Firefighting and Fire Protection Systems on 9/11

[Sabretooth]

The official narrative of 9/11 cites that the failure of the fire protection systems is what ultimately caused the collapse of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7. Most (if not all) of the Truther crowd contends that it is impossible that fires alone could bring down steel-framed buildings.

The intention of this thread is to have a discussion about the “problems” the Truthers see with the official narrative with regards to the fire protection systems and the firefighting that was employed on 9/11/2001.

First things first: I am an active firefighter and I’ve had a significant amount of training in fire science. This statement is not to brag, but only to clarify that I have an understanding of firefighting beyond the PBS, Google, and Discovery Channel crowd.

From a firefighter and fire science standpoint, there is no question as to why the structures of the three WTC buildings failed. However, from a layman’s perspective, I suppose it does produce some questions as to how this happened. But, with a little bit of honest knowledge and the removal of truther-goggles, it is not hard to see that a duck is a duck.

All buildings are subject to installing levels of fire protection* in the (likely) event of such a problem. These include, but are not limited to:

- Sprinkler Systems
- Spray On Fire-Resistant Material (SFRM)
- Auto-Closing Fire Doors
- Firewalls and Firestops
- Automatic Dampers

*[sidebar] Notice that I did not use the layman’s term “fire-proofing”. This is important to note as nothing on this planet is completely, 100%, fireproof. The word “fire-proofing” is a misnomer, plain and simple. [/sidebar]

We all seem to agree that the WTC complex had at least two of these systems installed…the sprinklers and SFRM. It needs to be said that, again, that these systems are installed as a preventative nature. Basically…if a computer explodes on a desk, or a lit cigarette gets thrown into the paper shredder, or someone annihilates a bag of popcorn in the microwave…these systems are designed to contain the fire until the fire department can do its thing, if not extinguish the fire altogether.

However, on 9/11, fire protection met its match. Thousands of gallons of jet fuel was introduced and immediately ignited across several floors. Impact forces from the planes destroyed the sprinkler system and dislodged an untold amount of SFRM from the structure. The jet fuel ignition did not last long, but it was so critically severe that multiple large fires were started. The broken sprinklers were completely useless. Multiple large, uncontrolled fires raged through the WTC with no opposition. This is a situation that no fire protection system prior to 9/11 could ever cope with.

In conversations with fellow firemen, we all generally agree that, unless firefighting operations began immediately after the impacts, the WTC was destined to fail. Is this belief speculation? Yes, I’m not pretending this is fact. Is this belief solid based on available evidence and past experience? Absolutely.

This thread is here to discuss 9/11 from a firefighter and fire protection standpoint. I have to ask that we keep baseless arguments out of the discussion…such as “the first time ever” and “steel melter” crowds. There are other threads for those discussions.

So my questions are this:
- Was there anything the fire protection system or firefighters could have done on 9/11 to prevent the collapse of the WTC towers?
- Was do people believe "should" have happened?
- What does a truther or fencer want to discuss that seems unclear to them from a fire science standpoint?

If any of the other JREF fireman want to jump in or add anything to the OP, please feel free to do so.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

You forgot one other passive fire protection feature, firewalls, firestop, automatic dampes, etc.

The airplane impacts in the towers breached the drywall fire walls and allowed the fire to travel up the cores.

The damage to the exterior of WTC 7 also allowed the fire to rapidly travel vertically.

 

[Sabretooth]

You forgot one other passive fire protection feature, firewalls, firestop, automatic dampes, etc.

The airplane impacts in the towers breached the drywall fire walls and allowed the fire to travel up the cores.

The damage to the exterior of WTC 7 also allowed the fire to rapidly travel vertically.

Agreed. I'll edit this into the OP.

 

[Architect]

You forgot one other passive fire protection feature, firewalls, firestop, automatic dampe(r)s, etc.

I'm going to pick up on this too.

By far the most common fire protection systems I find on steel framed structures rely on encasement rather than surface-applied systems, at least where the material is hidden from view. This can vary from relatively lightweight systems such as 2 layers of 12.5mm broken bond plasterboard (only provides around 30 minutes) right through to more substantive specialist board and framing systems which can run up to 3 or 4 hours.

Such systems are typically tested for robustness only inasmuch as credible fire loads are understood; in short an office block will not normally be designed to withstand significant explosive damage and hence there is a risk that lest robust encasement systems will fail under extraordinary circumstances such as 911.

Likewise we might point to modern intumescent paint type systems however one can only speculate as to the extent to which such a surface applied system would have withstood an aircraft impact or performed where partially damaged.

