Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

NutmegYankee

(16,480 posts)

22. Fireproofing has advanced dramatically from the 1970s.

Reply to lovuian (Reply #18)

Fri Jan 1, 2016, 04:39 PM

Jan 2016

Codes have advanced a lot too. This is a newer building and has better designs for firestops, which limit the spread of a fire. The older fireproofing wasn't as effective once we limited asbestos use for a few decades, though modern alternatives are pretty damn good.

BUT - what really helped here was the fire was limited to the outside and did not torch the internal structure. Go look at pictures in the daylight.

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

28 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

This message was self-deleted by its author [View all] lovuian Jan 2016 OP

External fire away from columns versus a violent collision with an object weighing tons followed by NutmegYankee Jan 2016 #1

Building 7 had no collision with planes just a "fire" lovuian Jan 2016 #4

It had massive sections of the the towers smash into it during their collapse. nt NutmegYankee Jan 2016 #5

Official reason for WTC #7 collapse lovuian Jan 2016 #11

Did the fire get to the columns of the building in dubai? NutmegYankee Jan 2016 #14

Intact fireproofing on the columns ....fascinating lovuian Jan 2016 #18

Fireproofing has advanced dramatically from the 1970s. NutmegYankee Jan 2016 #22

255,000 lb max takeoff weight - whatever fuel it burned + traveling at over 400 kts = kinetic energy cherokeeprogressive Jan 2016 #6

Building 7 didn't have a jet fly into it lovuian Jan 2016 #8

Oh. Well if THAT'S all you're saying... then by all means go on with yer bad self! cherokeeprogressive Jan 2016 #10

I'm fascinated at the Dubai design and how well it stood the fire lovuian Jan 2016 #13

The only thing I've got to say is madokie Jan 2016 #2

No Jet Fuel to accerlate the heat vinny9698 Jan 2016 #3

Again building 7 had no jet hit it lovuian Jan 2016 #7

The denial runs pretty thick here. smirkymonkey Jan 2016 #17

This has been understood by blacksmiths for centuries but not somehow today NutmegYankee Jan 2016 #9

Fascinating so is the steel at the Dubai Skyscraper special? lovuian Jan 2016 #12

Do you have any evidence it was exposed to heat? NutmegYankee Jan 2016 #15

The evidence is the fire burnt for 20 hours and smoke seen lovuian Jan 2016 #20

That evidence is? NutmegYankee Jan 2016 #23

... In which case, at most, one might expect the two towers to have bent over Ghost Dog Jan 2016 #19

There is a science that explains this called statics. NutmegYankee Jan 2016 #25

It's so cute how any burning skyscraper becomes a reason Cal Carpenter Jan 2016 #16

I'm pointing out how we can learn from this terrible tragedies lovuian Jan 2016 #24

Please Mods edhopper Jan 2016 #21

this is not about 911 this is about how a Dubai Skyscraper lovuian Jan 2016 #26

Bullshit edhopper Jan 2016 #27

I'm sorry to cause distress and will self delete lovuian Jan 2016 #28