Shanghai fires... Why didn't THOSE buildings collapse?

[RoccoR5955]

I wonder why the the building involved in the fire that has raged in Shanghai has not yet collapsed. It was built out of concrete and steel, just as were the WTC buildings.
The duration of fire seems to be quite long enough to "weaken" steel, as it was in the official 9/11 report.
Fact of the matter is that the fuel involved in the 9/11 incident did not have sufficient oxygen to burn very efficiently. Judging from the color and intensity of the flames, and smoke, the fire was only burning at about 850 degrees Fahrenheit.
The flames in the Shanghai fire were much more intense, and more in number, thus over a larger area. Should that not have brought this building down, much in the same manner that the WTC buildings were brought down.

I had asked this in a news forum about the fire, but my comments were quickly deleted by the moderators. I see that there is censorship of the status quo in some forums. Perhaps there will not be such censorship here.

[Bonobo]

1. Chinese fires are diffrunt!

American fires are stronger!

They cause buildings to collapse symmetrically across the entire length of the buildings at an even rate no matter how localized the fires might be -cause they're buit Ford Tough!

USA! USA! USA!

[immune]

3. Damn straight!!

:rofl:

[hack89]

7. They don't let planes crash into their buildings.

that's the biggest difference. Beside the not so minor point that it was a concrete building.

[Ghost in the Machine]

24. So you're saying someone let the planes crash into the Twin Towers??

:shrug:

[hack89]

25. No - just pointing out some inconvenient facts to the OP. nt

[deconstruct911]

17. Osama's genie in a bottle

wasn't present in Shanghai?

[SDuderstadt]

2. Jesus, not this shit again...

Hint: because the buildings incorporated design and construction improvements as a result of the NIST investigation.

[Bonobo]

4. WT1, WT2 and WT7 were built exactly alike.

That's why they all fell straight down at near free-fall speeds in near perfect symmetry.


Duh.

[SDuderstadt]

5. Your use of the phrase...

"free-fall speeds" indicates where part of your misconceptions start...it's "free-fall acceleration" and the brief period it occurred in WTC 7 is entirely consistent with NIST's model and conclusions. With respect to WTC 1&2, the only way free-fall acceleration can be "alleged" is by stopping the stopwatch when the first debris hits the ground. Free-fall acceleration is also disproven by simply watching the video and noticing that the debris is falling faster than the building. If it was free-fall acceleration, the building and the debris would be falling at the same rate.

[Subdivisions]

8. The tower in Shanghai was built to conform to the NIST findings? n/t

[SDuderstadt]

12. Oops...

I wasn't aware of the current fire in Shanghai and just now saw the news story.

My mistake.

[hack89]

6. It was a concrete building? They didn't suffer major structural damage?

unless I missed the planes flying into them.

[wildbilln864]

19. building 7!?

nt

[Bolo Boffin]

21. Building 7 was an all-steel structure with long floor beams.

The length of the floor beams was why thermal expansion came into play.

Look at the Shanghai building. Small rooms, concrete structure.

[SDuderstadt]

9. Start here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MRSr1MnFuk&feature=player_embedded

[SDuderstadt]

10. Are you talking about...

the Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel Fire?

BTW, the WTC buildings wete NOT steel and concrete.

[Subdivisions]

14. No. n/t

[terrafirma]

11. It's scary

This kind of ignorance continues after almost 10 years. Our public schools are failing us.

[Subdivisions]

13. Since you were sufficiently educated, why not give us your analysis

of why the latest skyscraper fire did not result in a collapse of that building?

Also, which course offered by a public school teaches what we would need to know to understand why one building collapses by fire but another doesn't?

[SDuderstadt]

15. Seriously...

Subdivisions...

Do you not understand that difference in design and construction means different performance, even when subjected to the precise same stress?? Do you understand how different stresses would result in even more difference in performance?

What is so hard to understand about that?

[terrafirma]

16. I'd venture to guess

that these folks that are questioning the Shanghai fires probably think if a Prius hits a brick wall head on travelling at 45mph, it will look the same as if a Hummer hit the same brick wall head on travelling at 45mph.

After all... they're both vehicles with 4 wheels.

[terrafirma]

18. Well, there's the obvious...

No plane hit it.

And you don't need to be a rocket scientist to note that differences in construction and design will produce different results.

[greyl]

20. Analysis? You're asking for an analysis of this?

It doesn't need to reach the level of analysis, fercrissakes.

Might I please ask you to analyze and ponder the definition of the word different?

[quickesst]

22. It's because the WTC was actually built...

....with giant tinker toys painted to look like concrete and steel.:sarcasm: Thanks.
quickesst

[hack89]

23. The Shanghai building was built of concrete

there is no comparison to the WTC.