ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags wtc , world trade center , mumbai high north

Reply
Old 3rd April 2007, 01:53 AM   #1
peteweaver
Graduate Poster
 
peteweaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,006
Steel and Fire

On the 27th of July 2005 a vessel collided with the offshore Mumbai High North platform, 160 km west of the Mumbai coast, causing a major fire, completely destroying the platform and resulting in 11 deaths and 11 others missing.

Fire duration = 2 hours
Fire Damage: Complete collapse of the platform
Construction Type: Steel
Fire Resistance: No information available
Function: Oil and natural gas processing platform
Dimensions: 7 storeys

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pro...er/default.htm

For all those 'truthers' who think that fire cannot bring down steel buildings.

How do 'truthers' explain this one ? Controlled demolitions, or steel weakening sagging and giving way due to fire?
..........
Steel company Corus has a treasure trove of information about the performance of steel in fire, they even went to the trouble of building an eight storey test rig to carry out in depth fire tests to examine structural fire resistance.

http://www.corusconstruction.com/en/...re_resistance/

The Cardington fire tests carried out on behalf of Corus:
http://www.corusconstruction.com/en/...ton_fire_test/

These tests proved that in the case of serious fires, floor trusses become unable to support the loads they were designed to carry, and that the extra tensile strength of composite floor slabs comes into play further strengthening the building thus preventing collapse.

In the case of the world trade center, there had been structural damage, floor slabs were unable to add any additional support, and when trusses failed the loads they supported fell.
peteweaver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2007, 02:31 AM   #2
Ove
Master Poster
 
Ove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,945
I seem to recall a couple of North Sea Platforms that also collapsed as a result of fire but off course now we can see that it must have been controlled demolitions since it has been prooved that fire can't melt steel.

__________________
I am sitting here, completely surrounded by NO BEER.....
(Onslow)
Ove is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2007, 03:36 AM   #3
The Great Hairy One
Chief Cdr Scientist, NWO Cloning Labs
 
The Great Hairy One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,066
So if fire can not melt steel, how do foundries work again...?

I'd be interested to see some CTers answer your question, peteweaver.

Cheers,
TGHO
__________________
High Priest of Gzortch, the Demon Prince of Nostrils
The Great Hairy One is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2007, 05:50 AM   #4
MG1962
Penultimate Amazing
 
MG1962's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,416
Actually a better question. How does a Blacksmith make a living. He doesn't cast the horse shoes and stuff. He softens the metal........using???? lol
MG1962 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2007, 06:01 AM   #5
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 35,950
When you start off SFB, argue with those whose brains funtion, go and hide and talk with other SFBers, you wind up still with SFB.

SFB (commonly known as fecal brain syndrome) affects troofers and nazi's in larger than average (X approaches 100%) numbers and has many interesting effects.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2007, 07:53 AM   #6
stateofgrace
Guest
 
stateofgrace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,847
Fires onboard any offshore installation are the single biggest danger offshore.

The worse disaster in the UK was the Piper Alpha disaster in 1988, in which 167 people lost their lives.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/6/newsid_3017000/3017294.stm

There is not a single person allowed to work offshore who has not taken a fire fighting course and everybody has to be given a fire and safety induction when boarding a new installation.

Fire exercisers and drills are mandatory and are carried out weekly, all personnel have to attend and every single Platform has what is called a 500 meter exclusion zone around it. Within this exclusion there are no naked flames allowed, without a written work permit. There is no smoking allowed in this exclusion zone other than inside designated area, all of which are inside.

I have often thought about throwing a few offshore disasters at the truthers because there have been a number of installations that have been quite literally reduced to nothing by fires. Therein lies the problem I have and I say this as somebody who works offshore, the biggest danger is an explosion from leaking gas which will explode, any fire afterwards are generally fuelled by dangerously explosive fuels already onboard.

Having said this very intense fires offshore have indeed reduced steel platforms to nothing, but I do have reservations about comparing a fire onboard an offshore installation to the fires inside the Towers simply because the situations are somewhat different.

Donít get me wrong, even though I work out there I am by no means an expert on offshore fires and disasters but I have looked at them and tried to compare them to the truthers arguments regarding the towers is that the truthers always ague that there was not enough fuel to cause the intense fires inside the Towers, i.e. the fires were small, they were not hot enough,black smoke indicating lack of oxygen, all the plane fuel burnt outside the towers etc, all BS basically. But no such argument can be put forward for massive fires onboard an offshore installation. There is without question plenty of fuel to sustain very intense fires and equally so there is enough fuel to contribute to secondary explosions that generally occur once massive fires take hold on these installations.

IMO although the results are the same, both massive steel structures failing due to intense fires and do show how steel structures can and do fail through such fires, I personally stay away from direct comparisons to fires on offshore steel installations simply because the conditions are different.

(Ct hat off)
stateofgrace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2007, 08:16 AM   #7
humingbrd
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 35
Originally Posted by MG1962 View Post
Actually a better question. How does a Blacksmith make a living. He doesn't cast the horse shoes and stuff. He softens the metal........using???? lol
I studied blacksmithing for a couple of years. I used coal, but coke, acetelyne, propane or heating oil can be used. Heating iron enough to lose it's hardness doesn't take much. That doesn't even require the iron to get hot enough to glow. Heating iron to cherry red so that it can be beaten and formed is just another step.

I have no background in metallurgy, but making steel melt into puddles or pour in gallons out the sides of skyscrapers requires specialized foundry conditions. Iron burns easier than it liquifies. Any blacksmith will tell you that.

Last edited by humingbrd; 3rd April 2007 at 08:18 AM.
humingbrd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2007, 08:20 AM   #8
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
 
Alt+F4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 10,000
Originally Posted by peteweaver View Post
For all those 'truthers' who think that fire cannot bring down steel buildings.
Most of those morons can't handle science or math so I just ask them to explain to me why structural steel is fire-proofed.
__________________
"My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky
Alt+F4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2007, 08:34 AM   #9
einsteen
Guest
 
einsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 917
The wtc was indeed one big molten pool of metal, I saw the terminator swimming in it...
einsteen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2007, 08:40 AM   #10
humingbrd
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 35
Originally Posted by humingbrd View Post
I studied blacksmithing for a couple of years. I used coal, but coke, acetelyne, propane or heating oil can be used.
I should add that to the best of my recollection, early ironsmiths often used wood fires set on hilltops with big windbreaks to funnel air into the fire.

Sort of like an 80 story building with big holes in the side.
humingbrd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2007, 09:38 AM   #11
Kent1
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,177
This article is a little off topic, but it does have to do with steel and fire.

Its a great article on the effect of fire on steel and other metals and glass.


http://www.assocfire.com/article4.html

METALS

Melted copper, either pipes or wires, was present in 84% of the structures examined. To our surprise, melted steel was identified in 98% of the structures examined. Since we know that steel has a higher melting temperature than copper, it was not at all clear why this should be so. To explore this question, we obtained some bedsprings upon which to experiment. The springs were exposed to temperatures ranging from 1,300 to 2,500ļF, and then examined metallurgically. Additionally, four bedsprings from an isolated black hole (in another state) were also examined. The results were surprising. What we learned was that, while a bedspring may give the appearance of melting, it may be only heavily oxidized. Bedsprings which have been exposed to temperatures of 1,500ļF for any length of time are subject to deterioration which appears to be melting, but is not. The metallurgical evaluation is explained in the Fire Technology article, and in somewhat more detail, the evaluation is described in a recently published article in The National Fire and Arson Report. (2) The bottom line with melted steel is that you canít determine whether it has melted by visual examination alone. In order to make a determination that a piece of steel has melted, a microscopic metallurgical evaluation is required.
Kent1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2007, 10:40 AM   #12
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,482
Originally Posted by MG1962 View Post
Actually a better question. How does a Blacksmith make a living. He doesn't cast the horse shoes and stuff. He softens the metal........using???? lol
pfft, blacksmithing is just long term psyops designed to make you think fire can effect metal
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2007, 03:54 AM   #13
Ove
Master Poster
 
Ove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,945
Originally Posted by stateofgrace View Post
.



Having said this very intense fires offshore have indeed reduced steel platforms to nothing, but I do have reservations about comparing a fire onboard an offshore installation to the fires inside the Towers simply because the situations are somewhat different.

(Ct hat off)
Very true there are usually PLENTY of fuel on an oil rig it was just the mere assumption that "Fire can't melt steel" that made me offer that example..
__________________
I am sitting here, completely surrounded by NO BEER.....
(Onslow)
Ove is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2007, 04:35 AM   #14
Dave_46
Muse
 
Dave_46's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK (south Bucks)
Posts: 967
Originally Posted by peteweaver View Post
<snip>
Steel company Corus has a treasure trove of information about the performance of steel in fire, they even went to the trouble of building an eight storey test rig to carry out in depth fire tests to examine structural fire resistance.

http://www.corusconstruction.com/en/...re_resistance/

The Cardington fire tests carried out on behalf of Corus:
http://www.corusconstruction.com/en/...ton_fire_test/

These tests proved that in the case of serious fires, floor trusses become unable to support the loads they were designed to carry, and that the extra tensile strength of composite floor slabs comes into play further strengthening the building thus preventing collapse.

In the case of the world trade center, there had been structural damage, floor slabs were unable to add any additional support, and when trusses failed the loads they supported fell.
The tests were performed by a consortium (of which British Steel, now Corus, were part) in the Building Research Establishments Cardington laboratory. This laboratory is basically a giant shed covered in corrugated steel sheet. It was originally built to house airships.

The test building did not have floor trusses. The floor was supported on steel beams, not trusses. This can be seen in a photo on page 7 of the report linked to here

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pro...tBRE215741.pdf.

That report was for a (relatively) small fire. I witnessed one where about half of one floor (fifth or sixth I think) was set with fire.

Dave
Dave_46 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:05 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.