Another Steel-Framed Building Collapses Due to Fire

[Moving On]

There's discussion about it on a firefighters' board here:

http://www.firehall.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1355

post #4 confirms that this is how they do things in Seattle.

I'm assuming Russell's 25% quote is based on a 24 hours on 72 hours off shift system.

Given that it involves being on call, its unlikely that a firefighter would be going to a fire without any sleep. Assuming the shift ran from something like 9am to 9am the next day and the firemean went to bed at 11pm - they'd have to be fighting fires constantly from 11pm to 9am to avoid getting any sleep at all.

Edited to add:



http://www.firehall.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10993&postcount=12

The 24 hour shift is used in many departments.

You are not "on call". You are at a station from 07:30 to 7:30.

Your duty day is as follows:

1) Turn over and sign in to replace the outgoing firefighter.

2) Apparatus and equipment inventory.

3) Station cleaning duties. Then on certain days you have to do brass, glass and grass. Then on a monthly rotation you test hose, strip and wax floors etc.

4) Station breakfast.

5) You are required to do one hour of physical fitness and two hours worth of drills every day.

6) You have battalion training, fire inspections and public relations most of the normal work day. In Seattle the stations are open to free blood pressure checks all day.

7) Then you have a station dinner. You will have a relaxed evening schedule and are allowed to go to bed at 10:00 PM (even though dozing in a recliner may happen sometimes).

8) Then all night you respond to calls if the bell hits. Most of your activity in Seattle is EMS and false alarms. Sometimes you will be awake the whole time but that is rare. The most runs I have ever had in a day was 21. I also had many shifts where we didn't "turn a wheel".

 

[maccy]

You are not "on call". You are at a station from 07:30 to 7:30.

Sorry, I only meant "on call" in the sense that you are not supposed to be awake for the whole 24 hours - ie that once you go to sleep you'll only be woken up if you're called out to a fire or other incident. I didn't mean to imply that you were at home and/or not doing other work for the whole 24 hour period.

Sorry for any misunderstanding.

For what it's worth I believe you were a firefighter in Seattle, but what really interests me is your assessment of the evidence. To that end, can you answer my questions, above?

Many thanks

Matthew

 

[Gravy]

Russell, why don't you believe all the accounts of the FDNY of the condition of WTC 7?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Russell, if the, as you perceive, personal attacks against you don't bother you, then why are those the only posts to which you reply? Why are you not ignoring those posts and addressing the ones that are directly related to your argument?

 

[Moving On]

As I said above, I seriously doubt your abilities to interpret the statistics or the raw data but do feel free to try. My partner's primary station is 331 - Toronto Fire Service.

Toronto is a much larger department than Seattle.

They have 2,900 staff. Seattle had 1005 in my last year there.

Toronto looks to have 80 plus stations. Seattle had 33 when I was there.

In 2005 Toronto had 140,516 incidents. Only 7% of those were fire calls - not actual fires. I could not find a number for actual fires versus false alarms.

In 2001 Seattle had 73,677 responses. 1,736 of those were fires. In addition to that Seattle had 6059 false alarms.

You can question my original numbers if you want but that is just foolishness on your part. I specified well involved or fully involved fires. I went to numerous room fires and smaller events. In Seattle you may be at a station that was overstaffed. So every third or fourth shift you go work at another station that needs personnel. On debit days you work at other stations. With shift trades and overtime you will eventually work all over the city to average out the differences in fire events usually based on income brackets.

If you average out the number of fires, the number of shifts and the fact that you work 24 hours in different first-in districts in the size of a city like Seattle the first-in well involved or fully involved structure fires are about 5 per year.

The other thing your ignorance is leading you to foolishly believe is that first-in is all you get. NO. In a full response you have a second and third arriving engine company too. I was on many of those as well. But by the time you get to most of those the initial knock down is finished and I didn't count that.

I have tried to leave most of this rest but since you want to display your lack of knowledge for all to see I will go into more detail for you.

The percentages of fires in metropolitan departs tends to average out and be similar for departments that do both EMS and fires. Fully involved structure fires are the exception and not the rule.

