Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[sylvan8798]

"Fire hoses were quickly run from the Harvey to the World Trade Center, and the firefighters were able to put down the remaining fires, saving everything but World Trade Center 7, which collapsed later that day."
http://everything2.com/title/The+Joh...ro+of+9%2F11

So, I have found a way. Can you think of a better way? Or are you saying that it could not be done?

If you are the professional you say you are, and you were there, then you will be able to tell us how the fire boats managed to supply sufficient water to the WTC.

Remember the point here is that NIST said there was NO water to fight WTC 7. This is to point out the false statement by NIST so please stay on point.

Where are you going with this? Because NIST said something you disagree with (which had nothing to do with the structural evaluations) that means you nullify their entire report?

I don't know where this source gets the idea that there were plenty of resources for the other fires. 90 West Street burned unattended for several days. Two people died there when they were trapped in an elevator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/90_West_Street

Your maligning of the FDNY doesn't sit well with anyone but your fellow Truthers.

 

[Animal]

Well, in effect it'll do that, by bouncing off the big rock. The really weird thing about tempesta29's universe is that, if you try to drop a brick on an egg, you'll always miss. In fact, if you drop a brick on a field entirely covered in eggs except for a precisely brick-shaped hole, it'll land perfectly aligned to the hole so as not to break any of the eggs, because that's the path of least resistance that falling objects always take.

Dave

So simple, yet brilliant

 

[Oystein]

Where are you going with this? Because NIST said something you disagree with (which had nothing to do with the structural evaluations) that means you nullify their entire report?
...

No, not the entire report. He is happy with those parts that he can quote-mine for his own purposes, even if they are imprecise or even incorrect (such as the passage that says, I paraphrase, that the entire building went down in one single unit, when clearly the core went ahead of the perimeter.

 

[Animal]

No, not the entire report. He is happy with those parts that he can quote-mine for his own purposes, even if they are imprecise or even incorrect (such as the passage that says, I paraphrase, that the entire building went down in one single unit, when clearly the core went ahead of the perimeter.

Not to mention the mixing and matching of the various reports out of context.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Where are you going with this? Because NIST said something you disagree with (which had nothing to do with the structural evaluations) that means you nullify their entire report?

I don't know where this source gets the idea that there were plenty of resources for the other fires. 90 West Street burned unattended for several days. Two people died there when they were trapped in an elevator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/90_West_Street

Your maligning of the FDNY doesn't sit well with anyone but your fellow Truthers.

Well you see, if it burned longer than WTC 7 even if it was unfought, and didn't collapse then that's just more proof that WTC 7 shouldn't have collapsed, but if it collapses and it wasn't fought then that also means there was a coverup and that the firefighters were held back from WTC to assist in a coverup of something that was nefariously hidden inside.

 

[A W Smith]

I just cleaned out the worst of the off topic and personal sniping. While I realize that this can be a contentious issue, you still need to follow the Memebership Agreement you agreed to when you joined. Keep to the topic at hand - and the topic is never the other posters - keep it civil and I won't have to come in here again.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

What is "off topic" for a general discussion thread? When asked what is the X component that can make a building fall like a tree or the hinge or fulcrum. that was off topic and moved? http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7296027&postcount=11

You as a mod know why this specific thread was created. correct?

 

[grandmastershek]

Yeah brilliant stuff. Not only have buildings of those size and strength never been demolished, but these CDs would not have been intended to minimize collateral damage at all. In fact the more professional the execution the more the illusion would falter.

So you admit none of them actually look like CD's. Thanks.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

OK, here's the math:

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.
http://www.fireboat.org/history/engineering.asp

OK. I'm assuming this is the output of the fireboat, not the flow and pressure available at street level. Since I doubt anyone was taking the time to measure the output at street level, I've got to assume this data is from the gauges on the fireboat.

Willing to be corrected on that of course, if you know better.

By cutting the flow to 4000 gpm @ 300 psi
Using 5 - 5" hoses = 800 gpm each
The Friction Loss for this 1800 foot section of 5 inch fire hose with 800 GPM is 92.16 PSI (pounds per square inch)
http://www.frictionlosscalculator.com/default.aspx

If you cut the flow to 4000 gpm, how can you possibly be delivering 8000 gpm as stated above? If you are pumping 8000 gpm through your 5 - 5" hose arrangement, the friction loss is 368.64 psi per 1800 ft line. Since that alone is more than the output pressure of the fireboat, it doesn't seem like a reasonable assumption on your part.

According to what I've read, the fireboat had 4 fire pumps rated at 4000 gpm @150 psi. I don't know the piping arrangement on the fireboat, but it sounds like they must have been using one pump to boost the inlet pressure on another pump, because I doubt you can run a fire pump much past 125% of rated capacity for an extended period of time, and certainly not 200% of rated.

Hopefully, some of the firefighters can address this.

Also,

12th floor = 144' + 20' rise from river = 164' x .5 psi loss per floor = 82psi

300 psi - 92 psi friction and 82 psi rise losses = 4000 gpm @ 126 psi available to the 12th floor of any building around the WTC.

I'm not sure how these pumps work but if gpm varies with psi, then to achieve optimum psi, bring up pressure/flow until you reach max pressure at other end.

Maybe that is not how it was done but this demonstrates that it was possible to get plenty of water to the 12th floor.

"Fire hoses were quickly run from the Harvey to the World Trade Center, and the firefighters were able to put down the remaining fires, saving everything but World Trade Center 7, which collapsed later that day."
http://everything2.com/title/The+Joh...ro+of+9%252F11

So, I have found a way. Can you think of a better way? Or are you saying that it could not be done?

If you are the professional you say you are, and you were there, then you will be able to tell us how the fire boats managed to supply sufficient water to the WTC.

Remember the point here is that NIST said there was NO water to fight WTC 7. This is to point out the false statement by NIST so please stay on point.


To preempt the childish remarks about "Googled" information somehow not being valid, I will remind you that the data at the sources given are valid regardless of who presents it or how and where they got it.

I can't respond to this part until I'm sure your math works.

Maybe Triforcharity has some better ideas.

 

[triforcharity]

OK. I'm assuming this is the output of the fireboat, not the flow and pressure available at street level. Since I doubt anyone was taking the time to measure the output at street level, I've got to assume this data is from the gauges on the fireboat.

Willing to be corrected on that of course, if you know better.

I'm assuming the same thing. I doubt the data would be much different at street level, since it may have only been 1-2' of rise from the pump outlet to the street level.

If you cut the flow to 4000 gpm, how can you possibly be delivering 8000 gpm as stated above? If you are pumping 8000 gpm through your 5 - 5" hose arrangement, the friction loss is 368.64 psi per 1800 ft line. Since that alone is more than the output pressure of the fireboat, it doesn't seem like a reasonable assumption on your part.

Well, the problem is his math is way off. You can't flow 4000 gpm at 300 psi. You can flow 8000 gpm at 300 psi, but through 1800 feet of hose, you lose
2304 psi from friction loss. Now, I don't know about you, but 300 psi minus 2304 is a negative number using the math I use.

According to what I've read, the fireboat had 4 fire pumps rated at 4000 gpm @150 psi. I don't know the piping arrangement on the fireboat, but it sounds like they must have been using one pump to boost the inlet pressure on another pump, because I doubt you can run a fire pump much past 125% of rated capacity for an extended period of time, and certainly not 200% of rated.

Hopefully, some of the firefighters can address this.

Yes, that is exactly how it works, It's similar to connecting 3-4 car batteries together in a daisy chain. But, operating a pump at 125% of it's capacity for any extended period of time is not advisable. Not to mention the problem that sure, you can flow 8000 gpm at 300 psi, but you still have to reduce it alot.

I can't respond to this part until I'm sure your math works.

Maybe Triforcharity has some better ideas.

His math is too far off to be reconciled.

You can't flow 4000 gpm at 300psi, only at 150psi. So, using his math, 92-82 psi is 174 psi, but he only gets 150 psi to start with.

His math is COMPLETELY wrong. Do you hear that Chris? Your math is ALL wrong. You cannot flow 4000 gpm at 300 psi. You only get 150psi.

Go back to the drawing board.

 

[Justin39640]

It was no secret since right after the towers fell that there was a very serious water shortage problem for fighting fires.

Sometimes I think truthers have a very distorted image of just what was going on down there. I think they would have had an issue trying to pull firemen away from the piles doing S&R to fight fires in an empty building. Crap, they had problems pulling them off the pile when 7 was threatening to fall on their heads.

Seriously, there just wasn't enough water and no one was running into an empty burning building. You should move on now. TY

 

[funk de fino]

OK, here's the math:

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.
http://www.fireboat.org/history/engineering.asp

By cutting the flow to 4000 gpm @ 300 psi
Using 5 - 5" hoses = 800 gpm each
The Friction Loss for this 1800 foot section of 5 inch fire hose with 800 GPM is 92.16 PSI (pounds per square inch)
http://www.frictionlosscalculator.com/default.aspx

12th floor = 144' + 20' rise from river = 164' x .5 psi loss per floor = 82psi

300 psi - 92 psi friction and 82 psi rise losses = 4000 gpm @ 126 psi available to the 12th floor of any building around the WTC.

I'm not sure how these pumps work but if gpm varies with psi, then to achieve optimum psi, bring up pressure/flow until you reach max pressure at other end.

Maybe that is not how it was done but this demonstrates that it was possible to get plenty of water to the 12th floor.

"Fire hoses were quickly run from the Harvey to the World Trade Center, and the firefighters were able to put down the remaining fires, saving everything but World Trade Center 7, which collapsed later that day."
http://everything2.com/title/The+Joh...ro+of+9%252F11

So, I have found a way. Can you think of a better way? Or are you saying that it could not be done?

If you are the professional you say you are, and you were there, then you will be able to tell us how the fire boats managed to supply sufficient water to the WTC.

Remember the point here is that NIST said there was NO water to fight WTC 7. This is to point out the false statement by NIST so please stay on point.


To preempt the childish remarks about "Googled" information somehow not being valid, I will remind you that the data at the sources given are valid regardless of who presents it or how and where they got it.

Looks like another epic fail to me.

Quelle surprise

 

[Christopher7]

Well, the problem is his math is way off. You can't flow 4000 gpm at 300 psi. You can flow 8000 gpm at 300 psi, but through 1800 feet of hose, you lose
2304 psi from friction loss. Now, I don't know about you, but 300 psi minus 2304 is a negative number using the math I use.

There's something wrong with you math. You can't have negative water pressure. There will be water at some psi coming out the other end.

You ignored This:
I'm not sure how these pumps work but if gpm varies with psi, then to achieve optimum psi, bring up pressure/flow until you reach max pressure at other end.

In any case, the Harvey pumped 38 million gallons of water in 3 days.
@ 5:26 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEjRFAckjjM
[that's probably 3 point 8 and she read it wrong]

If you are the professional you say you are, and you were there, then you will be able to tell us how the fire boats managed to supply sufficient water to the WTC.

 

[NoahFence]

No firefighting efforts in an unoccupied building. ESPECIALLY when two of the most iconic buildings in America just collapsed, landing on 300 of your brothers.

I'm thinking in an identical situation, but replacing WTC 7 with say, an empty White House, or Capitol Building, (pick your important structure) the result will be the same.

Ignore the burning building which is coming down anyway, no matter WHAT you do, and concentrate on the priorities.

In any case, the Harvey pumped 38 million gallons of water in 3 days.

