• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ask all firefighting and fire related questions here

I don’t think you understand how heat transfer in steel works. Our scientists at ae9/11truth say that even if the steel had no fire protection then it was so massive that the columns would have absorbed all the heat without failing. It says so in our slide show.

Uhh, what? The exterior columns were 14x14 tubes. They're actually quite small.

But the floor trusses were made out of bar joists with 5/8” 16mm dia bars. And these bars are small, so any local damage to the fire protection would expose the steel to the fire and any heat would not be able to spread away from the damaged fire protection: the heat would be concentrated. And since every element of a truss is critical to supporting it, then it would be susceptible to failure.

This is correct with one caveat: the floor trusses were not made out of bar joists, they were bar joists.

But since everyone knows the columns failed first the failure of the trusses cannot be the cause of failure. So explosives hidden in the fire zone were essential to start the building failure.

But this is not. Some of the floor trusses failed first. They went into catenary action. This puts large amounts of tension on the exterior column which pull them in. I have an entire thread on this subject.
 
Last edited:
Uhh, what? The exterior columns were 14x14 tubes. They're actually quite small.



This is correct with one caveat: the floor trusses were not made out of bar joists, they were bar joists.



But this is not. Some of the floor trusses failed first. They went into catenary action. This puts large amounts of tension on the exterior column which pull them in. I have an entire thread on this subject.


I think teltale tom is parodying the truthers.
 
So have you ever seen fireproofng melted into a glassy residue ? Have you ever heard of it happening prior to the WTC ?


Well if there were situations where piles of rubble burned for months, I can see it happening.

there's your problem.

You cant point to something as being unique as evidence when the whole event was unique.
 
Well if there were situations where piles of rubble burned for months, I can see it happening.

there's your problem.

You cant point to something as being unique as evidence when the whole event was unique.


what about if the glassy residue was seen soon after 9/11?

Can you duck that one ?
 
Well if you can't stand the heat as obviously you can't you may as well put your shields up.

After following this thread from inception, it appears neccessary to weigh in regarding High Rise fires, heat generated, and extinguishment of those fires..

I am an Operations Fire Captain assigned to a Heavy Rescue in the 5th largest fire Department in North America. I have almost 27 years of firefighting, technical rescue and HUSAR (Heavy Urban Search And Rescue) experience, and have fought thousands of fires, great and small, over my career.

My hat is off to the brave and selfless brothers of the FDNY and their sacrifice. So many have paid the ultimate price. Fellow firefighters worldwide are eternally grateful for their pioneering efforts in fire suppression over the last 180+ years.

Some basic facts regarding fires, heat, and water used to extinguish high rise fires need to be laid out. The professional fire fighters here already know this stuff, but for those of you who have never been face to face with a fire in a high rise office building, I want to give you a taste of what it's like.

Let's begin with 'fire load'. Fire Load is the amount of combustible matter present that can act as a fuel to feed a fire. This includes paint and floor covering.
For a standard office building, the NFPA Handbook, 20th edition, calculates office fire loads at around 10 lbs/sq ft. For file storage areas the load goes to almost 17 lbs/sq.ft. For our purposes we'll use 10 pounds/ sq. ft.
When that fire load burns, we get heat, so we'll use BTU's to measure it here. Everyone can relate to BTU's, since your backyard gas grill has heat output measured in BTU's. The average gas grill outputs around 50,000 btu's at full flame.
The NFPA tells us that 17,000 btu's are created when one pound of average office fireload burns. Since we already know our office has a fireload of 10 pounds per square foot, our minimum heat output will be 170,000 btu's or over 3 backyard BBQ's at full bore per square FOOT
So, take the figure above, and multiply it by one hundred for just a 10 foot x 10 foot area of office, and you begin to understand the heat produced by even a very small office building fire. Surround that fire with a reinforced concrete box, and where do all those BTU's go?
They go into evaporating the water directed at it by the fire hose, and turning it into steam. In my professional opinion, in an office building with a 50'x 50' area burning, it is highly unlikely that any of the water directed at the fire from a 2 1/2 inch line will reach the seat of the fire, evaporating as it approaches the fire due to the intense heat generated.
Several 2 1/2 inch lines or a monitor with multiple 2 1/2 inlets would be needed for such an area of fire.
As you can well imagine, put 3 or 4 of these fires on any given floor, and the resources needed to fight just one floor of high rise office building fires is considerable.

As one can see from the above example, hand held fire extinguishers are not an option. If we need to delve into the actual purpose of hand held fire extinguishers, I can deal with that in a separate post.
 
what about if the glassy residue was seen soon after 9/11?

Can you duck that one ?

Again, so what?

You have no data to state that whatever effect you are claiming is not a normal consequence to fire exposure.

Nor do you have any proof that the materil in question was actually monokote. for all you know it could have been window glass.
 
Last edited:
Again, so what?

You have no data to state that whatever effect you are claiming is not a normal consequence to fire exposure.

Nor do you have any proof that the materil in question was actually monokote. for all you know it could have been window glass.

I had assumed that the fireproofing would only melt and run into a glassy residue at very elevated temperatures but from my point of view it doesn't actually make all that much difference. Though I would like to hear that those effects only occurred at temperatures of 2,000 degrees C or more.

But you evidently cannot help there.
 
Last edited:
I had assumed that the fireproofing would only melt and run into a glassy residue at very elevated temperatures but from my point of view it doesn't actually make all that much difference. Though I would like to hear that those effects only occurred at temperatures of 2,000 degrees C or more.

But you evidently cannot help there.

you assume wrong.

the primary components of Monokote fireproofing is cement and vermiculite. Vermiculite begins to melt at 1350 degrees C.

well within the temperature range of a fire.
 
you assume wrong.

the primary components of Monokote fireproofing is cement and vermiculite. Vermiculite begins to melt at 1350 degrees C.

well within the temperature range of a fire.

So if the fireproofing was three inches thick (say) it would take far longer than these fires had to reduce it to a glassy residue. That or far higher temperatures ? Obviously the heat had to work hrough the thickness of the fireproofing. Or not ?
 
I suspect it's because it's the only facial hair that can be worn that doesn't interfere with the use of S.C.B.E. (Self Contained Breathing Equipment)

In my department we have to undergo a pressure test every year. A retired
Newark FF has a machine hooked to laptop computer. After putting mask
on must shake head up-down, side-side and talk. Machine checks for tight
seal. Everyone in my department has their own individual mask . Must achieve a certain score to pass and be able to use an SCBA.
 
In my department we have to undergo a pressure test every year. A retired
Newark FF has a machine hooked to laptop computer. After putting mask
on must shake head up-down, side-side and talk. Machine checks for tight
seal. Everyone in my department has their own individual mask . Must achieve a certain score to pass and be able to use an SCBA.

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?
 
bill smith 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?

I love you Bill. :)
 
I've never used a Scott Air Pack but from what I've read they are positive pressure (the airflow is constant regardless of whether you are inhaling or exhaling). I have however used a negative pressure Emergency Air Breathing Apparatus (you must be breathing in to cause a diaphragm to move and allow air into the mask) literally hundreds, if not thousands, of times (sucking rubber was the term most used) and at the time beards were allowed in the navy.

While it's true that the seal was slightly compromised with facial hair, if you tightened up the straps you could still draw enough of a vacuum to draw in more air. There was also a way (not authorized at all) to make the mask work as a positive pressure device using nothing but a standard ink pen.

This is absolutely true. They are required to be PPBA (Positive Pressure Breathing Aparatus) per NFPA, and OSHA IIRC. There will always be fresh ain in the mask. It is a pressurized system. The reason for no facial hair is it makes a "30 Minute" bottle, into MUCH less.

I do remember the old Neg. Press. ones, and hated them. I am so glad we got rid of them. Plus, those steel bottles were heavy as hell. The new carbon wrapped.....much better.
 
you assume wrong.

the primary components of Monokote fireproofing is cement and vermiculite. Vermiculite begins to melt at 1350 degrees C.

well within the temperature range of a fire.

fireman, is this a true statemen from alfred that 1350 C is "well within" the temp range of a hydrocarbon fire?
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom