And I thought I was bad at math...

switchtech said:
180,000 gallons = 1.44 million pounds of water = a cube shaped tank 29 feet on a side. That's a big tank. That'd be twice the size of my house (not counting the attic)!
Click to expand...

Can you imagine the effect such a large undampend mass would have on top of a building that swayed over 6 feet from center in high wind?
 
"What about the 3000 murder investigations, sealing the crime scene, gathering of forensics? The next day destruction of the crime scene started instead of any investigation? You avoid the obvious to quibble on subjective definitions that have no bearing on the obvious – tons of asbestos packed into the buildings exploded out to cover all of south Manhattan in 10cm of microscopic particulate of toxins while the government claimed all is well."

You see, while a CT thinks that the reason for a quick clean up is because of a government conspiracy, the people in the real world know that there was no need for an extensive crime scene investigation because the attack was broadcast on live television for the whole world to see. I guess the CTs were too busy watching the sci-fi channel on 9/11. Oh and since when was there "next day destruction of the crime scene"...
 
Quad4_72 said:
You see, while a CT thinks that the reason for a quick clean up is because of a government conspiracy, the people in the real world know that there was no need for an extensive crime scene investigation because the attack was broadcast on live television for the whole world to see. I guess the CTs were too busy watching the sci-fi channel on 9/11. Oh and since when was there "next day destruction of the crime scene"...
Click to expand...

Seems to me there were a number of people trying to perform rescue and recovery following the collapse as soon as people were allowed back into the area - there may have been some degree of "destruction of the crime scene" involved in trying to get live bodies out of the rubble. To the best of my knowledge, the debris pulled from the scene was inspected by the right people before being hauled off.

I suppose those complaining about the destruction of the crime scene really mean that it would have been better to let all those still living in the rubble die rather than disturb the crime scene. I can't think of any other reason people could complain about the clearing of the rubble during the search for the potentially still living.
 
Why is it whenever I see a troother try doing math, I hear in the back of my head, "I'm speshool! So frickin' specshool!"
 
A W Smith said:
Can you imagine the effect such a large undampend mass would have on top of a building that swayed over 6 feet from center in high wind?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I mentioned that it the thread where the original 180,000 gal claim was made, and asked Architect to comment, but I don't think he saw it.

I was wondering if they wouldn't have to incorporate all of that weight into a dampning system???
 
jaydeehess said:
500,000,000 tons would be the equivalent of the displacement of 4167 Nimitz class aircraft carriers.
A Nimitz class aircraft carrier is just over 1000 feet long so two Nimitz class aircraft carriers on end would be just about be the same size as the towers.

Where'd they put the other 4165 carrier's worth of mass?
Click to expand...

Sorry to get technical on this, but the concept of the tonnage of a ship is anything but clear. First of all, tonnage in ships frequently refers to volume and has nothing to do with mass. Then, there's the displacement weight - that has nothing to do with what the ship weighs, either. It's the mass of the water that the ship displaces. The Nimitz displaces about 97,000 tons of water fully loaded. Then there's the actual weight of the unloaded ship which can be very different from the full loadout displacement.

All in all, I think there are better comparisons to be made than to the Nimitz. Maybe the Eisenhower or the Reagan, but definitely not the Nimitz.
 
Don't forget about the $2.3 trillion worth of gold that was supposedly at the WTC: that's good for another 114,000 metric tonnes of weight, even at today's rate of about $20,000 per kg. - which is significantly higher than it was 5 years ago.
 
Minadin said:
Don't forget about the $2.3 trillion worth of gold that was supposedly at the WTC: that's good for another 114,000 metric tonnes of weight, even at today's rate of about $20,000 per kg. - which is significantly higher than it was 5 years ago.
Click to expand...
I think you 're referring to the $167 billion in gold that LC2E claimed was there, revised up to a trillion in subsequent LTW interviews, then back down to $1 billion for the latest movie version (the real amount was $230 million, mostly in silver, all recovered, and it took 120 truckloads to move it.)

The $2.3 trillion is the amount that was stolen from the Pentagon, silly. Remember when the U.S. military was closed for 8 years because there was no money? I think that was during the 8 years of the Carter administration.

But that's okay, because the Pentagon had the foresight to preplant four divisions of U.S. troops to protect the $12 trillion/year gas/oil pipeline through Afghanistan.

These figures are courtesy of Loose Change and Louder than Facts Productions.

Don't even ask about Leo Wanta.
 
Gravy;2203127the real amount was $230 million said:
And there is a woowoo that claims 9/11 was a cover op to hide the gold coin that was stolen from the basement of the wtc moved south and subsequently returned to NYC and sold in auction. Of course he claims (with no proof) that the coin was stolen and a fake moved and returned for the sale.
Click to expand...
 
Gravy said:
Poster "rick," who I assume is Siegel, attempted a calculation of the amount of asbestos dispersed by the tower collapses. He started with a weight for the towers: 500,000,000 tons (one trillion pounds, or 454,545,454,545.45 kg), and went from really big to really small.