One of the (many) problems which I have with some members of the Truther Movement is their limited understanding of the performance of such elements under both normal and extraordinary loadings. In short, they seem to believe that either the material is incredibly robust or alternatively that the requirement is moot due to an alleged rapid transfer of heat along steel structural members.

 

[willhaven]

Great thread, but I doubt it will get many honest replies.

I've often asked the question, "why is spray on fireproofing applied to many steel frame buildings?" I don't believe I've ever had a truther answer the question. I'm pretty sure it has been ignored 100% of the time I've asked it.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Well, I'm not a firefighter but I was a fire protection engineer at one time in my life.

It's apparent to me that even if the sprinkler system had been totally undamaged by the initial impact, the fire area was so large that the system would be unable to meet the demand.

Sprinkler systems for office areas are usually designed to provide relatively low water densities over a relatively small square footage (relative to let's say a warehouse or manufacturing facility).

The jet fuel would have opened up far more sprinkler heads than the system was designed for, and therefore would have been ineffective in containing the fire. As the fire spread, more sprinklers would have opened, further reducing the supply available per head.

Instead of having just a few sprinkler heads with adequate flow/pressure producing a nice "umbrella pattern" of water, you end up with so many open sprinkler heads that what water is available is just dribbling out of the sprinkler heads.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

One slightly OT point that I would like to make. . . . Fire Codes. I am not entirely convinced that there were no negative impacts from the pressurized diesel fuel system in 7. I realize that NIST has discounted the possibility of an issue with the system, but to date, I have not heard any reasonable explanation for the missing fuel in the building USTs.

The pressurized fuel line system was designed as a work around of the code limitations on fuel storage per floor in the generator rooms.

 

[triforcharity]

One slightly OT point that I would like to make. . . . Fire Codes. I am not entirely convinced that there were no negative impacts from the pressurized diesel fuel system in 7. I realize that NIST has discounted the possibility of an issue with the system, but to date, I have not heard any reasonable explanation for the missing fuel in the building USTs.

The pressurized fuel line system was designed as a work around of the code limitations on fuel storage per floor in the generator rooms.

I would agree. However, NIST stated it really had no impact on the collapse. However, they do not elaborate on how it would have effected the spread of the fire. It most certainly would have. How much? Not likely all that much. However, it most certainly would have effected it.

Skinny,

You are absolutely correct. (Assuming an intact system, which we DON'T have in the WTC Towers) Most systems has a limit on the amount of heads it will allow to operate at one time. Wht that number was in the WTC, I don't know. Without knowing the flow rate of the system, and the number of heads, it is impossible to know. (You know this already though)

However, some types of buildings DO have the ability to operate many many heads at once. Most of them are factories, such as aumotive manufacturing plants, and places where either fuel is found in abundance, or the threat of an explosion is very high. (Think fireworks factorys, or fertalizer factories.


ETA: Nice Job Sabre!

 

[Mr. Skinny]

I would agree. However, NIST stated it really had no impact on the collapse. However, they do not elaborate on how it would have effected the spread of the fire. It most certainly would have. How much? Not likely all that much. However, it most certainly would have effected it.

Skinny,

You are absolutely correct. (Assuming an intact system, which we DON'T have in the WTC Towers) Most systems has a limit on the amount of heads it will allow to operate at one time. Wht that number was in the WTC, I don't know. Without knowing the flow rate of the system, and the number of heads, it is impossible to know. (You know this already though)

However, some types of buildings DO have the ability to operate many many heads at once. Most of them are factories, such as aumotive manufacturing plants, and places where either fuel is found in abundance, or the threat of an explosion is very high. (Think fireworks factorys, or fertalizer factories.


ETA: Nice Job Sabre!

Tri,

It's been a long time since I was in the business, but even those occupancies with the highest sprinkler demand area would still look "small" when compared to the demand area of the WTC towers. I don't recall demand/area designs much above 0.5 gpm/sq. ft. over, let's say 6,000 sq. ft.

High demand areas like that is where you usually find a couple of 1000gpm@100 psi fire pumps pulling from a 250,000 gal.? suction tank, and other amenities not available in the WTC towers (like hydraulically designed sprinkler systems to reduce friction, 286F sprinkler heads, etc.

I was just trying to make the point that the sprinkler system was useless in the WTC towers even if we consider the best possible scenario: that is, undamaged and otherwise operable.

 

[triforcharity]

Couldn't agree more. The system was overloaded from the beginning.

That is where the passive systems kick in.