I know it is the nature of attorneys (if you really are one) to win no matter what, but you should just quit while you are behind.

 

[Moving On]

Translation: Russell cannot provide any names or sources, as usual, and he is peeved that I called him on his alleged facts and evidence that he cannot provide.

You presented yourself as an honest researcher when you first arrived here. That was a lie. You don't like the fact that some here, including me, called you on your lies and that you were unable to support them with anything even remotely resembling facts or evidence.

Oh well. That's your problem. Suck it up, big boy. Around here, you have to either put up or shut up. You have thusfar been unable to do the former and you're apparently unwilling to do the latter.

You really should stop trying to blame others for your own failures.

Again, your true nature is showing.

I have not lied one single time on this forum.

I NEVER have an intent to deceive and have no motive for doing so. I have told the truth 100%.

It is in fact you that resorts to distortions in truth and is highly prone to exaggeration and manipulation.

Where I have been in error, I have learned and corrected myself.

The rest are my opinions and beliefs. Not lies.

You on the other hand have a desperate need to be right no matter what and proceed in spite of the facts.

Your insinuations and false allegations must really impress the courts there huh?

 

[chipmunk stew]

Toronto is a much larger department than Seattle.

They have 2,900 staff. Seattle had 1005 in my last year there.

Toronto looks to have 80 plus stations. Seattle had 33 when I was there.

In 2005 Toronto had 140,516 incidents. Only 7% of those were fire calls - not actual fires. I could not find a number for actual fires versus false alarms.

In 2001 Seattle had 73,677 responses. 1,736 of those were fires. In addition to that Seattle had 6059 false alarms.

You can question my original numbers if you want but that is just foolishness on your part. I specified well involved or fully involved fires. I went to numerous room fires and smaller events. In Seattle you may be at a station that was overstaffed. So every third or fourth shift you go work at another station that needs personnel. On debit days you work at other stations. With shift trades and overtime you will eventually work all over the city to average out the differences in fire events usually based on income brackets.

If you average out the number of fires, the number of shifts and the fact that you work 24 hours in different first-in districts in the size of a city like Seattle the first-in well involved or fully involved structure fires are about 5 per year.

The other thing your ignorance is leading you to foolishly believe is that first-in is all you get. NO. In a full response you have a second and third arriving engine company too. I was on many of those as well. But by the time you get to most of those the initial knock down is finished and I didn't count that.

I have tried to leave most of this rest but since you want to display your lack of knowledge for all to see I will go into more detail for you.

The percentages of fires in metropolitan departs tends to average out and be similar for departments that do both EMS and fires. Fully involved structure fires are the exception and not the rule.

I know it is the nature of attorneys (if you really are one) to win no matter what, but you should just quit while you are behind.

fine you win who cares now will you re-rail please

 

[Moving On]

LashL overanalysed this one:



You see, his math is actually perfect. This is, in fact, a testament to the absolutely stellar leadership he has provided to the Seattle Fire Department.

Consider. If the chance of encountering a fire on one of 4 shifts is 25%/33 (for the number of stations) this means that they have consistently reduced the number of fires occuring in Seattle to (on average) one per day, for the entire city. Not only that, but they have nullified all risk-factors so that one fire happens in a purely random distribution patten over the life of time observed in his career.

I demand you stop this criticism immediately, considering that this means in the Seattle area, there are only (on average) 365 fires a year of any kind! That is the lowest rate in the nation and probably the world. I think we should collectively nominate him for an award of some kind. Perhaps we can help him set up a speaking tour to help the other Fire Departments rise to the standards he has helped implement.

That is so uneducated.

Here are the facts: http://www.cityofseattle.net/fire/statistics/nfpaReport_Seattle.htm

I hate dealing with religious fanatics and dogmatic people. ugh!

 

[chipmunk stew]

That is so uneducated.

Here are the facts: http://www.cityofseattle.net/fire/statistics/nfpaReport_Seattle.htm

I hate dealing with religious fanatics and dogmatic people. ugh!

then why do you do it answer the thread-relevant questions instead

 

[stateofgrace]

The 24 hour shift is used in many departments.

You are not "on call". You are at a station from 07:30 to 7:30.

Your duty day is as follows:

1) Turn over and sign in to replace the outgoing firefighter.

2) Apparatus and equipment inventory.

3) Station cleaning duties. Then on certain days you have to do brass, glass and grass. Then on a monthly rotation you test hose, strip and wax floors etc.

4) Station breakfast.

5) You are required to do one hour of physical fitness and two hours worth of drills every day.

6) You have battalion training, fire inspections and public relations most of the normal work day. In Seattle the stations are open to free blood pressure checks all day.

7) Then you have a station dinner. You will have a relaxed evening schedule and are allowed to go to bed at 10:00 PM (even though dozing in a recliner may happen sometimes).

8) Then all night you respond to calls if the bell hits. Most of your activity in Seattle is EMS and false alarms. Sometimes you will be awake the whole time but that is rare. The most runs I have ever had in a day was 21. I also had many shifts where we didn't "turn a wheel".

Your stroll down memory lane is totally irrelevant. I could not care less about your history or whether you were a fire fighter.

Please answer the questions that members have put to you or leave the thread.

 

[W6102LA]

Dodging the hard questions again i see Russ

 

[Moving On]

Russell, I really couldn't give a fig about your past as a firefighter. Personally, I believe you, but it doesn't make a lick of difference as far as I'm concerned.

I'm purely concerned with your views and arguments about the evidence.

Please answer the following, or explain why it belongs with stupid questions unworthy of response:

Yes - I highly disagree.

Here is a glossary definition of "fully involved".

Fully involved: Term of size-up meaning fire, heat and smoke in a structure are so widespread that internal access must wait until fire streams can be applied.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_firefighting_terms

That definition varies from department to department. In Seattle it meant the damn place was fully involved in fire. But even using the glossary definition - WTC 7 was not fully involved and you have no means to demonstrate that it was.

8 floors just like FEMA said. Floor 12 was even burned out. It was not a contigous fully involved fire that was a 47 story conflagration.

I know it makes you angry to have to face that you are wrong.

 

[chipmunk stew]

UPDATE:

• At least [edit: ten] relevant questions have gone unanswered by Russell Pickering in this thread.
• Russell Pickering has instead focused solely on questions about his personal history and responded generally to "JREF tactics".

1) This fully involved building burned unchecked for about seven hours. Do you agree or disagree?

edit: answered by RP above.

<snip>
[renumbered]
2) How do you account for the quantity of smoke coming from WTC7, as shown in the photos at this post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2081821&postcount=443 ?

3) How do you account for the testimony gathered in Gravy's paper? Are the witness mistaken? Lying? Is there an equal amount of contradictory testimony regarding the fires in the building? If there is, can you provide links to it?

4) If the building wasn't in danger of collapse from fire and structural damage, why did the FDNY pull men out from a collapse zone around the building, stopping the search for survivors in that area?

5) Do you accept that NIST believes the likely cause of the collapse is fire and structural damage and that there is no evidence of explosives?

6) If the final NIST report concludes that NIST's current hypothesis is correct and also that none of the hypothetical blast scenarios are plausible, will you accept it?

7) Do you currently have an alternative hypothesis that explains how the building was wired to explode, how the explosives survived the fires for so long and how they were finally detonated? If you don't currently have a hypothesis, do you plan to develop one? Do you plan on consulting any demolition extperts or structural engineers in regard to this?

8) Did the named firefighters who related the condition of WTC 7 lie about it?

9) The obvious implication of your posts here is that you think they are lying, and may even be in on it. Is that an accurate summary?

10) Russell, why don't you believe all the accounts of the FDNY of the condition of WTC 7?

11) Russell, if the, as you perceive, personal attacks against you don't bother you, then why are those the only posts to which you reply? Why are you not ignoring those posts and addressing the ones that are directly related to your argument?

 

[Moving On]

The things you people here will not face amaze me. The bottom right picture is fully involved. You do not even see 1 single floor like that at WTC 7 let alone 47 of them.

