• 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

triforcharity said:
Yes, it COULD take centuries to fall. But, if it begins to lean, and the next hour, it has leaned another (im just using numbers for the sake of discussion) say, 2deg. We can extrapolate aprox. how long before it will reach the point of no return.

The LTOP has been leaning MUCH slower. MUCH slower. nd its not on fire either. Nor did it have a steel frame. They have been able to help stabalize the LTOP over the years. There was no ability to stop WTC7. Remember, no water.
Click to expand...
Could have propped it up with fire extinguishers? ;)
 
I am throughly enjoying spectacle of Clueless Truthers trying to debate on Firefighting issues with experienced professionals.
 
kinda like the leaning tower of pisa.....it could take centuries to fall!!
Click to expand...

If left to its own devices. However, millions of euros have been spent to keep it from leaning any more (but not straighten it completely - it's a tourist attraction, after all)

Getting back to the original question, if WTC1 and WTC2 did not collapse when they did, could the firefighters who went into them have made any difference in the loss of life? Even if they could "only" get high enough to clear a pathway or two through the blocked stairwells, would it have made a difference to the people trapped above them? Or were conditions such that everyone on the floors immediately above the crash were dead? IIRC there were still people alive on the topmost floors when the buildings fell: was there any feasible way of getting them down, given that roof access was blocked? How much more time would firefighters need - hours? days?

I am throughly enjoying spectacle of Clueless Truthers trying to debate on Firefighting issues with experienced professionals.
Click to expand...

Now, now: it's not nice to mock the afflicted. Fun, though.
 
SnidelyW said:
I have no idea how NIST came up with their 4 pounds/sq ft fire load figure for the WTC, if that is what you are referring to regarding 4 pounds.

According to this NIST document;

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire01/PDF/f01106.pdf

Table 3 Fire Loads for Fire Events in a Small Office states;

"These results make sense in that the small event in an office-sized room at about 50 kW is the typical trash can fire that does not spread beyond the trash can unless there is direct flame contact with other combustibles. The medium event at under 200 kW might be enough to ignite a nearby object by radiation but is unlkely to spread. The large event at nearly 700 kW would be likely to spread and the very large event at more than 1 MW would flash over
the space. Thomas’ flashover correlation6 applied to this room yields a minimum flashover energy of just over 900 kW.
Increasing the space to a “bull pen” ofice of 30 m by 30 m with four single doors would increase the maximum heat release rates for the four events to 722, 2420, 9120, and 14250 kW, respectively. Again, these appear to be reasonable for a space this large."

Converting the 14,250 kilowatts (kW) used in the large fire example above to BTU's, we get;
48,655,569.78351 BTU's in a 30m x 30m office.
We divide the figure by our 50k BTU BBQ heat output. That gives us just over 973 BBQ's worth of heat in an area about 100 feet x 100 feet.
You're not going to put out a fire that size with an extinguisher.

Here is your chance to contribute to the new NFPA standard for Determination of Fire Load for Use in Structural Fire Protection Design 2012 Edition. You have until May 28 ,2010 to submit your proposal. PM me if you wish a link to the form.
Click to expand...

I think you may have misunderstood exactly what I meant about the firemen using the fire extinguishers.

I was only talking about WTC7 in regards to the extinguishers and then exclusively in the first hour or two after the collapse of the North Tower. In that period there appears to have been very very little fire. Almost none is seen. In that time the hundreds of firemen present could have requisitioned fire extinguishers from surrounding skyscrapers and used them to put out those small fires.

Apart from that they could have trucked or choppered in bigger and better extinguishers. There was more than enough time.

Furthermore why could they not have pumped water frpm the nearby Hudson River firetruck-to-firetruck if necessary to bring water to WTC7 ? Alternatively or additionally they could have choppered in big diesel pumps.

There appears to be little good reason why the fires in WTC7 remained unfought. The excuses sound hollow because they are hollow.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I think you may have misunderstood exactly what I meant about the firemen using the fire extinguishers.

I was only talking about WTC7 in regards to the extinguishers and then exclusively in the first hour or two after the collapse of the North Tower. In that period there appears to have been very very little fire. Almost none is seen. In that time the hundreds of firemen present could have requisitioned fire extinguishers from surrounding skyscrapers and used them to put out those small fires.

Apart from that they could have trucked or choppered in bigger and better extinguishers. There was more than enough time.

Furthermore why could they not have pumped water frpm the nearby Hudson River firetruck-to-firetruck if necessary to bring water to WTC7 ? Alternatively or additionally they could have choppered in big pumps.

There appears to be little good reason why the fires in WTC7 remained unfought. The excuses sound hollow because they are hollow.
Click to expand...

Have you considered that having just lost 353 people including a number of the top guys in charge they were more interested in trying to save people's lives than in charging into a damaged and empty building with nothing but fire extingushes in an attempt to save it?
 
So you're saying that should've raced into an empty building instead of trying to rescue the people, many of them their friends and family members, who might still be alive in the pile of rubble that was a building just a few minutes before? That is probably the most heartless thing I think I've ever heard in a very long time.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Have you considered that having just lost 353 people including a number of the top guys in charge they were more interested in trying to save people's lives than in charging into a damaged and empty building with nothing but fire extingushes in an attempt to save it?
Click to expand...
Exactly! There was nothing about that particular building that would have warranted any special treatment. In the first hours after the collapses (I am sure) the efforts were all about saving lives and regrouping. Personally I would have needed to change my shorts before I did anything constructive. These guys just saw a glimpse of hell.

Oh by the way, Thanks for all you guys did (If it hasn't been said enough). :D
 
Furthermore why could they not have pumped water frpm the nearby Hudson River firetruck-to-firetruck if necessary to bring water to WTC7 ? Alternatively or additionally they could have choppered in big pumps.
Click to expand...

Can fire trucks do that? How long a hose would they need, even if they didn't lose pressure along the way? Does New York have fire boats? How far away was the Hudson? What about the acres of rubble - some of it still burning - in the way? Maybe the denizens of the neighboring buildings were busy trying not be be killed themselves and didn't have time to round up spare fire extinguishers? IIRC, several surrounding buildings were damaged.

People more knowledgeable about the subject than I cited reports that WTC7 was listing by early afternoon. It had already been evacuated. Given that two other skyscrapers had just collapsed, and that this building was showing signs of failure, letting it come down and (maybe) trying to keep the fire from spreading further was the right decision.

(Not an expert on firefighting: my pyro experience is limited to campfires and barbecues.)
 
the FDNY did the best they could...considering their entire upper level supervision was pulverized in the two collapses.

so clearly, their goal was to limit any more lost lives. big stupid buildings was no longer a priority.
 
Senenmut gets his ass handed to him

Senenmut said:
kinda like the leaning tower of pisa.....it could take centuries to fall!!
Click to expand...


Well except there's not a series of steel tendons anchored through it preventing it from falling over. Or concrete grout being injected under it to slow its lean. Or its upper floors weren't offset and plumbed even during its construction in an attempt to stop its leaning. Yeah except for all that its eerily similar to the leaning tower of Pisa. :rolleyes:


:dl: <-Here's your ass back.
 
Last edited:
Retrograde said:
Can fire trucks do that? How long a hose would they need, even if they didn't lose pressure along the way? Does New York have fire boats? How far away was the Hudson? What about the acres of rubble - some of it still burning - in the way? Maybe the denizens of the neighboring buildings were busy trying not be be killed themselves and didn't have time to round up spare fire extinguishers? IIRC, several surrounding buildings were damaged.

People more knowledgeable about the subject than I cited reports that WTC7 was listing by early afternoon. It had already been evacuated. Given that two other skyscrapers had just collapsed, and that this building was showing signs of failure, letting it come down and (maybe) trying to keep the fire from spreading further was the right decision.

(Not an expert on firefighting: my pyro experience is limited to campfires and barbecues.)
Click to expand...

Yes the debris from two 110 story buildings was kinda in the way between building seven and the marina two blocks west. Building seven was no longer safe to enter. No way to get water up 47 stories. And at the time I think they were speculating up to 30'000 lives lost. So an empty office building was the very least of their priorities
 
Senenmut said:
well that is pretty interesting that fireproofing melts at 1300C. what was the max temp the nist said the wtc experienced? wasnt it around 1000c?
Click to expand...

Have you ever seen spray on fireproofing?
 
alfaniner said:
OK, I had a half-serious question earlier, but I just can't wade through all the crap that is conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

Planes full of fuel crashing into buildings isn't enough.
 
goodgrief.jpg


Seriously...

Pat
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

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