(Fire stops, fire doors, SFRM, ETC)

 

[Alferd_Packer]

You are absolutely correct. (Assuming an intact system, which we DON'T have in the WTC Towers) Most systems has a limit on the amount of heads it will allow to operate at one time. Wht that number was in the WTC, I don't know. Without knowing the flow rate of the system, and the number of heads, it is impossible to know. (You know this already though)

just a note, the sprinkler system in the towers was a retrofit. I assume that the risers were in the stair towers. there were several resevoirs scattered about the building on the mechanical floors.

 

[rjh01]

Tri,
<snip>

I was just trying to make the point that the sprinkler system was useless in the WTC towers even if we consider the best possible scenario: that is, undamaged and otherwise operable.

Not to mention it would do nothing in the first few minutes as the aircraft fuel burned. Only when that burnt itself out and the building and contents took over could it do anything.

But even that assumes that no pipes were broken by the aircraft.

 

[cantonear1968]

The official narrative of 9/11 cites that the failure of the fire protection systems is what ultimately caused the collapse of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7. Most (if not all) of the Truther crowd contends that it is impossible that fires alone could bring down steel-framed buildings.

The intention of this thread is to have a discussion about the “problems” the Truthers see with the official narrative with regards to the fire protection systems and the firefighting that was employed on 9/11/2001.

Sabre, you are starting with the false impression that most or even some truthers could quote you what the official narrative is. Most hear that no steel building has fallen from fire before and stop there, making the leap past any logical assumptions for more information and conclude "Bush did it!" Most have no idea what the collapse mechanism for the Towers was. I have had some who didn't even know a report on the collapse of WTC7 was written (I assume they are incorrectly quoting that the 9/11 Commission didn't mention Seven).

While I am sure that this will be an informative discussion on the techincal issues surrounding the fire sepression system, I would not expect fruitful participation from anyone who can't understand why they spend millions of dollars spraying fireproofing on steel beams (props willhaven; I've asked that question myself with no response yet) or what would happen in a fire when it is removed.

Cheers!

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Not to mention it would do nothing in the first few minutes as the aircraft fuel burned. Only when that burnt itself out and the building and contents took over could it do anything.

But even that assumes that no pipes were broken by the aircraft.

I don't really want to steer the thread off topic, but I'm not clear on what you mean by "it would do nothing in the first few minutes" and well, your entire second sentence, to be honest.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Couldn't agree more. The system was overloaded from the beginning.

That is where the passive systems kick in.

(Fire stops, fire doors, SFRM, ETC)

Tri, do you know what type of fire doors they had? Were they only at the stairwells? Self-closing fusible link type? Were the stairwells positive pressure compared to the general floor area, etc?

Sorry to say I've never researched any of that, but thought you might know from personal experience.

 

[triforcharity]

IIRC, they had PPV in the stairwells, but I wouldn't swear to it.

Also, the stairwells had self closing doors installed on all floors. I don't know the type, as in which brand, but I do know they were quite heavy. Something to the tune of ~300 lbs.

I can research it a little bit for you if you would like.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

IIRC, they had PPV in the stairwells, but I wouldn't swear to it.

Also, the stairwells had self closing doors installed on all floors. I don't know the type, as in which brand, but I do know they were quite heavy. Something to the tune of ~300 lbs.

I can research it a little bit for you if you would like.

Nah, don't bother.

Sounds like they had more than a 90 minute door on the stairwells though. Two hour rating or more maybe?

Appreciate the input though.

 

[triforcharity]

My guess, is 2 hours. I could be wrong though. I am not a FPE.

 

[njslim]

One thing remember reading was some of the tenants spanning multiple floors had
"convenence stairs" - a set of stairs in interior of building allowing easy access without
going through the central core. IIRC Fuji Bank in South Tower (79-82) had such stairs

I believe Orio Palmer and his crew were heading for such a set of stairs to check on fire
conditions when tower collapsed.

Dont know if these factored in spread of fires ....

 

[rjh01]

Not to mention it would do nothing in the first few minutes as the aircraft fuel burned. Only when that burnt itself out and the building and contents took over could it do anything.

But even that assumes that no pipes were broken by the aircraft.

I don't really want to steer the thread off topic, but I'm not clear on what you mean by "it would do nothing in the first few minutes" and well, your entire second sentence, to be honest.

Sorry if my post was not clear. You cannot put out a fire that has aircraft fuel as a fuel using water. All that would do is spread the fire. I assume there would have been heaps of aircraft fuel in the WTC. Once that had burnt then yes water might have helped.

The pipes I am talking about are the pipes carrying the water. If they are broken then no water...