Look how nice and neat WTC 7 is all cleaned up with everything around left intact. Don't you wonder why? Don't you wonder why FEMA can not answer it? Don't you wonder why NIST might be 6 years out from explaining it and they are including explosive specialists in the investigation? Don't you wonder why that is the first steel frame structure to collapse primarily from fire as we have it now?

Doesn't it bother you that you are making claims that not even NIST has committed to? You are operating on pure speculation from a personal bias. The government has not even provided the facts yet. It is a 100% anomalous event as of now with no official explanation. Period.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Yes - I highly disagree.

Here is a glossary definition of "fully involved".



That definition varies from department to department. In Seattle it meant the damn place was fully involved in fire. But even using the glossary definition - WTC 7 was not fully involved and you have no means to demonstrate that it was.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/7.jpg

8 floors just like FEMA said. Floor 12 was even burned out. It was not a contigous fully involved fire that was a 47 story conflagration.

I know it makes you angry to have to face that you are wrong.

What makes you think I'm angry?


What am I wrong about? Dozens of FDNY on the ground characterized it as "fully involved". Apparently it met their definition. Neither I, nor anyone here, has claimed that it was a 47 story conflagration.

What about the next part? This building burned unchecked for about seven hours. Do you agree or disagree?

 

[Moving On]

The obvious implication of your posts here is that you think they are lying, and may even be in on it. Is that an accurate summary?

More simplicity and projection.

The rest of it was not worth a response.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

More simplicity and projection.

The rest of it was not worth a response.

you make a big deal about you, as a fire fighter, are so very qualified to tell when a building is "fully involved in fire" or not (of course this doesnt change the fact that were not in NY on 9/11/2001 so your observations are still inferior to those of the firefighters on the scene)

either way the implciation is the firefighters are somehow mistaken, given your descriptions, and the fact that NY probably has more fires than seattle and toronto combined, this means simple human error seems unlikely, what other alternatives are there?

what is your explanation, why did FDNY describe WTC7 as fully involved in fire, and why did they expect it to collapse?

 

[Spins]

Don't you wonder why NIST might be 6 years out from explaining it and they are including explosive specialists in the investigation?

Are they, can you provide proof of this?

Working Collapse Hypothesis for WTC 7
If it remains viable upon further analysis, the working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 suggests that it was a classic progressive collapse, including:

An Initiating Event
An initial local failure at the lower floors (below Floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event), which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 ft2

A Vertical Progression at the East Side of the Building
Vertical progression of the initial local failure up to the east penthouse, as large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse

A Subsequent Horizontal Progression from the East to the West Side
Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of Floors 5 and 7, that were much thicker than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure

Disproportionate Global Collapse
Events resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure

NIST has seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition.

Why in their current hypothesis do NIST say they have found no evidence of bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition at WTC 7?

 

[Miss Anthrope]

There is somebody on this thread now that is part of an agency in King County who certified me medically.

I have given them permission to investigate anything about me and share it here.

Ask them.

Your insults of the SFD are based on ignorance.

I can say that Russell was a firefighter in Seattle, this I confirmed. However I'm new here and you should take that with a grain of salt, as I would.

That said, I disagree 100% with Russell's CT Theories.

 

[Moving On]

you make a big deal about you, as a fire fighter, are so very qualified to tell when a building is "fully involved in fire" or not (of course this doesnt change the fact that were not in NY on 9/11/2001 so your observations are still inferior to those of the firefighters on the scene)

either way the implciation is the firefighters are somehow mistaken, given your descriptions, and the fact that NY probably has more fires than seattle and toronto combined, this means simple human error seems unlikely, what other alternatives are there?

what is your explanation, why did FDNY describe WTC7 as fully involved in fire, and why did they expect it to collapse?

Please go back and see who made a big deal about it. I did not.

Certain members here decided to drastically misrepresent and attack me based on dating a firefighter and feeling that somehow as an attorney they know everything.

I am responding as I will not tolerate the lies and tactics that you people here resort to in an effort to defend your religion.