Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[000063]

What are you really saying here - that the FDNY is incompetent, or that the FDNY was in on it? Or why else did THEY say they didn't have enough water pressure to engage the fires in WTC7? C7, use your imagination, I really want to know just what you think you are saying here!

Chris, you're just going to keep ignoring Oystein, aren't you?

 

[000063]

Utter Balderdash:
What a joke. Three buildings with different levels energy attacking them from different locations and directions causing all three to globally collapse.

What a joke. What idiocy.

Argument from incredulity noted.

 

[Christopher7]

hi Chris7,

It's an ABC video of smoke pushing out of windows on multiple floors, my tech guy clipped it into my Powerpoint but I have NO IDEA how to post it... sorry. But it'll be in my YouTube videos next week with an ABC credit.

Is this the one?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6186921835292416413&hl=en-CA#

NIST studied all the videos and statements.
NCSTAR 1A pg 29 [pdf pg 71]
The visual evidence indicated that the only fires of significant duration and intensity were on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13.
By 1:00 p.m., there was no visual evidence that the small, early fires on Floors 19, 22, 29, and 30 were still burning . . . . . There was no confirmed evidence of fires on other floors of WTC 7.

 

[NoahFence]

Chris, you're just going to keep ignoring Oystein, aren't you?

 

[Christopher7]

TFC was THERE. That can't be overstated.

An anonymous poster says he was there. Even if he was, that does not make him an expert. He was wrong about the ability of pump trucks to pump water up to the 12th floor.

Oystein,
I am not making any accusations, I'm just stating facts. You may draw conclusions from the facts as you like.

 

[triforcharity]

The floors were approximately 12 feet.
12 x 12 = 144 x .5 = 72 psi loss

Fire math
http://www.firefightermath.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31&Itemid=45
By rounding up to 0.5 from 0.434, friction and head losses due to the hose itself are taken into account, and no additional calculation is needed. In the field, the 0.5 pounds per square inch head loss is therefore used. This approximation not only eases calculations, but is more realistic to use in the field.

Speak for yourself.
Fire pumps are designed to perform as follows:
100% of rated capacity at 150 psi net pump pressure
70% of rated capacity at 200 psi net pump pressure
50% of rated capacity at 250 psi net pump pressure
http://home.honolulu.hawaii.edu/~jkemmler/chapter4.htm

Now you need to account for the friction loss of hundreds of feet of hose, and also the limited gpm of the source, which was hundreds of feet away in the Hudson. Don't forget you're using different wyes to go to different sources, as a 5" line stretching from the Hudson to the base of the WTC would have been VERY impractical, if not impossible.

I've hilited a statement I think you don't know a damn thing about. I teach this stuff for a living.

Keep talking out of your ass, and answer the already posed question.

What is more important to the FDNY.

Is it:
A- Finding victims alive in a timely manner, including some of their own
or is it
B- Fighting a fire in an unoccupied building that posed no risk to anyone.

 

[triforcharity]

Wrong
See post 1520
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7293331&postcount=1520

You're still wrong. You're using a theoretical, meaning not what happens in real life.

There was no damage to the core area where the standpipes were no doubt located. In any case, the standpipe system was not damaged in the east half of the building. If standpipe damage was a problem they could have run a line up the stairway.

No, you couldn't. Again, your knowledge of standpipe systems and their operation is non-existant.

The very simple answer is : They could do both.

No, you're not understanding the question.

Which was MORE important?

They also could have run a line down the stairs from the 20th floor which was supplied by a water tank on floor 46 or 47.

And how much PSI would that provide? Don't forget, no power for any pumps either.

 

[000063]

An anonymous poster says he was there. Even if he was, that does not make him an expert. He was wrong about the ability of pump trucks to pump water up to the 12th floor.

Oystein,
I am not making any accusations, I'm just stating facts. You may draw conclusions from the facts as you like.

Well, there are only two possible conclusions if the water should have had enough pressure; the conspirators somehow sabotaged the FDNY, stealthily altering dozens/hundreds of trucks and pieces of equipment (since they could not know which company/companies would be doing the firefighting) that would be taken back to the firehouses after 9/11 and, eventually, inspected. Their sabotage was never discovered.

or
The FDNY was in on it, which means they were also complicit in the murder of 300+ of their brothers and thousands of civilians and then said nothing about it for ten years. These are people who run into burning buildings for the sake of that very same public.

Both are impossible. As Holmes said, that leaves "there wasn't enough water pressure" as the only other explanation.

Reductio ad absurdum, QED.

 

[Christopher7]

You're still wrong. You're using a theoretical, meaning not what happens in real life.

Wrong
Fire math
http://www.firefightermath.org/index...d=31&Itemid=45
By rounding up to 0.5 from 0.434, friction and head losses due to the hose itself are taken into account, and no additional calculation is needed. In the field, the 0.5 pounds per square inch head loss is therefore used. This approximation not only eases calculations,but is more realistic to use in the field.

If standpipe damage was a problem they could have run a line up the stairway.

No, you couldn't.

No, you're not understanding the question.
Which was MORE important?

Irrelevant to the point which is:

NIST says the building was eventually no match for the flames that raged out of control for several hours after the firefighters were unable to pour any more water on it.

And how much PSI would that provide? Don't forget, no power for any pumps either.

You did not read the information at the URL I posted. It is referring to pump trucks:

ETA:
[FONT=&quot]The floors were approximately 12 feet.
12 x 12 = 144 x .5 = 72 psi loss
A 1000 gmp pump truck, operating at 200 psi, can deliver 700 gmp at 128 psi to the 12th floor.

[/FONT] Standard pumper capacity ratings start from 500 gpm and increase in 250 gpm increments (NFPA 19 Specification) up to 2000 gpm.
http://www.firefightermath.org/index...d=31&Itemid=45

Fire pumps are designed to perform as follows:
100% of rated capacity at 150 psi net pump pressure
70% of rated capacity at 200 psi net pump pressure
50% of rated capacity at 250 psi net pump pressure
http://home.honolulu.hawaii.edu/~jkemmler/chapter4.htm


Pump Mounting on Apparatus a. Mid-ship (middle) – 2 ways
i. Between road transmission and rear axle in line with drive shaft (most common)
ii. Ahead of clutch and transmission with flywheel and power take off. This type allows for direct engine power to pump transmission connection. It allows for driving and pumping simultaneously.
http://home.honolulu.hawaii.edu/~jkemmler/chapter4.htm

 

[tempesta29]

So when Truthers insist that the buildings were bought down, neatly, in what "looks" exactly like a CD, they're wrong. Thanks, T29.

Whom are you quoting there?

Debris damage and fire.

Oh, and tri, it's Straw Man. Where's my no-prize?

WTC 7's damage was one sided. Why then did it not simply topple in that direction? Why would an unscathed portion of a building reach free fall? WTC 7 looked very much like a controlled demolition, and I bet if you showed a demolition expert that video they would (and have) conclude the same thing.

In fact I'm willing to bet if you showed CD experts who had no knowledge of WTC 7 that video that at least 90% would conclude it was a CD. What do you think?

 

[tempesta29]

You overlooked post 6643.
Or you did not understand it.

The fact that during stage 1, the north face fell at increasing acceleration, but less than g, means: The supporting structure below still resisted, but less and less as it buckled more and more.
Stage 2 is reached when the increasing acceleration / buckling reached the point where the north face fell essentially at g means that by then, all columns had buckled. If you disagree with this last statement, you disagree with your own claims.

Nonsense. It's pure speculation on your part. You're trying to fill in blanks with more blanks. NIST made no such determination and there is no physical evidence to support your claim.

What destroys WTC 7 as it collapses is the force exerted by the ground below it. There is no evidence of any pre-buckling that occurred. That's just your guesswork.

 

[tempesta29]

Ok. Show us what you measure.
We expect that you provide measured values. Of whatever.

Jesus man. Go to the video and count. There are far fewer than 10 seconds after the penthouse collapses until the entire structure begins collapsing.

 

[Dave Rogers]

WTC 7's damage was one sided. Why then did it not simply topple in that direction?

Two things. Firstly, as NIST's investigation found, the primary cause of collapse was fire rather than the structural damage to the south face. Secondly, it did topple in that direction; photographs taken after the collapse show the north face lying across the rubble pile, and one video clearly shows the building rotating southwards as it fell.

Why would an unscathed portion of a building reach free fall?

No part of WTC7 was "unscathed" when it fell; there's clear evidence that the inside of the building collapsed a few seconds before the facade began to fall. And, as you've been told many times by competent and informed people whom you refuse to believe, steel columns that have buckled to the point of fracture of the plastic hinges present no resistance to collapse.

WTC 7 looked very much like a controlled demolition, and I bet if you showed a demolition expert that video they would (and have) conclude the same thing.

But it didn't sound anything like a controlled demolition, so you'd have to play it to your expert with the soundtrack turned off if you wanted to fool him.

In fact I'm willing to bet if you showed CD experts who had no knowledge of WTC 7 that video that at least 90% would conclude it was a CD. What do you think?

If you played them the video with sound, not a single one of them would think it was a CD.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

What destroys WTC 7 as it collapses is the force exerted by the ground below it.

Stundied. My only regret is that you'll never truly understand how stupid a statement that was.

Dave

 

[triforcharity]

Wrong
Fire math
http://www.firefightermath.org/index...d=31&Itemid=45
By rounding up to 0.5 from 0.434, friction and head losses due to the hose itself are taken into account, and no additional calculation is needed. In the field, the 0.5 pounds per square inch head loss is therefore used. This approximation not only eases calculations,but is more realistic to use in the field.

So, you're under the impression that because there is a pumper available, (which it most likely WASN'T do to FDNY priorities) that no matter what, they could have fought the fire.

Your assumption is assinine at best. I know this is going to be very confusing for you, but let me spell it out for you.

NOT ENOUGH WATER. It doesn't matter if it is in THEORY possible, (which it WASN'T), because of the fact that they only had a limited amount of water to start with. Why is that? Because the FDNY was using fire pumps to suction water from the Hudson River. You MUST account for the loss becuse you're using the pumps for drafting operations. This changes the dynamics completly. You also have to account for the many wyes that were in the system at the time. In no way shape or form could the head pressure overcome the lack of water. NOT ENOUGH WATER.

Why do you think highrise buildings use standpipe systems? Is it because you think it looks cool on blueprints? Or maybe it's because you think that fire safety engineers like putting useless systems into the design of buildings, like you seem to think that SFRM is?

Here, let me explain it to you.

When you stretch out 100' of hose, you lose head pressure because of the friction loss of that hose. Now, stretch out 400' of 2" line, and you're going to lose most of your ability to fight a fire. Throw a bunch of bends into it, while traveling upstairs, and you may as well have a bucket brigade.

Don't think that I don't know firefighter math. I teach it. I have studied it for many years. I know it forwards and backwards. I can run circles around you when it comes to firefighter math. You're still trying to figure out what a drafting operation is.

Irrelevant to the point which is:

No, it most certainly is NOT irrelevant. The FDNY couldn't care LESS about an unoccupied building that was UNSAFE to enter, when they have hundreds of their own men missing from the collapse. Not to mention the unknown amount of citizens that lay dead or dying in the rubble that was once 1&2 WTC. It's called triage. Take case of the IMPORTANT stuff first, then deal with the rest.

Your ignorance of the FDNY and every firefighter's mission is staggering. We don't care about property. We care about saving lives.

You did not read the information at the URL I posted. It is referring to pump trucks:

Pump Mounting on Apparatus a. Mid-ship (middle) – 2 ways
i. Between road transmission and rear axle in line with drive shaft (most common)
ii. Ahead of clutch and transmission with flywheel and power take off. This type allows for direct engine power to pump transmission connection. It allows for driving and pumping simultaneously.
http://home.honolulu.hawaii.edu/~jkemmler/chapter4.htm

I know exactly what a pump truck is. They usually carry the following.

1 Driver/engineer
1 Officer
2-4 firefighters

Usually consist of a 500-1000 gallon tank for a reserve, and can flow anywhere between 1000-5000 gpm depending on the setup.

Also usually carry anywhere between 1-2000 feet of various hoses, including 200' of 5" main pump line, 800' of 2' or 1 1/2" handlines, and usually have a small booster line either mounted on the front bumper, or in a rear compartment with a 1" line for fighting small fires.

Don't think you can try to school me on firefighting. I'm in a whole 'nother league compared to you. You're still googling for drafting operations, while I am teaching Higbee Cuts to rookies. Go google that too.

 

[Christopher7]

Two things. Firstly, as NIST's investigation found, the primary cause of collapse was fire

But that did not happen because the fire that supposedly started the collapse had burned out over an hour earlier.

you've been told many times by competent and informed people whom you refuse to believe, steel columns that have buckled to the point of fracture of the plastic hinges present no resistance to collapse.

Competent people?

The columns did NOT fracture, they buckled. They are still buckling and providing resistance about 1 second into the time of free fall acceleration. The NIST computer model does NOT free fall.

 

[NoahFence]

An anonymous poster says he was there. Even if he was, that does not make him an expert. He was wrong about the ability of pump trucks to pump water up to the 12th floor.

Oystein,
I am not making any accusations, I'm just stating facts. You may draw conclusions from the facts as you like.

He's alot more honest than you'll ever be.

It's irrelevant anyway.
This just in....

If there's a fire in a building that's not being fought - it gets worse, not better. Don't tell anyone though - it'll be our little secret.

The fact of the matter is WTC 7 was doomed the second it got hit by WTC 1. No amount of NIST bellyaching will change that. Explosives did not bring down WTC 7, and since there's no other possible explanation, it HAD to have been the MASSIVE fire.

Explosives weren't found. Explosives could not survive the fire. Due to these two simple facts, a rational person would conclude that Explosives weren't the cause. So then he or she needs to try to figure out what ELSE could have done it.

Fire. Period. Get a new hobby and stop urinating on the memory of those lost that day. Try needlepoint. With tainted needles.

 

[NoahFence]

But that did not happen because the fire that supposedly started the collapse had burned out over an hour earlier.

OK smart man, what DID happen?

Until you present a better alternative, you're just wasting keystrokes. Which will go on forever, because you HAVE NO better alternative. You've got NO CLUE. You debate using Google, but have no idea what the contents of the pages you visit MEAN. You think you know better than a firefighter who was there. What a superiority complex. As I've said before, in order to have a superiority complex, you actually need to be superior.
You're lacking in that department. Severely. You, and everybody else who thinks they know what didn't happen that day, but are convinced without evidence that you know what did.

 

[Christopher7]

So, you're under the impression that because there is a pumper available, (which it most likely WASN'T do to FDNY priorities) that no matter what, they could have fought the fire.

The water coming out of the fire hose proves that they had a pump truck or they had the Harvey hooked up. In either case they could have gotten water to the 12 floor as I noted above.

NOT ENOUGH WATER. It doesn't matter if it is in THEORY possible, (which it WASN'T)

It's not a theory, it's a photo of a high pressure hose putting water on WTC 6.

because of the fact that they only had a limited amount of water to start with. Why is that? Because the FDNY was using fire pumps to suction water from the Hudson River.

You MUST account for the loss becuse you're using the pumps for drafting operations. This changes the dynamics completly.

No, you simply subtract the loss to lift the water out of the river and up to the elevation of WTC 7, which in this case was ~20-30 feet or 10-15 psi.

You also have to account for the many wyes that were in the system at the time. In no way shape or form could the head pressure overcome the lack of water. NOT ENOUGH WATER.

WTC 5 and 6 were lost causes but WTC 7 was not. In any case, the Harvey was capable of supplying plenty of water.

Fireboat Harvey Cross connections in the firemain allow them to be set up in series to deliver a total of 8000 gpm at 300 psi. Tests showed the pumps exceeded their rating, pumping over 18,000 gpm (80 tons) which is equal to 20 - or five alarm's worth - of land fire engines.
http://www.fireboat.org/history/engineering.asp

When you stretch out 100' of hose, you lose head pressure because of the friction loss of that hose. Now, stretch out 400' of 2" line, and you're going to lose most of your ability to fight a fire. Throw a bunch of bends into it, while traveling upstairs, and you may as well have a bucket brigade.

Wrong
[FONT=&quot]Fire math
http://www.firefightermath.org/index...d=31&Itemid=45
By rounding up to 0.5 from 0.434, friction and head losses due to the hose itself are taken into account.

[/FONT]

Don't think that I don't know firefighter math. I teach it.

God help us all.

No, it most certainly is NOT irrelevant. The FDNY couldn't care LESS about an unoccupied building

Then why were they were putting water on WTC 6?

that was UNSAFE to enter

Firefighters entered WTC 7 and rescued people from the 7th and 8th floors about noon. They reported a cubicle fire on floor 7 and no fire on floor 8.

 

[Craig4]

Utter Balderdash:




What a joke. Three buildings with different levels energy attacking them from different locations and directions causing all three to globally collapse.

What a joke. What idiocy.

Not if you fly planes into two of them and one gets damaged by the debris.