Cheif Palmer's Report Further Debunked

[DGM]

Thanks, Great info, All these years of seeing these hose setups and now I know. Thanks again.

 

[njslim]

FDNY has a number of high pressure pumpers - they use 3 stage (most are 2 or even
single stage) pumps. The pumpers have a low (for a large pumper) flow capacity of 1000
gal (3800 l) per minute. The high pressure pumpers are used to pressurize the sprinklers
or standpipes of high raise buildings to get water to upper floors. Fire pumps are
placed in various mechanical floors to provide water to the sprinkler or standpipe systems
Most are rated from 500 to 1000 gal/min. Many fire fighting systems in large buildings
are feed from roof top storage tanks. The rule of thumb for a 2 1/2" line is that in can
handle 2500 (50 x50) sq feet - each floor in WTC was over 40,000 sq ft. When one
considers that several floors were heavily if not fully involved in fire, can see the scope
of the task and impossibility of extinguishing the fires. Many of the FDNY realized this -
their primary effort was to get as many people out of the building. Engine companies
entering lobby were doubled up and told to drop half their hose loads. Apparently were
to bring just enough to protect rescue crews and victims, not extinguish the fires.

No. They were contemplating running roll-ups all the way up the stairwell. Seriously.

Rollups is FDNY speak for 50 ft sections of hose rolled into compact "donuts" . Trying
to hump the loads up the stairs would be a b*tch of a job. FDNY men that day would
be hauling some 85-90 lbs/man (55-60 is basic load of bunker gear, boots, SCBA, helmet)
Several years ago had fire in elevator equipment room in 9th story (actually 10th because
was in penthouse on roof) - without elevators had to hump everything up stairs. Felt
like was going to die (and in good shape), we use 1 3/4" hose loads so even lighter than
FDNY would be carrying. Have nothing but awe for what they tried that day...

 

[NYCEMT86]

njslim - thanks for the additional input. When I was a vollie upstate we had a 12 story retirement apartment and we use to drill there every other month. The lay out of the building was that it had the fire exit doors leading to the outside and were only accessible from the outside, so we couldn't use the elevator at all. We used high rise packs with 1 3/4 inch lines that were all bundled together instead of broken up like FDNY uses and that added with an extra bottle and tools was just insane. Truck work was the worst because we had an old 85 foot snorkel. I couldn't imagine humping all the equipment to the 78th or even 110th floor.

 

[gumboot]

As I recall, that floor was described as a "sky lobby," suggesting that, since it was not office space, the load of class A fuels would be less than on the floors above. Thus, whatever the extent of the fires there, it would not serve as evidence that the majority of the fires had burnt out on the higher floors as well.

Not to mention only the tip of the port wing hit the 78th floor, and the fuel tanks on a 767 don't reach out that far.

Thanks to all the firefighters who have provided some really interesting and useful information on this thread!

-Gumboot

 

[Hamradioguy]

Thanks to all the firefighters who have provided some really interesting and useful information on this thread!
-Gumboot

I'll second that. 40 plus years as a volunteer firefighter and it's still interesting to learn new stuff about what the big city guys do. I think the tallest structure in our response area is the Town Hall at about 4 stories. Getting up on a two and a half story roof is plenty of work. Climbing 70 plus flights in full turnout gear? Phew!

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Wait, wait, wait... guys, I'm sorry I'm late to the conversation, but this non-firefighter needs to clarify something:

No. They were contemplating running roll-ups all the way up the stairwell. Seriously.

...Getting up on a two and a half story roof is plenty of work. Climbing 70 plus flights in full turnout gear? Phew!

Those guys were going to drag those superheavy hoses up 70/80+ flights of stairs from ground level by hand?? Wearing all that gear? Dodging all those evacuees? And fight the fire once they got there??!!

Holy Jesus... Is that for real? Because if it is... Man, I didn't think I could hold those guys in any higher esteem for what they did that day, but I'm wrong. My respect for them just skyrocketed again. I'd be winded carrying a bag of potatoes up 10 flights. Hell, I'd be tired just carrying a bag of potato chips that far. Nevermind the 78 floors it would take to get to the first "isolated pockets" of fire.

I'm struck dumb... I figured that skyscraper firefighting would be a physical challenge, but I had absolutely no clue what the magnitude of that challenge was.

 

[fezzic]

FEMA report

The fire sprinklers were retrofitted in the 1990s. There were no sprinklers in the towers when originally constructed.

The fire mains had 2 x 750 gpm pumps and took water from the municipal supply. There were connections for FDNY to connect to to boost pressure to (I guess) various parts of the building.

There were 3 standpipes, one in each stairwell, and (I believe) those were divided into three zones so that loss of one standpipe wouldn't affect the other two.

There were booster pumps (750gpm?) on the 7th, 41st, and 75th floor. Each pump was capable of pumping up 2 stages to provide for the loss of an intervening pump.

There was also water storage tanks (I think one on the 75th floor).

 

[leftysergeant]

This has to have been the worst nightmare scenario for everyone involved. In the Naudet film, there is a scene where two brothers, both high-ranking officers, look at each other with a look that is all "OH BLEEP!" before one of them goes up the stairs.

So, consider for a moment that, not only are you humping a load that would stagger a normal man, you are knowingly going into an area where everyone with the sense that God gave houseflies is screaming and trying to evacuate, and that you are going up there to test yourself in ways that ordinary men nearly never are tested.

Of all the things I have done in my life, soldier, mess sergeant, security guard, poet, fire fighter, I think that being a fire fighter is a more important part of who I am, even after all these years, even though I never really tested myself to the degree that a FDNY hose dragger does on a regular basis.

The amazing thing, when you look at it rationally, is that most of us love the job and can't imagine being happier with an ordinary profession.

Perhaps those of you who have never done it, but know a few fire fighters may think them a little strange sometimes. I know my son is aghast at some of the things I will laugh at. But is a strange sense of humor really inappropriate in that line of work? I don't think most people could do the job without the ability to laugh at some things that would leave the average person shaking for days.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Thanks to all the firefighters who have provided some really interesting and useful information on this thread!

Seconded - and thanks, in particular, just for being firefighters.

Dave

 

[NYCEMT86]

This has to have been the worst nightmare scenario for everyone involved. In the Naudet film, there is a scene where two brothers, both high-ranking officers, look at each other with a look that is all "OH BLEEP!" before one of them goes up the stairs.

So, consider for a moment that, not only are you humping a load that would stagger a normal man, you are knowingly going into an area where everyone with the sense that God gave houseflies is screaming and trying to evacuate, and that you are going up there to test yourself in ways that ordinary men nearly never are tested.

Of all the things I have done in my life, soldier, mess sergeant, security guard, poet, fire fighter, I think that being a fire fighter is a more important part of who I am, even after all these years, even though I never really tested myself to the degree that a FDNY hose dragger does on a regular basis.

The amazing thing, when you look at it rationally, is that most of us love the job and can't imagine being happier with an ordinary profession.

Perhaps those of you who have never done it, but know a few fire fighters may think them a little strange sometimes. I know my son is aghast at some of the things I will laugh at. But is a strange sense of humor really inappropriate in that line of work? I don't think most people could do the job without the ability to laugh at some things that would leave the average person shaking for days.

I have to to agree, I only took EMS as a step in the door way to getting into the suppression side. Now that they canceled the promotional test, I am going to have to wait even longer. Don't get me wrong I like EMS, but humping hose is what I was born to do.

 

[deep]

So what does this all mean? Well if the stand pipe systems were still intact and operational they would have been able to deliver over 338 GPM (Gallons per minute)

1. According to Fundamentals of Fire Fighting Skills, water can flow through a 2.5" hand line at a maximum of 250 GPM.

2. What exactly have you "debunked" with your (likely erroneous) calculations? The capacity of a fire hose does not change the fact that he reported "isolated pockets of fire" (plural), explaining the need for multiple hand lines. Since a hand line is the lowest common denominator for this sort of thing (short of carrying buckets of water up the stairs), how can you assume that the "isolated pockets of fire" would require anything close to the capacity of the hose?

 

[NYCEMT86]

1. According to Fundamentals of Fire Fighting Skills, water can flow through a 2.5" hand line at a maximum of 250 GPM.

Can I see this particular claim do you have a link because I would like to see this full context.


ETA: I believe you are referring to PSI. Also, what does the book say? Is it referring to a 2.5" hand-line have a fog pattern nozzle or a smooth bore nozzle? Even with a fog pattern they usually are rated up to 325 GPM at 100 PSI. According to the NFPA 1961 standard for fire hose, they must be tested with a minimum pressure of 300 PSI, but they are rated higher than that.

2. What exactly have you "debunked" with your (likely erroneous) calculations? The capacity of a fire hose does not change the fact that he reported "isolated pockets of fire" (plural), explaining the need for multiple hand lines. Since a hand line is the lowest common denominator for this sort of thing (short of carrying buckets of water up the stairs), how can you assume that the "isolated pockets of fire" would require anything close to the capacity of the hose?

Erroneous calculations? Those are standard calculations in the fire service, as far as I know there have been 3 additional people who have commented in this thread who have been in or currently in the fire service and none of them find my calculations wrong in anyway.

 

[Drs_Res]

Maybe because he was a fire fighter and he knew how much water can come out of 1 hose vs. 2.

 

[deep]

Can I see this particular claim do you have a link because I would like to see this full context.

Try this: http://books.google.com/books?id=Rh...ns+per+minute&sig=2jEmAd5SmyJAy-W95cMca3ibLXs

You'll see that I'm not referring to PSI.

Erroneous calculations? Those are standard calculations in the fire service, as far as I know there have been 3 additional people who have commented in this thread who have been in or currently in the fire service and none of them find my calculations wrong in anyway.

I said "likely" erroneous, because your findings don't match up with most other published GPM throughput numbers for a 2.5" hand line. There's obviously a chance that the authors of multiple books and other publications are the ones who are wrong.

Either way - what exactly have you debunked? The interesting part of the comment you quoted in your original post was "isolated pockets of fire", as opposed to "two hand lines", since multiple hand lines would be needed to put out fires that are physically spread out, regardless of their size.

 

[NYCEMT86]

Maybe because he was a fire fighter and he knew how much water can come out of 1 hose vs. 2.

I have an Associates Degree in Fire Science and Protection from the NYS Fire Academy in Montour Falls. I was a vollie for some time during the time I was in the academy. Its been almost 2 years since I was as a firefighter but my knowledge is still strong, though I have been corrected or given additional information, which is not a bad thing since firefighting is always changing and nobody can ever know everything.

 

[NYCEMT86]

Try this: http://books.google.com/books?id=Rh...ns+per+minute&sig=2jEmAd5SmyJAy-W95cMca3ibLXs

You'll see that I'm not referring to PSI.

AND I QUOTE:

Water can flow through these hoses at more than 250 GPM.

No where in that page do I find it say "Maximum of 250 GPM"

I said "likely" erroneous, because your findings don't match up with most other published GPM throughput numbers for a 2.5" hand line. There's obviously a chance that the authors of multiple books and other publications are the ones who are wrong.

Please apologize for your illiteracy and coming to the conclusion that my figures were likely erroneous.

Either way - what exactly have you debunked? The interesting part of the comment you quoted in your original post was "isolated pockets of fire", as opposed to "two hand lines", since multiple hand lines would be needed to put out fires that are physically spread out, regardless of their size.

As we see on the 78th floor in the NIST thermal pictures (source) that most of the fire is concentrated in a corner and as njslim pointed out one 2.5" line can handle 2500 sq feet, so to call in additional line could mean that the fire was bigger than 2500 sq ft and more spread out.

 

[Hamradioguy]

OK, a slight derail here, but I see the potential for making a big issue about how many GPM you can get out of a 2.5 inch hose line. The "rule of thumb" is 250GPM for this sized line. But that's not an absolute by any means. It depends on nozzle size, pump pressure, friction loss in the hose (Which goes up astronomically as water flow increases) and practical nozzle pressures for firefighting (Nominal is 50psi for smooth bore tips and 100psi for fog nozzles- but those aren't absolutes either.) FWIW, IFSTA 200 (Essentials of Firefighting) lists "Maximum Efficient Water Capacity US GPM" for 2.5 inch hose as 300GPM. I'm neither a Pump Operator nor an expert in water/pump hydraulics but I'm willing to bet serious money that I can flow far more than 300GPM through a 2.5 inch hose if need be. Any takers? (Yeah, efficiency will drop, but that's a relative term anyway.)

Now, back on thread topic, eh?

 

[gumboot]

2. What exactly have you "debunked" with your (likely erroneous) calculations? The capacity of a fire hose does not change the fact that he reported "isolated pockets of fire" (plural), explaining the need for multiple hand lines. Since a hand line is the lowest common denominator for this sort of thing (short of carrying buckets of water up the stairs), how can you assume that the "isolated pockets of fire" would require anything close to the capacity of the hose?

A hand line is the lowest common denominator? What do you think firemen use to fight big fires? A hand line is usually the biggest "common denominator".

The problem is conspiracy theorists, for some reason, translate "isolated" as "small". As actual firemen have explained previously in this forum, "isolated" does not mean "small". It means "isolated". An "isolated" fire can still be an enormous raging inferno.

-Gumboot

 

[deep]

A hand line is the lowest common denominator? What do you think firemen use to fight big fires? A hand line is usually the biggest "common denominator".

Sorry, no. They use master streams to fight big fires (i.e., streams of water that will blow through walls if used in the wrong situation).

The problem is conspiracy theorists, for some reason, translate "isolated" as "small". As actual firemen have explained previously in this forum, "isolated" does not mean "small". It means "isolated". An "isolated" fire can still be an enormous raging inferno.

No, "isolated" means "not close together". "Pocket" means "a small, isolated, or protected area or group".

0-2.

 

[gumboot]

Sorry, no. They use master streams to fight big fires (i.e., streams of water that will blow through walls if used in the wrong situation).

And how big are the hoses for these "master streams"? Do firemen routinely haul them up skyscrapers?

No, "isolated" means "not close together". "Pocket" means "a small, isolated, or protected area or group".

Um... you bolded the wrong word there...

"Pocket" means "a small, isolated, or protected area or group"

If there had been two small areas of fire, why would he have asked for two lines, when they could have simply knocked one out and then the other? If the fires really were small as well as isolated, a c.250GPM hose would take one out in no time.

-Gumboot