Ask all firefighting and fire related questions here

[bill smith]

What is the definition of "two isolated pockets"? How much fire are we really talking about, Bill?

Why are you so afraid of firefighters answering my questions? Let the pros speak.

lol

 

[LashL]

Don't you remember that Chief Palmer got to the impact floor #78 in WTC2 ? . Remember when he radiod back, panting from the effort of climbing to the 78th. '' There are only a few isolated pockets of fire '' he said...'' we can knock them down with two lines ''

You have misquoted Chief Palmer, as usual. He did not say the words that you attribute to him above. He did not say "There are only a few isolated pockets of fire" and he did not say, "we can knock them down with two lines". You are lying.

A proportion were paid or coerced Shills.

Unfounded accusations, as usual. And despicable ones, at that. How unsurprising, coming from a serial liar.

No photos- no real fires.

Moronic.

You wrongly quoted Palmer as saying the following :-

''we've got isolated pockets of fire, we're gonna need at least two hand lines up there ''

But lets stick yo what he really said as in the attached video of the original audio.

It is you who is not interested in what Chief Palmer really said, as evidenced by the fact that you repeatedly - dleiberately - misquote him for your own dishonest purposes.

In the future remember to quote the statement of Palmer who is the witness here and not somebody who is paraphrasing him.

It is you who repeatedly - and deliberately - misquotes Chief Palmer for your own dishonest purposes.

I just want to stick to the reality of what Palmer said and he did not mention handlines'.

You are not interested in reality, as evidenced by your dishonest posts here and as evidenced by the fact that you repeatedly misquote Chief Palmer.

Did you notice that Chief Palmer also said, "We're gonna' need two engines up here"? Do you have any idea what that means?

Palmer was not concerned about the fires That nuch is obvious. He thought they were a minor concern as he essentially said. I can post the audio if you want ?

Another blatant lie.

 

[bill smith]

have you been able to find those sources yet, liar?

Did you know that the scaffolding alone was costed at more than two billion dollars ?

 

[bill smith]

Edited by Gaspode: 

Removed breach of Rule 12

 

[DGM]

lol

The "readers" are again noting that you are trying to down play a professionals opinion to bolster your own belief.

Your so transparent now a days, you need to pick your trolling up a notch.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Gah.... my apologies, NYCEMT86, I should have never replied to bill. Everyone: What the quotes are about the size of the fire or what truthers think Palmer's quote signifies are beyond the point. What matters is that the external visuals demonstrate the size of the fires. As I pointed out, in WTC 1, within 16 minutes, 3 floors had fires that traversed from the east to the west side. For WTC 2, fires were noted over 4 floors and visible on 3 of the 4 sides of the buildings. This alone very clearly establishes the size of the fires, nevermind what truthers want to claim. This issue is settled; the fires were very large, and engulfed great areas across several floors. There is zero question about this.

Can we ignore bill smith's attempt to argue otherwise, seeing as how he's already been definitively proven to be wrong?

Also: How do we feel about splitting off my unintentional derail, as well as all other posts related to it? It can either go to a new thread, or to any one of the existent ones that cover this issue? I feel bad for NYCEMT86 here; his thread got hijacked, and I was one of the people responsible for indulging in that. We should restore it to what he originally wanted.

 

[bill smith]

Gah.... my apologies, NYCEMT86, I should have never replied to bill. Everyone: What the quotes are about the size of the fire or what truthers think Palmer's quote signifies are beyond the point. What matters is that the external visuals demonstrate the size of the fires. As I pointed out, in WTC 1, within 16 minutes, 3 floors had fires that traversed from the east to the west side. For WTC 2, fires were noted over 4 floors and visible on 3 of the 4 sides of the buildings. This alone very clearly establishes the size of the fires, nevermind what truthers want to claim. This issue is settled; the fires were very large, and engulfed great areas across several floors. There is zero question about this.

Can we ignore bill smith's attempt to argue otherwise, seeing as how he's already been definitively proven to be wrong?

Also: How do we feel about splitting off my unintentional derail, as well as all other posts related to it? It can either go to a new thread, or to any one of the existent ones that cover this issue? I feel bad for NYCEMT86 here; his thread got hijacked, and I was one of the people responsible for indulging in that. We should restore it to what he originally wanted.

The issue is not settled. The fires were only significant for a short time and insignificant thereafter . By the time of collapse they were virtually out altogether, There is no doubt about this.

 

[twinstead]

The issue is not settled. The fires were only significaant for a short time and insignificant thereafter . By te time of collapse they were virtually out altogether, There is no doubt about this.

Sorry, but your opinion is noted, and discarded.

 

[NYCEMT86]

Just to clarify:
It's my understanding that "two lines" in no way means a small fire. We're talking huge amounts of water, right?

Correct. You need to break it down into volume. You are talking about large lines, normal fire departments use 1.5 to 1.75 inch lines, but the FDNY uses 2.5 to 3 inch lines standard for all fires.

When heated, water expands nearly 1800 times its original volume, turning into steam and absorbing more heat. That steam helps cool the thermal layering and dampers the temperature of the fire.

The amount of water needed depends on the area floor or building which is involved in fire. I am going to use the National Fire Academy formula to find out how much water is needed to extinguish a fire. I am using strictly 1 floor (the 78th floor)


Length x Width / 3 = GPM


Total area of the 78th floor

200 x 200
40,000/3
13,333.33GPM


Now lets do some small area fires

50 x 50
2500/3
833.3GPM

25 x 25
625/3
208.3GPM

10 x 10
100/3
33.3GPM

5 x 5
25/3
8.3GPM


As for those of us with firefighting experience, the amount of water needed to knock such small fires down would be overkill, especially when you are talking about roughly 675 GPMs being produced.


ETA---

I was right the first time....screwed this up again

 

[ElMondoHummus]

For the last time: The external observations showed that the fires were still burning and spreading up to the collapse of each tower. NCSTAR 1-5 very clearly lays this out. So do the expanse of flames and smoke. If any argument is to be made, it needs to be against the evidence laid out in NCSTAR 1-5. No other arguments suffice; any arguments that do not address the observations recorded there fail due to lack of acknowledgement of the existent evidence. Anyone who wants to claim otherwise must address the evidence, otherwise their arguments carry zero validity.

Moderators: I suggest a split of posts relative to the misrepresentation of the fires and the rebuttals to it be considered, please. This is also my last post on the matter in this thread; I'll refrain from posting further on it unless and until there's a split, should the mods end up agreeing that one is necessary.

 

[ve2vfd]

ElMondoHummus ... Don't worry, reading his arguments it's obvious he nows absolutely nothing about firefighting or anything related to fire behavior... as you may guess it doesn't do much for his credibility...

Besides, the second I read:

I have always maintained that a small proportion of the firefighters were lying..

I knew we were dealing with an arrogant True Believer ^TM and no amounts of facts or reality could or would ever change his tune... so why bother? The last stand of the True Believer ^TM is always "I don't like what they're saying, so they're lying!"...


NYCEMT86 ... Hey, thanks for the link! I have to admit that your Standpipe Operations SOP looks very similar (well other than ours is in french!) to our BGH/Metro SOP (BGH = Batiment a Grande Hauteur french for High Rise, Metro = subway and underground city). I loved the Backdraft comment! If only the job was that easy!

Pat

 

[triforcharity]

How could a fire cause what is termed a 'progressive collapse' in WTC7 in which all four widely seperated corners fall at exactly the same time. THis is proven by the fact that the roof stays level all the way down.

(I have to say the answers around here are only working for the choir. Neither me nor I suspect the readers are impressed)

Explain Fitterman Hall??

 

[bill smith]

For the last time: The external observations showed that the fires were still burning and spreading up to the collapse of each tower. NCSTAR 1-5 very clearly lays this out. So do the expanse of flames and smoke. If any argument is to be made, it needs to be against the evidence laid out in NCSTAR 1-5. No other arguments suffice; any arguments that do not address the observations recorded there fail due to lack of acknowledgement of the existent evidence. Anyone who wants to claim otherwise must address the evidence, otherwise their arguments carry zero validity.

Moderators: I suggest a split of posts relative to the misrepresentation of the fires and the rebuttals to it be considered, please. This is also my last post on the matter in this thread; I'll refrain from posting further on it unless and until there's a split, should the mods end up agreeing that one is necessary.

That would be a tough split. The OP is broad and the fire questions and answers are on topic.

Do we all get to decide what is a misrepresentation ?

 

[triforcharity]

But to get to the 78th the plane had to come through the floor above. Leaving a massive hole that Palmer could see into of course you silly billy. He did not report seeing any fire othere than the 'Two isolated pockets' that he said ' could be ' knocked down with two lines' (he didn't mention hand lines mind)

What else would he be refering to? He is a firefighter. That is what "lines" mean. He is NOT refering to lines of coke.

 

[triforcharity]

Just to clarify:
It's my understanding that "two lines" in no way means a small fire. We're talking huge amounts of water, right?

Yes, two "lines" or "hand lines" or "attack lines" or whatever terminology you want to use , Minus "Booster lines", do in fact mean a ****TON of water.

338 Gallons per minute to be exact.

 

[bill smith]

Yes, two "lines" or "hand lines" or "attack lines" or whatever terminology you want to use , Minus "Booster lines", do in fact mean a ****TON of water.

338 Gallons per minute to be exact.

About enough to fill 5 bathtubs per minute. Not that much really is it Tri.

That tells us what small fires Palmer was looking at more than anything else. Jeez they must have been way smaller than I imagined...

 

[NYCEMT86]

About enough to fill 5 bathtubs per minute. Not that much really is it Tri.

That tells us what small fires Palmer was looking at more than anything else. Jeez they must have been way smaller than I imagined...

Did you read anything I wrote above?

 

[Edx]

Yes, two "lines" or "hand lines" or "attack lines" or whatever terminology you want to use , Minus "Booster lines", do in fact mean a ****TON of water.

338 Gallons per minute to be exact.

Bill is someone who thinks they could have easily put put WTC7's fires with some office fire extinguishers.

 

[Thunder]

Is Bill Smith trying to tell us that there were only fires on the 78th floor?

 

[bill smith]

Did you read anything I wrote above?

Nothing that disproved anything I said and nothing that increases the 5 bathtubs per minute. What do you think I missed ?