So what? Does that prove that they could have saved WTC 7? It could have pumped 38 TRILLION gallons in 3 days and the results of 9/11 wouldn't have changed one bit.

 

[Oystein]

Looks like another epic fail to me.

Quelle surprise

Can you elaborate why it looks like fail?

 

[twinstead]

I loose track of the points of C7's copious arguments from incredulity, but I'll try this one: Are you saying, Christopher7, that if you can somehow rationalize to yourself that they may have actually had enough water to at least attempt to save WTC7, the fact they didn't attempt it is somehow suspicious to you?

 

[Mr. Skinny]

I'm assuming the same thing. I doubt the data would be much different at street level, since it may have only been 1-2' of rise from the pump outlet to the street level.

Well, Chris was being conservative then when he used a 20 ft. head loss. That's good.

Well, the problem is his math is way off. You can't flow 4000 gpm at 300 psi. You can flow 8000 gpm at 300 psi, but through 1800 feet of hose, you lose
2304 psi from friction loss. Now, I don't know about you, but 300 psi minus 2304 is a negative number using the math I use.

This makes no sense. You say you can't flow 4000@300 then say you can flow 8000@300.

Also, your friction loss is assuming a pair of 5 inch lines flowing 4000 gpm each (to get 8000 gal total). Christopher7's imaginary setup is 5 - 5 inch lines. Not sure where he got that from though.

Yes, that is exactly how it works, It's similar to connecting 3-4 car batteries together in a daisy chain. But, operating a pump at 125% of it's capacity for any extended period of time is not advisable. Not to mention the problem that sure, you can flow 8000 gpm at 300 psi, but you still have to reduce it alot.

Thanks.

Is it possible that they used three of the pumps as boosters for the fourth? Wouldn't that theoretically give them an output pressure of 600 psi at the fireboat. (Yes, I know there are lots of losses to consider, etc.)

And yes, I only ever ran fire pumps at 120% when doing water tests. No sense screwing up a good pump. However, in an emergency like 9/11 I might have done it for brief periods.

His math is too far off to be reconciled.

You can't flow 4000 gpm at 300psi, only at 150psi. So, using his math, 92-82 psi is 174 psi, but he only gets 150 psi to start with.

His math is COMPLETELY wrong. Do you hear that Chris? Your math is ALL wrong. You cannot flow 4000 gpm at 300 psi. You only get 150psi.

Go back to the drawing board.

See above. I'd appreciate you expanding on your "can't flow/can flow" statements.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

There's something wrong with you math. You can't have negative water pressure. There will be water at some psi coming out the other end.

I think I've ask him to explain this in light of the claim that the fireboat delivered 8000 gpm @300.

Surely some water made it to street level for firefighting. I'm just trying to determine how much and at what pressure.

Let's give Triforcharity a chance to respond.

You ignored This:
I'm not sure how these pumps work but if gpm varies with psi, then to achieve optimum psi, bring up pressure/flow until you reach max pressure at other end.

You can run a pump past rated capacity, but as pressure increases, flow drops off rather dramatically.

As discussed in my last post, you can't push a pump much past rated capacity for a long time.

In any case, the Harvey pumped 38 million gallons of water in 3 days.
@ 5:26 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEjRFAckjjM
[that's probably 3 point 8 and she read it wrong]

If you are the professional you say you are, and you were there, then you will be able to tell us how the fire boats managed to supply sufficient water to the WTC.

That they supplied sufficient water is your claim. How about remaining calm while we try to get a reasonable idea of what was available.

You made several assumptions that are questionable. Please don't start puffing out your chest just yet, OK.

And please quit questioning his professional abilities. I know he (and I) are anonymous on this board, but as a former fire protection engineer, I find most of his answers spot on, and I question those that aren't. However, I ask for clarification before accusing someone of misrepresenting themself, Chris.

 

[leftysergeant]

Leaving aside the fact that WTC 7 was empty and unstable and thus not safe to enter and that there was a demand for more personnel than were immediately available for search and rescue and that WTC 6 continued to present a less predictable hazard to human life if left to burn and wouldhave been a monumental pain in the ass to work around, I still have not seen Christopher7's calcualtions on how much water it would have taken to fight both fires and to cover exposures and douse localized fires around the pile and among damaged, burning cars and to serve as an emergency reserve.

I also have not seen proof that they even had sufficient hoses available immediately post-collapse, to cover all the locations that needed to be covered , especially if we add the requirements to fight the fire in WTC 7.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Leaving aside the fact that WTC 7 was empty and unstable and thus not safe to enter and that there was a demand for more personnel than were immediately available for search and rescue and that WTC 6 continued to present a less predictable hazard to human life if left to burn and wouldhave been a monumental pain in the ass to work around, I still have not seen Christopher7's calcualtions on how much water it would have taken to fight both fires and to cover exposures and douse localized fires around the pile and among damaged, burning cars and to serve as an emergency reserve.

I also have not seen proof that they even had sufficient hoses available immediately post-collapse, to cover all the locations that needed to be covered , especially if we add the requirements to fight the fire in WTC 7.

Well, If you don't mind, lets try to figure out how much water was available at street level. Then we can consider friction loss in 1.5 or 2 inch hoses stretched from the supply point to WTC7.

I generally assume a hose stream to use at least 250-300 gpm. With friction losses an head losses, I doubt that you could cover exposures and misc. firefighting with only 8000 gpm or less available in total (at who knows what pressure? )

I'm willing to wait for more data though.

 

[TJM]

I don't know but perhaps this can contribute to the discussion:

Case Study #3​

New York City - World Trade Center Collapse
September 11, 2001​

Five Fireboats Conduct Rescue, Transport and Suppression Following the collapse of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, the majority of the infrastructure surrounding the twin towers was destroyed, including the water distribution system. Fires were still raging in the nearby hi-rise structures. Without a viable water source, firefighters and other rescue personnel were unable to gain entry to the adjacent structures involved with fire to conduct search and rescue operations, or to support the rescue and recovery efforts at the collapse site.

Four fireboats from the FDNY Marine Division responded to the World Trade Center. The fireboat, John McKean from Marine Company 1, arrived on the scene before the first tower collapsed. The McKean was being used to evacuate civilians who had been trapped in Battery Park south of the towers when the collapse occurred. The ensuing dust and smoke cloud following the collapse resulted in near zero visibility. The people became disoriented and frightened and began running blindly toward the Hudson River. As they reached the bulkhead many jumped onto the deck of the McKean that subsequently transported the evacuees across the river to New Jersey. The McKean returned to Battery Park and initiated pumping operations. The McKean was later joined by the fireboats Firefighter, and Smoke II. At the time of the initial attack, the fireboat, Kevin C. Kane, was out of service undergoing repairs. The crew of the Kane quickly placed their boat back in service, and responded to the scene, and joined the other fireboats in fire suppression and rescue operations. The Kane was used to evacuate people from lower Manhattan to safety.

The retired fireboat, John J. Harvey, also saw action. When the new commercial owners of the John J. Harvey heard of the attacks they decided to respond to scene to offer assistance. Over the course of the next three days, three fireboats including the John J. Harvey supplied nearly 60,000 gallons of water per minute to land-based fire apparatus, through water manifolds, and supply lines that supplied building standpipe systems. After three days of pumping, the John J.Harvey was released, while the remaining fireboats continued to pump for two additional days.

http://www.fireboat.org/FEMAfireboatsthennowMay2003.pdf

Seems that fire suppression wasn't the only thing the fireboats were pressed into service for. I wonder how many evacuations across the Hudson were conducted, how many engines, ladders and building standpipe systems were filled before the fireboats got to deliver water to the fires directly.