Ask all firefighting and fire related questions here

NYCEMT86

Graduate Poster
NYCEMT86
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
1,091
Since it has almost been 9 years since 9/11, there are still a lot of misconceptions floating around about fires and firefighting. So to help clarify and answer any questions people may have, I started this thread.


I also ask that any other posters with firefighting experience to join in as well.
 
Although I agree with the premise of this thread I don't think I can recall a "firefighting" question in some time. I've seen lots of questioning of firefighters opinions of things they saw but, nothing of a technical nature.

Unless you can get the persons (firefighters) in question to come here and say that they didn't think there were explosives in the towers or they thought WTC7 was badly damaged without being told so, I think this thread will be for not.

Just my $.02
 
Yeah, but I personally have done alot of research, and have found many good links. This would be a great place to post them.

Untill my website is finally done. It's overdue. Big time. I gotta quit slacking.
 
have you ever seen fireproofing on steel melt into a glassy residue? at what temp would the fire have to be to melt blazeshield or the older asbestos containing fireproofing?
 
BigAl said:
What is the definition of "fully involved"?
Click to expand...

It depends on the context you are using it for, but the general definition is when an entire area is completely on fire. You can have a fully involved house/building, floor, or room.


Senenmut said:
have you ever seen fireproofing on steel melt into a glassy residue? at what temp would the fire have to be to melt blazeshield or the older asbestos containing fireproofing?
Click to expand...

No, I have not seen what you have described. Normally fireproofing can have a rating of 1 hour to 3 hours, but it depends on the thickness of the fireproofing and fire load.

To answer the rest of of your question, I am looking more into this. I will return with more of an answer than I do now.

-ETA-

Okay, after doing a little research I have found a couple things that might help with your question. I usually don't like citing Wikipedia, but unfortunately I do not have the money to purchase the paper in which this is sourced from.

(Go to the "Recycling and Disposal" section of the page)

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

As for the blazeshield I couldn't find a melting point, but here is some basic information. To get a better answer, I would recommend emailing the company and seeing what you could find out.

Here is a diagram of specific fire ratings for different types of steel components
 
Last edited:
NYCEMT86 said:
It depends on the context you are using it for, but the general definition is when an entire area is completely on fire. You can have a fully involved house/building, floor, or room.




No, I have not seen what you have described. Normally fireproofing can have a rating of 1 hour to 3 hours, but it depends on the thickness of the fireproofing and fire load.

To answer the rest of of your question, I am looking more into this. I will return with more of an answer than I do now.

-ETA-

Okay, after doing a little research I have found a couple things that might help with your question. I usually don't like citing Wikipedia, but unfortunately I do not have the money to purchase the paper in which this is sourced from.

(Go to the "Recycling and Disposal" section of the page)

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

As for the blazeshield I couldn't find a melting point, but here is some basic information. To get a better answer, I would recommend emailing the company and seeing what you could find out.

Here is a diagram of specific fire ratings for different types of steel components
Click to expand...

i actually did email the makers of blazeshield a few months ago. no answer yet. all i could find is that it melts above 1800f. no specific temp, just above 1800f.
 
Senenmut said:
i actually did email the makers of blazeshield a few months ago. no answer yet. all i could find is that it melts above 1800f. no specific temp, just above 1800f.
Click to expand...

You might want to write an email to Underwriters Lab as well, since they did the fire rating tests.

I would be interested in both responses.
 
NYCEMT86 said:
You might want to write an email to Underwriters Lab as well, since they did the fire rating tests.

I would be interested in both responses.
Click to expand...

well, im one step ahead of ya. got that response from underwriters already:

This is in response to your email.

Please contact the manufacture of the product for questions such as the one asked.

Should you have any other questions or comments please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,


Michael (ext. 42902)
 
NYCEMT86 said:
I usually don't like citing Wikipedia, but unfortunately I do not have the money to purchase the paper in which this is sourced from.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the Gualtieria and Tartagliab paper ("Thermal decomposition of asbestos and recycling in traditional ceramics")? If so, I have access to it through the university I work at. Let me know if you want a copy; I've already downloaded it.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Are you talking about the Gualtieria and Tartagliab paper ("Thermal decomposition of asbestos and recycling in traditional ceramics")? If so, I have access to it through the university I work at. Let me know if you want a copy; I've already downloaded it.
Click to expand...

Yes that is the one. I would appreciate a copy if you wouldn't mind. Thanks :)
 
I cringe when I hear the term "fully involved" used in sizing up a fire situation. If you arrive at a structure that is burning from front to back, side to side, and top to bottom, and is minutes from becoming essentially a parking lot then the term fits. But if it's one end of an attic next to a chimney, or a "room and contents" fire, then saying "fully involved" (unless you add "one part of the attic" or "one room of the building") is misleading. In this rural area we encourage more specific "first on-scene" reports than the blanket term fully involved. An uphill battle however, particularly with some of the old-timers who just love that term.
 
BigAl said:
What is the definition of "fully involved"?
Click to expand...

depends on the size of the building. One room of a skyscraper=/= fully involved.

Flames shooting out of many windows, on an entire floor, we might call that fully involved.

A house with one window with flames shooting out?? No. A working fire, but not fully involved.

And antire side of the house with flames showing, Yes.

But, it really just depends on the department really.


ElMondo, can you CC me on that? I would love to read it and use it in class.
 
Last edited:
NYCEMT86 said:
Since it has almost been 9 years since 9/11, there are still a lot of misconceptions floating around about fires and firefighting. So to help clarify and answer any questions people may have, I started this thread.


I also ask that any other posters with firefighting experience to join in as well.
Click to expand...

In the case of WTC7 the fires initially were sparse, small and widely seperated. No evidence shows otherwise- in fact the existing evidence all confirms the small sparse fires. Why could the firemen who were there in their hundreds not have extinguished the small fires using fire extinguishers requisitioned from dozens of surrounding skyscrapers and trucked in from elsewhere?
 
Last edited:
I have one. But it's a difficult one, in two different ways.

How would the events of 9/11 have played out if none of the buildings had globally collapsed? All other facts of the events being the same.*

I'm asking for a full scenario for the firefighting and rescue effort. Timeline, personnel involved, probabilities of successful rescues of people on upper floors, probable firefighter casualties, aftermath.

I've tried this myself, so I'll warn you, besides being a technically complex question, it also might be stressful to think about. I'd be honored to hear your assessment in detail, and completely understanding if you choose to answer briefly or not at all.

Respectfully,
Myriad

*I realize that there's a logical contradiction here, because constructed as the buildings were, with the plane crashes and fires as they occurred, and the laws of physics being what they are, the collapses were inevitable. But let's just say, for the alternative scenario, that the buildings were magically collapse-proof.
 
Myriad said:
I have one. But it's a difficult one, in two different ways.

How would the events of 9/11 have played out if none of the buildings had globally collapsed? All other facts of the events being the same.*

I'm asking for a full scenario for the firefighting and rescue effort. Timeline, personnel involved, probabilities of successful rescues of people on upper floors, probable firefighter casualties, aftermath.

I've tried this myself, so I'll warn you, besides being a technically complex question, it also might be stressful to think about. I'd be honored to hear your assessment in detail, and completely understanding if you choose to answer briefly or not at all.

Respectfully,
Myriad

*I realize that there's a logical contradiction here, because constructed as the buildings were, with the plane crashes and fires as they occurred, and the laws of physics being what they are, the collapses were inevitable. But let's just say, for the alternative scenario, that the buildings were magically collapse-proof.
Click to expand...

Maybe this is a derail, but I've always pondered a similar question. Would they have tried to repair the towers? If not, then how would they have been dismantled and removed?
 
Hamradioguy said:
I cringe when I hear the term "fully involved" used in sizing up a fire situation. If you arrive at a structure that is burning from front to back, side to side, and top to bottom, and is minutes from becoming essentially a parking lot then the term fits. But if it's one end of an attic next to a chimney, or a "room and contents" fire, then saying "fully involved" (unless you add "one part of the attic" or "one room of the building") is misleading. In this rural area we encourage more specific "first on-scene" reports than the blanket term fully involved. An uphill battle however, particularly with some of the old-timers who just love that term.
Click to expand...

I have always maintained that a small proportion of the firefighters were lying.. Certainly the one who said 'WTC7 was fully involved in fire, from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors' was.
 
Profanz said:
Maybe this is a derail, but I've always pondered a similar question. Would they have tried to repair the towers? If not, then how would they have been dismantled and removed?
Click to expand...
The Port Authority wanted to demolish the Twin Towers anyway. The EPA had already told them that the buildings had to be upraded and brought into line with EPA regulations by 2007. Otherwise they were required to demolish the buildings. This involved manual dismemberment of the buildings from the top down because any other way would have released masses of asbestos and other contaminents into the air.

So they got a quote- a cool 15 BILLION dollars.

But luckily 9/11 came along and took care of all that. Big relief eh ?
 
Last edited:
BSmith said:
The Port Authority wanted to demolish the Twin Towers anyway. The EPA had already told them that the buildings had to be upraded [sic] and brought into line with EPA regulations by 2007. Otherwise they were required to demolish the buildings. This involved manual dismemberment of the buildings from the top down because any other way would have released masses of asbestos and other contaminents [sic]into the air.

So they got a quote- a cool 15 BILLION dollars.

But luckily 9/11 came along and took care of all that. Big relief eh ?
Click to expand...



source?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom