Ask all firefighting and fire related questions here

[Harpo]

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

Can you duck that one ?

Someone missed the opportunity the make a "glassy knoll" quip there.

I'm here all week, enjoy the veal.

 

[NYCEMT86]

<SNIP>

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.

<SNIP>

Welcome to the circus! I am sure your experience will lead to a lot of valuable information in this sub-forum.

 

[Dave_46]

<snip>
Pat

¹= Please STOP calling it fireproofing... it's nothing more than a retardant meant to allow the occupants more time to exit a burning building. It is NOT magically fireproof.

I tried a few times years ago to get people here to call it fire protection rather than fireproofing.

I gave up eventually.

Dave

 

[triforcharity]

(Bolding mine)

EXACTLY!

Sprinklers, fireproofing, fire doors, smoke detectors, fire extinguishers are referred to as "Life saving measures".

This is lost on truthers. They do not understand alot of things, even though they have been explained, in detail, from people, including myself, who know what we are talking about.

You can add this to the long list of other things that truthers don't understand.

 

[ve2vfd]

You can add this to the long list of other things that truthers don't understand.

Don't understand, or simply ignore because it doesn't fit in their fictional "reality".

Pat

 

[Alferd_Packer]

¹= Please STOP calling it fireproofing... it's nothing more than a retardant meant to allow the occupants more time to exit a burning building. It is NOT magically fireproof.

Sorry, no can do.

That is the standard term in architecture and construction.



(although I do understand your frustration)

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I can tell you the most common problem I've seen with fire-retardant on structural steel (other than shoddy application) is it's friableness. It can and does come off in patches exposing steel to heat.

this picture was taken in the elevator shaft of one of the towers (I don't know which one) some time in 1996.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Sone more bits of trivia about the "spray applied, fire resistive coating" used in the WTC towers.

If you look at the picture above, you will note thatthe steel column is rusty. Apparently that was a problem with much of the steel used in the building, the start of the construction was delayed almost a year because of labor strikes and as a result, the steel sat at the mills, outside exposed to the weather. the rust and scale prevented the fireproofing from adhearing properly.

Durring the constrcution, they spent a lot of time going back and reapplying the material after it had been washed off by rain.

The subcontractor that installed it was one of the biggest platering companies in New York. They were also Mob owned.

There were lawsuits between the Port Authority and the plastering company over the quality of the work involved.

The owner of the company, was found shot to death in the trunk of his car in the WTC parking garage in 1981. (apparently he disrespected his buisnesss partner, Mr. Goti).

 

[PhantomWolf]

The owner of the company, was found shot to death in the trunk of his car in the WTC parking garage in 1981. (apparently he disrespected his buisnesss partner, Mr. Goti).

Or perhaps the NWO wanted to stop him telling about the super-therm*te that they had him mix into the fire-retardard for their big plan in another 20 years time.

 

[tfk]

well, did anyone talk about this equipment they set up around 12pm. the OEM made the call(that the building was going to collapse) and from within the OEM there was this particular engineer....from my previous post:

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden of the New York Fire Department will later recall: “We had our special operations people set up surveying instruments to monitor, and see if there was any movement of, [WTC 7]. We were concerned of the possibility of collapse of the building. And we had a discussion with one particular engineer there, and we asked him, if we allowed it to burn could we anticipate a collapse, and if so, how soon?” The engineer apparently predicts correctly that WTC 7 will collapse and also the time it will take before it comes down. As Hayden will continue: “And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money, that he said, ‘In its current state, you have about five hours.’” Hayden will not reveal the name of this engineer. [BBC, 7/6/2008] WTC 7 will collapse at about 5:20 p.m.


did any of your teachers discuss this. where can we find this data that they apparently collected. nist sure didnt discuss this data the fireman collected so that an engineer could predict a collapse "right on the money". it would have been a good starting point for their model wouldnt you agree? if one of your teachers had the name rotanz, from the oral history of the firefighters, he was there at the OEM with this "engineer." so if anyone knows rotanz or if ya know his email, lets see if we can find a name to this "engineer".

Every building that begins to lean in one direction, and continues to progressively tilt more & more in that same direction WILL collapse. There are zero exceptions to this rule.

This is completely independent of the cause of the leaning.

If the RATE of lean is slowing, then it may or may not collapse. It remains standing only if the rate goes to zero before collapse.

If the RATE of leaning is approximately constant, then it will collapse in a time that can be measured in minutes to centuries (Tower of Pisa).

If the RATE of leaning is increasing, then the answer is "soon".

One of the firemen ordered the transit put on the building as soon as he got there after WTC1 collapsed & he saw the damage. They watched the building lean from that time (~11 am) until mid afternoon. The rate was not slowing down. Ergo, it's collapse was certain, unless something changed.

I heard that the rate of leaning started increasing around 2 o'clock. This transit data is precisely the piece of information that told the firemen that WTC 7 would likely collapse.

There is nothing mysterious or insidious about this.

tom

 

[RedIbis]

Thanks for your patience.


Considering the fire load, location of the initial fire The easiest way to answer this question is to follow the ASTM E119 time temperature curve. It could take anywhere from 5 to 30 minutes for a fire to reach critical temperatures. Now the column won't collapse immediately when exposed to heat or direct flame, so we need to take in account for the rate of conduction that would cause the failure of column 79.

I appreciate your time and civility. Perhaps, my question was not as specific as it could have been.

Rather than suggest that column 79 collapsed due to extreme heat (that's not why it collapsed), I'm asking specifically what fuel loads were present in the area of the bldg in which the fire caused structural failure, and how long was the fire in this area to provide the necessary heat.

So in short, what fuel loads were present in the northeast corner of WTC 7 on the critical floors were the structural failure takes place?

And how long was the fire in this area?

 

[Furcifer]

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.

I'm not sure why the last place I was at called it SCBE. I think most are familiar with SCBA. I suppose it's to distinguish it from SCUBA, but I don't know. I see most refer to it as SCBA.

 

[BigAl]

I appreciate your time and civility. Perhaps, my question was not as specific as it could have been.

Rather than suggest that column 79 collapsed due to extreme heat (that's not why it collapsed), I'm asking specifically what fuel loads were present in the area of the bldg in which the fire caused structural failure, and how long was the fire in this area to provide the necessary heat.

So in short, what fuel loads were present in the northeast corner of WTC 7 on the critical floors were the structural failure takes place?

And how long was the fire in this area?

And let me ask a follow-up question no matter what the substantive answers to the above are;

Is there any evidence of any sort that argues against the hypothesis that protracted fire and the lack of water for firefighting caused WTC7 to collapse?

 

[RedIbis]

And let me ask a follow-up question no matter what the substantive answers to the above are;

Is there any evidence of any sort that argues against the hypothesis that protracted fire and the lack of water for firefighting caused WTC7 to collapse?

You're asking a follow up question to a question you didn't even bother trying to answer.

 

[Jackanory]

I tried a few times years ago to get people here to call it fire protection rather than fireproofing.

I gave up eventually.

Dave

Its easy for the unemployed, uneducated or ignorant truther to spin 'fireproof' and 'fire retardent' into some all stopping super duper material.

God help us once the truther gets wind of the 'lifesafe' structures being built. Spun to mean that 'everyone will survive no matter what'.

 

[Architect]

Sorry, no can do.

That is the standard term in architecture and construction.



(although I do understand your frustration)

Actually, in the UK we refer to it as "fire protection".

It used to be classed by duration across standard test durations - 30 minute, 60 minute, 90 minute were the most common categories although there were longer durations. Now it's just rated "short", "medium", and "long" which I must admit I think's a pain in the proverbial.

 

[leftysergeant]

in those 20 yrs, have ya ever encountered fireproofing that had "melted into a glassy residue?"

Glassy residues of vartious sorts are common in any large fire. Mostly they are the result of the melting of glass objects.

I doubt that even in extreme heat, the spray-on fire protection would form anything resembling glass, although it could form something resembling an agate of obsidian, but it would take a great deal more heat than thermite would provide. Also, the heat needed to do this would be so instense that the towers would have glowed cherry-red.

The spray-on is mostly cement. Chemically, it would be hard to distinguish from concrete. When I fired one thermite charge on a brick-lined washrack. the brick vitrified, but the mortar just crumbled.

 

[DGM]

Does anyone know if the "special operations" team ever produced a public report on the findings (and time line) of the WTC7 building lean? I don't recall seeing any mention in the NIST report. It would be interesting (to me anyway) to read.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Glassy residues of vartious sorts are common in any large fire. Mostly they are the result of the melting of glass objects.

I doubt that even in extreme heat, the spray-on fire protection would form anything resembling glass, although it could form something resembling an agate of obsidian, but it would take a great deal more heat than thermite would provide. Also, the heat needed to do this would be so instense that the towers would have glowed cherry-red.

The spray-on is mostly cement. Chemically, it would be hard to distinguish from concrete. When I fired one thermite charge on a prick-lined washrack. the brick vitrified, but the mortar just crumbled.

I hope that has a meaning other than the one that first came to mind...

 

[Sam.I.Am]

The spray-on is mostly cement. Chemically, it would be hard to distinguish from concrete. When I fired one thermite charge on a prick-lined washrack. the brick vitrified, but the mortar just crumbled.

You lit off thermite in a gay bath house?