• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christopher7 said:
Thank you for the schematic. Would you post Figure B-16 pg 193 [pdf pg 245] please?
Click to expand...

Sure.

7WTCexpanded.png


Now, what would happen if the SW corner is damaged?

I'll give you a hint. It's been discussed here once, and it has to do with the two systems being interconnected.
 
Available water makes no difference if the structure is declared unsafe to enter. WTC 7 was bulging out and leaning on the south side. FFs did enterr the structure and do a sweep of it but this DOES NOT mean that it was safe to have full contingents(if this was even possible after the dozens of dead FFs in the tower collapses) pulling hose around inside this building.

20-20 hindsight tells us that they had 7 hours before the building would suffer collapse BUT THAT does not mean that it was prudent to send in men before noon!
 
jaydeehess said:
Available water makes no difference if the structure is declared unsafe to enter. WTC 7 was bulging out and leaning on the south side. FFs did enterr the structure and do a sweep of it but this DOES NOT mean that it was safe to have full contingents(if this was even possible after the dozens of dead FFs in the tower collapses) pulling hose around inside this building.

20-20 hindsight tells us that they had 7 hours before the building would suffer collapse BUT THAT does not mean that it was prudent to send in men before noon!
Click to expand...
^ This.

Is there a point to all of this?

The last few pages of this are like.....................Wow.........really?

When do we say **** or get off the pot? 4 or 5 years ago?

:o
 
Clayton Moore said:
If you don't provide a link of where I mention I believed there were no Moon Landings I may have to report you.
Click to expand...

Oh noes...a veiled threat to report me...perhaps others ideas that you're a 12 year old are correct. I will not link anything to you, until you answer the numerous questions myself and others have posed you. You ignore all posts that either directly refute you or ask you for substantiated sources, or to back up your assertions. Answer my questions or go ahead and report, it doesn't matter to me.
 
leftysergeant said:
You have limited water. You have two buildings on fire. One of the is empty and in obvious danger of collapse. The fires are of low intensity and there is no particularly hazardous material in the empty, unstable building. The other burning building is fully involved and contains hazardous materials that may explode and send an even more noxious cloud of debris into the air, endangering those personnel attempting to find and rescuse victims of the collapses.

You need to have charged lines running to various locations on the rubble pile to deal with any fires that may flare up as rubble is removed.

And now, as Tri just pointed out, you do not even know for certain that the standpipes are going to hold water or that the automated sprinkjlers are going to function well enough to handle the fire without sending people into the building.

So it comes down to priorities and feasibility.

WTC7 just wasn't that important.
Click to expand...

There you go. The WTC7 fires were low intensity yet the building was unstable on the verge of collapse?

Why was it unstable and on the verge of collapse?
 
triforcharity said:
Sure.

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/7WTCexpanded.png
Click to expand...
Thank you very much. It is as I had said it was. By shutting the valve at the red arrow, risers 2 and 3 could be isolated from the rest of the system.

wtc7risersystem.jpg


With double female fittings, lines could be attached on the 1st 2nd 3rd and 4th floors.

ETA: Double female availability
http://www.axmenfire.com/browse.cfm/2,24.html
http://www.indiamart.com/geeta-enterprises/fire-fighting-equipments.html
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
There you go. The WTC7 fires were low intensity yet the building was unstable on the verge of collapse?

Why was it unstable and on the verge of collapse?
Click to expand...
It was torn open in a couple of spots, there was a noticeable bulge seen by the unaided Mark I eyebals of a couple of fire fighters and confirmed by the FDNY surveyor. The building was creaking. That tells anybody with the least grasp of fire science that it is unstable.

It was empty. Screw it. Not worth the risk when there were more important matters to attend to.
 
Clayton Moore said:
What does that have to do with Bush preventing the starting of an investigation in a timely fashion and ridiculously underfunding it?
Click to expand...

Bush did no such thing. The investigation into the 9/11 attacks, operation PENTTBOM, began immediately after the attacks and is the largest operation in the history of the FBI, at its height involving well over half the staff and budget of the bureau. No effort was made to prevent its starting in a timely fashion, and nobody has ever seriously claimed it was underfunded.

President Bush blocked the formation of, and tried not to provide adequate funds for, a commission to scrutinise the results of the investigation and to determine lessons learned, which is a very different thing.

Dave
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
Available water makes no difference if the structure is declared unsafe to enter. WTC 7 was bulging out and leaning on the south side. FFs did enterr the structure and do a sweep of it but this DOES NOT mean that it was safe to have full contingents(if this was even possible after the dozens of dead FFs in the tower collapses) pulling hose around inside this building.

20-20 hindsight tells us that they had 7 hours before the building would suffer collapse BUT THAT does not mean that it was prudent to send in men before noon!
Click to expand...
Hi jaydeehess. :) Long time no hear from.

We have had this discussion before and you know that:
Hayden did NOT say the building was leaning.
There is no mention of a surveyor much less a statement by one.
No firefighters at the scene said the building was leaning.
NIST did not say the building was leaning.
WTC 7 was NOT leaning.

The building was not in danger of collapsing but that's not the point of this debate.

[FONT=&quot]This debate is about the NIST claim that no water was available to fight the fires in WTC 7

Chris Mohr said:
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.
Click to expand...
TFC said:
I can assure you that there would never had been enough pressure to get a hose to the 7th floor or above in 7WTC. Too much hose would have had to be stretched
Click to expand...

ETA: Of course the damaged area was creaking but the vierendeel action of the perimeter moment frame redistributed the loads.
[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
There you go. The WTC7 fires were low intensity yet the building was unstable on the verge of collapse?

Why was it unstable and on the verge of collapse?
Click to expand...

Because in 10 years they wanted to give you people something to talk about.

Who cares WHY it was. It WAS. FD Engineers told their brothers and sisters in no uncertain terms - that building is coming down.

And it did. Thank GOD nobody else got hurt.
 
Dave Rogers said:
President Bush blocked the formation of, and tried not to provide adequate funds for, a commission to scrutinise the results of the investigation and to determine lessons learned, which is a very different thing.
Click to expand...

He had no problem with a scientific explanation of how the towers collapsed, but probably would have rather not had any suggestions for massive changes to building codes that wouldl be a burden on property ownerrs.

Nor would he want anyone to ask whether he and the merry morons dropped the ball after they were warned that something like the attacks might be in the works.
 
This debate is about the NIST claim that no water was available to fight the fires in WTC 7
Click to expand...

Oh, they're wrong on that. The whole Hudson River was available.

....Then there's the matter of getting it to the fire. That? Well, that wasn't happening. There's another function of firefighting that you're apparently unaware of. It's no problem, as clearly you're not expected to know such things. Thankfully you have others here to fill in the blanks.

For instance I can tell you the reason the amount of water doesn't matter, is because you need firefighters WHO AREN'T BURIED BY TWO 110 STORY BUILDINGS to get it there.

Am I wrong?
 
leftysergeant said:
He had no problem with a scientific explanation of how the towers collapsed, but probably would have rather not had any suggestions for massive changes to building codes that wouldl be a burden on property ownerrs.
Click to expand...

Not really relevant to the 9/11 Commission, however plausible; it was the NIST investigation - again, well-enough funded and reasonably timely, given the circumstances - which recommended building code changes.

leftysergeant said:
Nor would he want anyone to ask whether he and the merry morons dropped the ball after they were warned that something like the attacks might be in the works.
Click to expand...

Careful, you'll strain Clayton's cognitive dissonance. He probably thinks you're a loyal Bush supporter, for some unfathomable reason.

Dave
 
NoahFence said:
Oh, they're wrong on that. The whole Hudson River was available.

....Then there's the matter of getting it to the fire. That? Well, that wasn't happening. There's another function of firefighting that you're apparently unaware of. It's no problem, as clearly you're not expected to know such things. Thankfully you have others here to fill in the blanks.

For instance I can tell you the reason the amount of water doesn't matter, is because you need firefighters WHO AREN'T BURIED BY TWO 110 STORY BUILDINGS to get it there.

Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

The whole Hudson was available and the NYFD could not put out three debris fires in about 99 days.
 
NoahFence said:
Oh, they're wrong on that. The whole Hudson River was available.

....Then there's the matter of getting it to the fire. That? Well, that wasn't happening. There's another function of firefighting that you're apparently unaware of. It's no problem, as clearly you're not expected to know such things. Thankfully you have others here to fill in the blanks.

For instance I can tell you the reason the amount of water doesn't matter, is because you need firefighters WHO AREN'T BURIED BY TWO 110 STORY BUILDINGS to get it there.

Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

Every NY fireman, other than the courageous fallen, was available.
 
leftysergeant said:
It was torn open in a couple of spots, there was a noticeable bulge seen by the unaided Mark I eyebals of a couple of fire fighters and confirmed by the FDNY surveyor. The building was creaking. That tells anybody with the least grasp of fire science that it is unstable.

It was empty. Screw it. Not worth the risk when there were more important matters to attend to.
Click to expand...
Spot on!

The Senior Fire fighter called the shot on the day. His decision. Correct decision. Not subject to post event alteration. Some folks show little understanding of emergency management basics at the command level.

This "discussion" is nothing more than a successful derail by C7 with CM tagging along in his shadow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom