4 ms·

That argument is interesting. I follow the logic, but I am not sure it's correct. To put it simply, my experience tells me that wood burns. I have seen houses t

That argument is interesting. I follow the logic, but I am not sure it's correct. To put it simply, my experience tells me that wood burns. I have seen houses that have burned, and barns that have burned, and trees that have burned, and they don't look so good. Do they have a demonstration? Build a small structure out of the stuff, and light it on fire. Build one out of metal, light it (its interior framing? Carpet? Gas leak? Wood floors?) on fire and compare the results.

beloch 10y ago
It sounds like we have the same concern. A free-standing steel frame does not readily burn while a wooden frame will. This is obvious. In a complex building things may not be so simple. Assuming that everything around the structure is great fuel, it's possible that a wooden frame won't significantly increase the speed at which the fire spreads and may actually remain structurally sound longer than a steel supporting structure would. In this case, you might have more time to put out the fire before the building collapses. Of course, the obvious question is: why not reduce the amount of combustible building material so that fires don't spread so quickly and there's simply not enough fuel to heat a steel support structure to the point of failure? My intuition says that an ideal building shouldn't readily burn to the point that it's structure fails. If part of it catches fire, the fire should burn itself out before this point is reached. I am not an engineer though, and my intuition may very well be wrong. Obviously, fires do happen in glass and steel buildings. We can build steel-framed buildings that will readily burn to the ground. Can we build wood-framed buildings that won't? This is a complex question to which I don't know the answer.
- jellicle 10y ago
  I sincerely apologize for linking to a 9/11 denial site, but: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm We have plenty of steel skyscrapers that have burned for a LONG time and have not collapsed. Huge fires. Towering infernos. This is a good thing, not only for the residents but also for the neighbors of said structures. I simply do not believe that you can build a building with wood supports that is going to withstand the conditions in those photos without collapsing. Wood skyscrapers that burn are going to collapse with considerable collateral damage. This whole debate is an example of not remembering the past and being doomed to repeat it. Corporate greed to save a few bucks during construction will eventually result in preventable tragedies.
  - jakeogh 10y ago
    Typical mix of everything under the sun... here's a better page on skyscraper fires: http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/Building_Fires http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/Building_Fires I made a 40min documentary on the WTC fires: http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/video/Pretext.mov http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/video/Prete...
DanBC 10y ago
Some countries used wood for ablation shields for some re-entry vehicles. http://fas.org/nuke/intro/missile/basics.htm http://fas.org/nuke/intro/missile/basics.htm Google Books https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2900AQAAMAAJ&pg=SA4-PA4&lpg=SA4-PA4&dq=wood+ablation+shield&source=bl&ots=yzBgx8i0N0&sig=r4IvnkwGbA82Lga6DcCas0Nj6B8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiRm6jOgZvOAhUlD8AKHWsvC6cQ6AEIOjAE#v=onepage&q=wood%20ablation%20shield&f=false https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2900AQAAMAAJ&pg=SA4-PA4&...

beloch 10y ago

It sounds like we have the same concern. A free-standing steel frame does not readily burn while a wooden frame will. This is obvious. In a complex building things may not be so simple. Assuming that everything around the structure is great fuel, it's possible that a wooden frame won't significantly increase the speed at which the fire spreads and may actually remain structurally sound longer than a steel supporting structure would. In this case, you might have more time to put out the fire before the building collapses. Of course, the obvious question is: why not reduce the amount of combustible building material so that fires don't spread so quickly and there's simply not enough fuel to heat a steel support structure to the point of failure? My intuition says that an ideal building shouldn't readily burn to the point that it's structure fails. If part of it catches fire, the fire should burn itself out before this point is reached. I am not an engineer though, and my intuition may very well be wrong. Obviously, fires do happen in glass and steel buildings. We can build steel-framed buildings that will readily burn to the ground. Can we build wood-framed buildings that won't? This is a complex question to which I don't know the answer.

jellicle 10y ago
I sincerely apologize for linking to a 9/11 denial site, but: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm We have plenty of steel skyscrapers that have burned for a LONG time and have not collapsed. Huge fires. Towering infernos. This is a good thing, not only for the residents but also for the neighbors of said structures. I simply do not believe that you can build a building with wood supports that is going to withstand the conditions in those photos without collapsing. Wood skyscrapers that burn are going to collapse with considerable collateral damage. This whole debate is an example of not remembering the past and being doomed to repeat it. Corporate greed to save a few bucks during construction will eventually result in preventable tragedies.
- jakeogh 10y ago
  Typical mix of everything under the sun... here's a better page on skyscraper fires: http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/Building_Fires http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/Building_Fires I made a 40min documentary on the WTC fires: http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/video/Pretext.mov http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/video/Prete...

DanBC 10y ago

Some countries used wood for ablation shields for some re-entry vehicles. http://fas.org/nuke/intro/missile/basics.htm http://fas.org/nuke/intro/missile/basics.htm Google Books https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2900AQAAMAAJ&pg=SA4-PA4&lpg=SA4-PA4&dq=wood+ablation+shield&source=bl&ots=yzBgx8i0N0&sig=r4IvnkwGbA82Lga6DcCas0Nj6B8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiRm6jOgZvOAhUlD8AKHWsvC6cQ6AEIOjAE#v=onepage&q=wood%20ablation%20shield&f=false https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2900AQAAMAAJ&pg=SA4-PA4&...