Camden Market Fire

[Bushwacker]

Truthseekers often doubt that the fires in the WTC could generate enough heat to get the steel structure to a sufficient temperature for it to lose enough of its strength for the buildings to collapse. The fire at Camden Market certainly managed that, on the video of the aftermath you can see a massive I-beam bent through 90 degrees.

News Report
To see the video, then click "Video Reports - Aftermath: Charred remains of market" on the right hand side, and note the beam at 00:31.1.

[TonyGosling]

Camden Market wasn't in a steel framed skyscraper the last time I was there.

[Bushwacker]

[telecasterisation]

It would indeed be interesting to get a detailed scientific explanation as to why steel in one location can be so weakened whilst another cannot. The derisive sniping angle serves no purpose and only widens the divides.

Could the bent steel be related to age, thickness, load bearing, or did something extremely heavy fall on it causing it to bend?

One other point; fires that generate such intense heat will create 'blackening' on the surrounding area due to factors such as carbonisation - the image shows no such discolouration on the beam or stone wall - is that not strange given the intensity of the said fire?

[blackcat]

[pepik]

[telecasterisation]

It is a great shame that subjects such as this cannot be discussed sensibly without all the Billy Bunter ya-boo type banter. 'I know better than you na na na'.

We have all kinds of rhetoric and 'paths of least or greatest resistance' type quoting and opinion - but however we cut this, it appears that steel girders do bend as the result of fire.

Given the huge load bearing forces in the WTC towers compared to Camden Market - and regardless of what my own belief system is inclined to give the nod to, unless someone can prove conclusively that the girder in the above image did not fold over/buckle due to extreme heat, then I can at least comprehend that a severely compromised upper section of a large building could conceivably exert more downward force than the lower sections were designed to support.

I am not saying that WTC went south due to the fires, merely I cannot rule it out given what we can clearly see. Any other explanations are most welcome.

[marky 54]

the answer i feel is obvious.

would the beam of bent if there was no fire? no.

so the fire and weight it was supporting caused the beam to bend.

however the question is how many of the wtc beams would it take to do the same inorder for the weight to overcome the supporting structure?

how long did this camden fire last?

i can only find reference to other fire engines taking 40 mintues to get there. if the fire lasted 5 hours for example, it would give a slightly different slant, so we need to know this.

i also agree with blackcat, the suspicion of the wtc collapse, lays in how the WHOLE building collapsed and turned in to mostly dust whilst falling into the path of most resistence, as opposed to the fire effect floors collapsing due to fire.

[TonyGosling]

there have been plans to sell the market and develop the site which Camden Council have until now refused - so the developers, it seems to me, have had this place torched so they can get their way. It could be that simple.

Check out the Camden New Journal
http://www.thecnj.co.uk/camden/2008/020708/news_camdentownfire.html

[Bushwacker]

The distortion of the steel beam at Camden Market certainly does not prove the WTC buildings were brought down by fire, it sheds no light on whether one floor giving way would bring down the towers at nearly freefall speed, and marky makes a good point that it may have been subjected to the fire in Camden for longer than the WTC towers burnt. What it does show is simply that even a massive beam can be heated to a temperature where it loses enough strength to be grossly distorted in an ordinary fire. Some truthseekers have disputed that in the past, claiming that a normal building fire would not be sufficiently hot.

[paul wright]

[Bushwacker]

[paul wright]

Nonsense, Bushwacker. How the fire started and evidential pictures from it are all connected. I'm not suggesting a big conspiracy here. Just a small one to let the corporations develop the site with all the usual high street stores appearing and replacing all the crack-motivated celebs favourite haunts and dives. Sure the bent beam's a red herring. Damn those legal highs marketeers and all the Noughties clientele.

[Bushwacker]

I am also suggesting a small conspiracy, a small conspiracy to obfuscate the evident fact that a massive steel beam has clearly bent in a normal building fire, because the truth that such a thing can happen is unwelcome to "truthseekers"

[marky 54]

surely the fact a conspiracy may of took place to develop the site, is seperate from the fact there is a bent beam caused by fire, and which would not of bent without the fire?

they are two different subjects. surely the point cannot be ignored in favour of a development conspiracy.

[paul wright]

[conspiracy analyst]

Dont Victorian buildings have tonnes of wood in them?
Does the same proportion of wood exist in skyscrapers?

Or is it because aeroplane fuel can travel intact passed concrete walls after impact, empty its load, which finds its way to the base but burns initially at the top of the building allowing it to fall at freefall speed?

[Bushwacker]

[Bushwacker]

[TonyGosling]

I'm still waiting for a link to that picture of the bent steel to prove its from Camden.

He of little faith.

[Bushwacker]

[TonyGosling]

ta,


hmmmmm

What was stored in that particular area?

Something that burns at a higher temperature than jet fuel I reckon.

[Bushwacker]

[sam]

[blackcat]

That woman who was standing in the gap caused by the plane crash didn't get a chance to say how many thousands of degrees centigrade it was.



http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2005/170105womanwaving.htm

[pepik]

As you can see from the photo, she's not standing in the fire. Genius.

Or maybe you think that photo proves there was no fire at all? Most likely you believe whatever Alex "bone shattering mega attacks" Jones tells you to think.

[Bushwacker]

[fish5133]

Steel and fire protection. There is a complicated calculation that takes place to determine the quantities of fire protective material required to provide a given fire protection e.g.. 1hr 2hr or 4 hr. to do with the heated perimeter and the cross sectional area. In respect of intumescent paint www.nullifire.co.uk/passive_fire/calculating_section.htm
some small section steel cannot be protected and usually only main structural steel will be fire protected.
Technically, very large steel sections actually will provide a certain protection from fire without the need for additional fire protection to be added. The central core columns of the WTCs would probably fall into that category and certainly the ones on lower floors.
In relation to collapse of WTCs the fact that steel buckles under heat is not in question rather that the fires on that day could not have caused the 47 massive core columns to have failed from gf to impact zone.
we also have the c*** and bull story of how plane impact dislodged all the fire protection around the steel
if we can get details of the sizes of the central core columns we can calculate the fire resistance of the bare columns.

[Alex_V]

[TonyGosling]

Could not the steel beam have fallen from an upper story and bent that way? Or else had a heavy weight collapse upon it?
Is it indeed high tensile steel at all?
I must say it is an intriguing picture.

Maybe the site should be sealed awaiting further investigation?