Ask all firefighting and fire related questions here

[Alferd_Packer]

Captain Chris Boyle

Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?

Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.

Firehouse: How many companies?

Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty.

Before we took off, he said, look, if you see any apparatus, strip the apparatus for hose, nozzles, masks, anything you can get. As we headed east, we reached Church and then we were midway from there and then all of a sudden, we could see 5 come into view. It was fully involved. There was apparatus burning all over the place. Guys were scrambling around there. There were a lot of firemen, and there was a lot of commotion, but you couldn’t see much that was going on. I didn’t see any lines in operation yet. But we found a battalion rig there. We got a couple of harnesses out of there. We had some bottles from another rig, so we put together a couple of masks.

We went one block north over to Greenwich and then headed south. There was an engine company there, right at the corner. It was right underneath building 7 and it was still burning at the time. They had a hose in operation, but you could tell there was no pressure. It was barely making it across the street. Building 6 was fully involved and it was hitting the sidewalk across the street. I told the guys to wait up.

A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

 

[triforcharity]

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?


Now, now: it's not nice to mock the afflicted. Fun, though.

Yes, many more lives would have been saved. How many, we'll never know. We do not know how many people were alive, but severly injured on the floors of impact.
If the stairways could have been cleared, everyone above could quite possibly have been saved. At the very least, the walking wounded, and the uninjured.
There were people above the impact floors who were unscathed. THere are audio of their phonecalls made to 911 begging for help.

An educated guess of how much more time would have been maybe a few more hours. 2-3 minimum. This is just a guess, and who knows. There are so many variables. How much water do we have? How much hose and manpower do we have? How quickly can we knock the fires down in order to begin evacuation?? These are all questions that we cannot answer.

 

[triforcharity]

Can fire trucks do that?

Absolutely. Firetrucks can do that. The only problem is, we lost a BUNCH of aparatus in the first collapse, and many many more men.

How long a hose would they need, even if they didn't lose pressure along the way?

Many many hundreds of feet. For firefighting efforts to be effective, you would have to start out with a huge line. Like, at MINIMUM, a 6" dia. hard suction line. Then you have to relay it from pumper to pumper. The logistics would have been a nightmare. Remember, lots of aparatus lost in the first collapse, and many men missing. This is of course forgetting that over a distance of that magnatude, you loose water flow. And pressure. Not to even MENTION that at that point, we were more concerned about survivors.

Oh, and lets not forget about the huge pile of building in the way.

Does New York have fire boats?

Yes.

How far away was the Hudson?

Couple hundred yards, depending on where you are going to in the area. Average, about 100 yards.

What about the acres of rubble - some of it still burning - in the way?

Yes. This was a logistical NIGHTMARE. Remember all those aparatus that were destroyed? That is also where the hose is stored obviously.

Then, not to mention, the hose that was on the ground already, the fact that it is not punctured and damaged. VERY innefective. Like peeing in a fan.

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?

Exactly. People were leaving Manhattan by foot, ferry, and personal watercraft. Anyway they could, they were leaving.

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.)

Yes, many many surrounding buildings were destroyed.

Well, even with your limited experience with firefighting, you already have more than most truthers.

 

[BigAl]

Absolutely. Firetrucks can do that. The only problem is, we lost a BUNCH of aparatus in the first collapse, and many many more men.

Many many hundreds of feet. For firefighting efforts to be effective, you would have to start out with a huge line. Like, at MINIMUM, a 6" dia. hard suction line. Then you have to relay it from pumper to pumper.

And the building, WTC7, would have to have an impact standpipe system to connect to. According to Boyle, it wasn't obvious that this was the case.

All the work to get water from the river to the curb of WTC7 might have been for nothing.

 

[SnidelyW]

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

I'll just stick to what I know. Thanks for the welcome, and glad to provide whatever is required.
I attended the memorial in Manhattan where we all marched and ended up at Madison Square Garden (oh how it rained!) and I wish I could have done more - so much more for the 343.
If we assist one person in understanding the events of that awful day, then our time is well spent here.

