Question to truthers

triforcharity said:
No. Different floors had different fuel loads. So, no.

You won't get an answer without any defined variables.

Sorry bill. But hey, maybe there was thermite in the glass too.........
Click to expand...

But most of the floors would have the expected loadings of office furnishings as understood in NIST's estimations of fire in a location only lasting 20 minutes or so. So with floors fully involved in fire from ground to ceiling we could expect those fires to die off in say....two hours ?
 
bill smith said:
But most of the floors would have the expected loadings of office furnishings as understood in NIST's estimations of fire in a location only lasting 20 minutes or so. So with floors fully involved in fire from ground to ceiling we could expect those fires to die off in say....two hours ?
Click to expand...

IMO, they would have had MORE than the expected.

Again, without the rest of the known variables accounted for, it is almost impossible to say. Could be as much as 8 hours. It all dpends on the variables.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Heh... you and Dr. Quintiere agree. That's good company to keep. :D
Click to expand...

I'm on the fence with some of his conclusions. I agree with portions, and disagree with other portions. But, ask any group of experts in any field, and you may find differing opinions.

He's much more qualified than I though.
 
triforcharity said:
IMO, they would have had MORE than the expected.

Again, without the rest of the known variables accounted for, it is almost impossible to say. Could be as much as 8 hours. It all dpends on the variables.
Click to expand...

Why do you think it there would have been a lot more combustable material in WTC7 than in the average office building? What do you think the extra material might have consisted of ?
 
Last edited:
triforcharity said:
I'm on the fence with some of his conclusions. I agree with portions, and disagree with other portions. But, ask any group of experts in any field, and you may find differing opinions.

He's much more qualified than I though.
Click to expand...
Well, I was only referring to his stance on fuel loading, but yes, the question of course is which of the critiques pass muster and which don't. That's something that's far beyond me, I'm afraid. :(

Also: True. Whenever we get disparate people in different departments and organizations here at work together on an all-encompassing project, hoo boy, are there ever differing opinions! It all stays very professional, of course, but the sheer range of issues for even straightforward things can be surprising. So yes, I hear ya. I see that myself all the time.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Well, I was only referring to his stance on fuel loading, but yes, the question of course is which of the critiques pass muster and which don't. That's something that's far beyond me, I'm afraid. :(

Also: True. Whenever we get disparate people in different departments and organizations here at work together on an all-encompassing project, hoo boy, are there ever differing opinions! It all stays very professional, of course, but the sheer range of issues for even straightforward things can be surprising. So yes, I hear ya. I see that myself all the time.
Click to expand...

You've got a pretty good grasp on engineering logic, so it's not far off from that.

I also haven't read anything from his post NIST 7WTC report, just pre-NIST release. So, I am not sure where he stands now. Maybe I will drop him a line.
 
bill smith said:
Why do you think it there would have been a lot more combustable material in WTC7 than in the average office building?
Click to expand...

It's not just 7WTC. It's all office buildings.

Here's why.

When a building is designed, it is designed with certain things in mind for certain rooms. Sometimes conference rooms also have books lining the outer walls when it wasn't intended that way.

Or sometimes an office turns into a library, or a copy room, etc. etc. etc. I've seen it dozens of times. It's not uncommon, nor is it really illegal. Just not smart.

bill smith said:
What do you think the extra material might have consisted of ?
Click to expand...

You name it, it's possible it was in there. Cars, not so much, but typical office contents.
 
triforcharity said:
It's not just 7WTC. It's all office buildings.

Here's why.

When a building is designed, it is designed with certain things in mind for certain rooms. Sometimes conference rooms also have books lining the outer walls when it wasn't intended that way.

Or sometimes an office turns into a library, or a copy room, etc. etc. etc. I've seen it dozens of times. It's not uncommon, nor is it really illegal. Just not smart.



You name it, it's possible it was in there. Cars, not so much, but typical office contents.
Click to expand...

So when NIST describe a 'typical' office fire that is the kind of office they are describing I guess. There would hardly be a point in describing an office fire as 'typical' only if it conformed exactly to the original furnishing specification.

So from that we can directly assume that the fire, with ' all 47 floors fully involved in fire from ground to ceiling' would have used up all or most of the available combustable material in what ? ...say three hours ? NIST says that a typical office fire will burn out in 20 minutes and this building was 'fully involved in fire'. Three hours would be a very generous allocation of time in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
You don't understand the terminology of "fully involved". Typically, when firefighters arrive at a scene and do a size up, or first accessment, they assign it one of a few different "sizes". They are: "Light smoke showing" "Heavy smoke showing" "Heavy Smoke and fire" and the most serious "fully involved".

Fully involved is not a LITERAL term. It mearly means that smoke is VERY heavy, and that there is heavy flames showing from usually 2-3 windows or openings. If the roof is breached, it's fully involved. If there is flames coming out of the windows of the building, it's usually classified as fully involved.

7WTC would have been considered fully involved. Again, not LITERALLY 100% of the building burning.

(The quote you used is inaccurate. While I am sure from some angles, and certain times, it may have looked like the entire side of the building was engulfed in flames, but that is not in fact true. Obviously)

Again, I would say that 7WTC could have burned for more than a few hours, most likely more than 20 hours. But, to give it an exact time of burn, is neigh unto impossible.

NIST used "typical" in their report. Again, in my PROFESSIONAL opinion, they used a much lower fuel loading. Does this make NIST wrong? No, of course not. It just means that they used a lower value. It's better to under estimate than over.

And, not to be rude, but your opinion is useless to be honest. It would be akin to asking a plumber for advice of cardiovascular surgery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom