fireproofing falling off, there is considerably more evidence than the CD theory you long for and in fact the NIST report is quite scientific and not just wild eyed speculation.

[mhatrw]

14. Sorry, but you are wrong.

Many assumptions sound "reasonable," but there's no hard or soft evidence that:

*the plane impacts knocked off a significant amount of fireproofing or

*the fires burned above 600C in exactly the places where the postulated loss of fireproofing was most significant.

Here's what the physical evidence does show:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=45315

[quickesst]

12. Twenty-some odd years...

in commercial construction, and I must say, this is one I'm going to get a lot of laughs with tomorrow.

"They had to keep people from smoking in the building because the heat from just one cigarette would have caused the floor trusses to sag."

That is, if I can pick myself up off the floor. I may have cracked a rib.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[libertypirate]

13. Uh unless you can show how metalmites or some other FOS reason

why the steal would fatigue, please just shut up...

[rman]

16. Ezlivin has informed me his reply was ment to be sarcastic

So we can save our breath on this one.

[quickesst]

17. Ezllivin...

Without some indication you were "tongue in cheek", I have to assume it's real, and way out there. It actually read like something an oct might post. Anyway, sorry I took it seriously, but it's still funny. Sounds as good as some I've heard here. Peace.
quickesst

[Ezlivin]

18. I really thought the last sentence would reveal the inherent sarcasm

"They had to keep people from smoking in the building because the heat from just one cigarette would have caused the floor trusses to sag."

I was laughing was I wrote that. "The heat from one cigarette"!

It's almost as funny as those who argue that the buildings were designed to fall. Oh my. I have lived my entire life believing that buildings were built to stand and that we had to hire professionals to "make them fall".

[JackRiddler]

6. not comparable

Read the NYT article from that date (available around the Web) and you will see the obvious differences:

- 9/11 had big initial damage by plane impacts and fuel explosion

- 1975 spread from a single point as opposed to starting at many points simultaneously

- 1975 fire on one floor (the spread to other floors was confined to a single cable closet)

- 1975 fought actively throughout

Red herring.

Madrid is a better comparison.

[rman]

7. Point is the steel was not affected by the fire.

Contrary to what the OCT claims.

[JackRiddler]

9. In 1975, yes...

On 9/11, a complete unknown. A black box. People assume what they like, depending on whether they accept or reject demolition hypothesis. For OCT, fire affecting the steel is a necessity. For supporters of demolition hypo, an impossibility. Either way, the physical evidence is lacking (which is one of the most suspicious aspects of the whole affair).

[mhatrw]

15. For CD, fire affecting the steel is a possibility.

Just not enough to explode 2 entire buildings to the ground within the extremely short observed time frames.

And the WTC-7 is a whole different story for which there is both no physical evidence (other than 2 strangely sulfidized pieces) and no official collapse explanation.