 

[SnidelyW]

And the building, WTC7, would have to have an impact standpipe system to connect to. According to Boyle, it wasn't obvious that this was the case.

All the work to get water from the river to the curb of WTC7 might have been for nothing.

Here is a quote from;
http://www.nycfireboat.com/

"The need for this increased pumping capacity was graphically displayed as FDNY's existing fireboats supplied the only water available for many days after the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center."

and from Wiki;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._Harvey_(fireboat)

"Meanwhile, firefighters had determined that the vast scale of destruction had damaged many fire mains, depriving fire crews of water. Officials radioed the Harvey to drop off her passengers as soon as possible and return to the disaster site to pump water, reactivating her official designation Marine 2. Alongside two other FDNY fireboats, she pumped water at the site for 80 hours, until water mains were restored.[3] The National Trust for Historic Preservation gave the Harvey a special National Preservation Award to recognize this incident."

I personally have spoken with FDNY Battalion Chief Jerry Tracy, who confirmed the vital role of the fireboats in providing the only water available after the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.

 

[TJM]

Here is a quote from;
http://www.nycfireboat.com/

"The need for this increased pumping capacity was graphically displayed as FDNY's existing fireboats supplied the only water available for many days after the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center."

and from Wiki;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._Harvey_(fireboat)

"Meanwhile, firefighters had determined that the vast scale of destruction had damaged many fire mains, depriving fire crews of water. Officials radioed the Harvey to drop off her passengers as soon as possible and return to the disaster site to pump water, reactivating her official designation Marine 2. Alongside two other FDNY fireboats, she pumped water at the site for 80 hours, until water mains were restored.[3] The National Trust for Historic Preservation gave the Harvey a special National Preservation Award to recognize this incident."

I personally have spoken with FDNY Battalion Chief Jerry Tracy, who confirmed the vital role of the fireboats in providing the only water available after the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.

Just to chime in, one should never the underestimate the value of a fire boat. In 1989, our city's fire boat, Phoenix, provided most of the water to fight a severe fire that broke out in the Marina District. It was a particularly nasty fire and the firemen had the disadvantage of destroyed water mains and the lovely addition of several ruptured gas mains as well. Sounds kinda familliar.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-09-25/bay-area/17444120_1_fireboat-phoenix-loma-prieta

 

[njslim]

Here is a quote from;
http://www.nycfireboat.com/

"The need for this increased pumping capacity was graphically displayed as FDNY's existing fireboats supplied the only water available for many days after the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center."

and from Wiki;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._Harvey_(fireboat)

"Meanwhile, firefighters had determined that the vast scale of destruction had damaged many fire mains, depriving fire crews of water. Officials radioed the Harvey to drop off her passengers as soon as possible and return to the disaster site to pump water, reactivating her official designation Marine 2. Alongside two other FDNY fireboats, she pumped water at the site for 80 hours, until water mains were restored.[3] The National Trust for Historic Preservation gave the Harvey a special National Preservation Award to recognize this incident."

I personally have spoken with FDNY Battalion Chief Jerry Tracy, who confirmed the vital role of the fireboats in providing the only water available after the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.

The new pumpers being ordered by FDNY are coming equipped with 4 lengths
of hard suction hose. For those who aren't FF hard suction are those black
stiff sections of hose used to draft water out of rivers/lakes

Problem as stated before is manpower and time, connecting those sections
of hose togather and relay pumpimg takes lot of time.

We carry the standard two lengths and practice drafting at least once a year
using a branch of the Passaic River as water source

 

[Senenmut]

You are making a huge error. You are assuming that the reporter's story is an accurate reflection of what Asteneh-Asl said. Youu assume that the reporter understood what A-A told him.

I can assure you that, when reporters write stories, this is seldom the case. A classic example (and indicator here) is the reporter's use of the term "vaporized". A-A didn't say this. The reporter did. And it is 100% incorrect.

Oh they get many quotes and many details right. Rarely do they get most of the facts right. Never (in my experience) do they got them all right.

This is especially true for stories, like this one, that were written less than one month after the event.

Reporting is a business. In any business, time allocation of your personnel is critical. Reporters are under enormous time pressures to write this story, and get on to the next one. They write stories after anywhere from 5 minutes to (in this case) perhaps 20 minute interview. (I suspect that AA was pretty darn busy between Sept 28th & Oct 1, 2001. I suspect the reporter was too.)

NO reporter (unfortunately) gives their story back to the expert for a check to see if they quoted the expert correctly, if they understood the things that were hurriedly explained to them, if there are egregious errors in the story.

As a result, stories go out in the paper every single day that are loaded with simple factual errors.

Regarding the tilt of buildings: WTC7 was a tall, relatively narrow building. In the trivial, irrelevant case, WHEN INTACT & UNDAMAGED, it possibly could have withstood a lean of about 5°. It certainly would have collaped with a lean 30°. (My best guess is that it would have collapsed around 10° - 15°.)

Buildings are designed to remain straight upright, with a little sway for wind, earthquake, etc. They are not designed to lean. This is especially true for tall, narrow buildings. The fact is that, other than unstable ground below, a lean is always a sign of serious structural damage. And there is zero doubt that the building was seriously damaged & on fire. For all of the "small fires" nonsense, the fact is that it was possible to see only small sections of the south face of the building, and those only intermittantly, for all of the smoke pouring out of it.

It is possible that the engineer got his guesses all right, and nailed the time of collapse. It is IMHO more likely that he got most of his guesses wrong, and still came close with the time of collapse.

As my dad used to say, "It's better to be lucky than good."


Tom

did he ever deny saying vaporized?

what makes you think A 36 steel didnt vaporize? the rj lee report found:
"Many of the materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds, vaporized and then condensed during the WTC Event."

do you think he was misrepresented when Astaneh mentioned that he " saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."

do you have the data that showed that it was leaning? how would ya rule out lean vs wind?

 

[Dave Rogers]

what makes you think A 36 steel didnt vaporize? the rj lee report found:
"Many of the materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds, vaporized and then condensed during the WTC Event."

Are you not aware that all those substances have lower boiling points than A36 steel, and therefore would vapourise at lower temperatures? Really, this is an extraordinarily stupid line of argument. Water vapourised and then condensed during the WTC event. If you boil a steel kettle, are you worried that the steel will vapourise because the water in it is vapourising?

Dave

 

[SnidelyW]

The new pumpers being ordered by FDNY are coming equipped with 4 lengths
of hard suction hose. For those who aren't FF hard suction are those black
stiff sections of hose used to draft water out of rivers/lakes

Problem as stated before is manpower and time, connecting those sections
of hose togather and relay pumpimg takes lot of time.

We carry the standard two lengths and practice drafting at least once a year
using a branch of the Passaic River as water source

We're on the shores of a Great Lake, and practice drafting from the lake on a regular basis. One has to ensure those two sections of H.S. are joined perfectly, or else air can get in and the pump operator will never get a prime.
We have relay pumped at large fires before, and amen to the time factor. Also, comms between each pump operator have to be clear as co-ordination is required to relay pump effectively. (Relay pumping is connecting two or more pumpers 'in series', giving the water a 'push' from Pumper to Pumper to move water long distances.)

 

[Senenmut]

Rather you than me. I have yet to see any evidence that the members of AE911T are capable of thinking at all.

didnt they help the nist with their phases of collapse?

No, because lucky guesses happen all the time. And I suspect it wasn't as lucky as truthers so desperately want it to have been. What exactly did he say, and what time exactly did he say it? As I understand it, nobody seems to remember exactly. If it's simple recollection of hearsay, then there's a well-understood human tendency to improve the precision of predictions to make a better story. I wouldn't be surprised if the prediction was actually a couple of hours out, but was misremembered as being exactly correct. It wouldn't be the first time a nonexistent level of precision was used to bolster a truther argument.
Dave

lucky?? this is very telling of you. you DO NOT want to see the data that lead to the "engineer" to make a call the wtc would collase and be "right on the money" about that call. nist would not of had to spend all that tax payer money. this data would have saved time and money. you do realize that he not only predicted wtc 7 but the towers as well even though in a firefighters oral history peruggia states:

"We were always told by everyone, the experts, that these buildings could withstand direct hits from airplanes. That's the way they were designed. They went through all of this
architectural stuff, way beyond the scope of my knowledge.
It was hit by an airplane. That's okay. It's made to be hit by an airplane. I mean I think everyone may have believed that. We were all told."


sunder knows the engineer as well:
In an Oct 15, 2008 interview with Allan Rees (following the release of the NIST WTC 7 report), Dr. Shyam Sunder (lead investigator) responded to a question about the evidence of foreknowledge of the collapse of WTC 7 by saying that they were “aware that an engineer or a technical expert or a technical advisor was providing advice to the city agencies with regard to the condition of building 7”, and that they had been hearing creaking noises and the area was cleared about 2:30 pm. He refused to name this person, and then implied it may have been more than one “advisor”.

the fireman did not make the call that wtc 1 and 2 were going to collapse, an "engineer" or what sunder describes as an "advisor" did from within the OEM.

 

[Senenmut]

Are you not aware that all those substances have lower boiling points than A36 steel, and therefore would vapourise at lower temperatures? Really, this is an extraordinarily stupid line of argument. Water vapourised and then condensed during the WTC event. If you boil a steel kettle, are you worried that the steel will vapourise because the water in it is vapourising?

Dave

so your ok with what the rj lee report had to say about these?

 

[BigAl]

didnt they help the nist with their phases of collapse?

lucky?? this is very telling of you. you DO NOT want to see the data that lead to the "engineer" to make a call the wtc would collase and be "right on the money" about that call.

So what?

Since you are determined to flog this "right on the money" quote as literal, please show me a citation for where it came from so we read the complete quote.

Hundreds of eyewitnesses said all sorts of things on 9/11. Essentially all these people knew that WTC7 was going to collapse eventually.

 

[Dave Rogers]

didnt they help the nist with their phases of collapse?

Good point. That's one time the stopped clock was right.

you DO NOT want to see the data that lead to the "engineer" to make a call the wtc would collase and be "right on the money" about that call.

Don't tell lies about what I do or don't want. In general, when someone asks a question, it isn't an indication that they don't want to see the answer, and if you can read you'll notice in the passage you quoted that I asked exactly what the engineer said, and exactly when he said it. I'm asking for more information, not trying to obscure what there is. Throwing barely coherent accusations at anyone who disagrees with you hasn't worked for the last eight years of the truth movement, and it's not going to start working now.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

so your ok with what the rj lee report had to say about these?

Do you even read the posts you're replying to?

Dave

 

[Senenmut]

I ask you very pointedly to please show me a DIRECT QUOTE from Dr A in which he states that it vaporized, or that the "glassy residue."

It has been pointed out repeatedly that those are the words of a non technical newspaper reporter, not direct quotes.

Why is that?

Oh, what does Dr A say about your silly obsession and that of 9/11 truthers again?

"I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."

 

[Senenmut]

Do you even read the posts you're replying to?

Dave

yep. do you read what was vaporized?

 

[Senenmut]

Good point. That's one time the stopped clock was right.




Don't tell lies about what I do or don't want. In general, when someone asks a question, it isn't an indication that they don't want to see the answer, and if you can read you'll notice in the passage you quoted that I asked exactly what the engineer said, and exactly when he said it. I'm asking for more information, not trying to obscure what there is. Throwing barely coherent accusations at anyone who disagrees with you hasn't worked for the last eight years of the truth movement, and it's not going to start working now.

Dave

so you would like to see that data then?

 

[Senenmut]

[qimg]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_npCa0ZKo4i8/SjZ8C5hJ8YI/AAAAAAAAAjk/HsUcCUSY2BU/s1600/goodgrief.jpg[/qimg]

Seriously...

Pat

goood grief.......15.9mm of a36 steel...gone....gone i tell ya!!!!!!!!!lol