...
What about the 3000 murder investigations, sealing the crime scene, gathering of forensics? The next day destruction of the crime scene started instead of any investigation? You avoid the obvious to quibble on subjective definitions that have no bearing on the obvious – tons of asbestos packed into the buildings exploded out to cover all of south Manhattan in 10cm of microscopic particulate of toxins while the government claimed all is well.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

well, no.

from what i understand, chrysotile, the asbestos found in the dust sampes collected (source), is not toxic, and, in fact, it's generally been found to be perfectly safe, which is why it makes up, what, 98% of all asbestos used?

abestos, in general, isn't a good thing to inhale, because its fiborous nature can cause it to stick and lodge into lung tissue, causing scar tissue, but this is really a problem with other asbestos, though, such as amphibole amosite or crocidolite. there's plently of evidence that chrysotile is generally, well, not very dangerous, at the worst.

i'm sure the dust was bad, though. all that glass busted up into dust? can't be good.
 
Gravy said:
I think you 're referring to the $167 billion in gold that LC2E claimed was there, revised up to a trillion in subsequent LTW interviews, then back down to $1 billion for the latest movie version (the real amount was $230 million, mostly in silver, all recovered, and it took 120 truckloads to move it.)
Click to expand...

Ok, yeah, I admit I have a difficult time keeping track of what exactly they are claiming at any given moment. 2.3 trillion does seem a bit high, since it would take around 5,700 20-ton dump trucks to remove . . . if it was all gold. If you mix in silver, then it's significantly more weight per dollar, and you would need more trucks.
 
OMGturt1es said:
(snip)...but this is really a problem with other asbestos, though, such as amphibole amosite or crocidolite. there's plently of evidence that chrysotile is generally, well, not very dangerous, at the worst.
Click to expand...
Do you have a cite for this?

Aren't all three of the asbestosform materials you mentioned subject to the same permissible exposure limit for inhalation?

In the US, OSHA 1910.1001 defines "Asbestos" thusly:

"Asbestos" includes chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, tremolite asbestos, anthophyllite asbestos, actinolite asbestos, and any of these minerals that have been chemically treated and/or altered.

I'm wondering why it is subject to the same permissible exposure limit if it is, as you put it, "not very dangerous, at the worst".
 
Mr. Skinny said:
Do you have a cite for this?

Aren't all three of the asbestosform materials you mentioned subject to the same permissible exposure limit for inhalation?
Click to expand...

A bit of investigoogling revealed this:

According to a group of experts convened by the World Health Organization (WHO), chrysotile-cement products do not present risks of any significance to public health (e.g. asbestosis and mesothelioma) or the environment. Moreover, workers in this industry, whether employed in the manufacture, installation or removal of materials, are not exposed to any detectable risk when effective prevention and control measures are applied.
Click to expand...

There are a number of credible sources saying much the same thing.
 
JanH said:
A bit of investigoogling revealed this:



There are a number of credible sources saying much the same thing.
Click to expand...
I went to your link to the WHO and found a study on the chrysotile-cement industry. It mentioned some of the products produced by the industry, etc. However, chrysotile asbestos is used in a number of other products. It used to be used in flooring tiles and in fact can be found in the mastic used to adhere the tiles.

My guess is that it's not a problem in the asbestos-cement industry because it's mostly non-friable, being bound up in other materials, making it difficult to inhale. (No, sorry, I didn't read the whole report at WHO, but I will tomorrow :) )

Do the other credible sources that say the same thing only speak to the asbestos-cement industry, or to all applications?
 
Crungy said:
For me, the unreasonable factor is both it's placement at the top of a skyscraper and the use of such an "old school" fire supression design in a building that was so cutting edge for the time. For a building that used such a economical small factor of safety structural system, this 180,000 gallon tank would not have been in concert with the building designers structural approach. The last building I worked on that had a sprinkler water holding tower (When I get a rare free moment at work, I'll see if I can dig up the specs on this tower from the old blueprints.) was a one block beheamoth that was built in the 1920s to house some type of industrial manufacturing. The building has long since used a fire pump to serve the sprinklers, but the original tank is still there, and the large supports protrude down to the slab on grade. My client is leasing this building and wanted it converted into garage space for it's service vehicles.
Click to expand...

I work at a complex that has one 350,000 gallon tower and two other 350,000 gallon tanks. Which goes over 1,000,000 gallons of water on facitlity for fire suppression, for those of you counting. The building I work in is a one story building that covers 1.8 million square feet, and it is simply one of the buildings on campus.

180,000 gallons of water would not be unreasonable for a tank of sprinkler water.


The problem you get with high rise buildings is getting enough water pressure to run the actual sprinkler heads. Most heads will not function at less that about 95 PSI. You can buy heads that are low flow, but you'll still need somewhere in the range of 75 PSI to run them, and then you will need more to make up the difference. Each water pipe you hang adds weight.

There might be a reservoir in a tower that size, but putting that much water that high in the air creates other problems. You can't dampen for sprinkler water. If you did, and you had a fire, suddenly you are damping for a weight that isn't there.
I doubt it is a 180,000 gallon tank. It would be more like 500-1000 every so many stories attached to a pump. The tank would be there in case the pump started. You could get a negative pressure wave through the system unless you have a way to negate it. The tank is the way you do that.

And that would be at most. There was probably a pump every so many feet that would boost pressure in the system. This is probably the most cost effective way to manage it. You could gravity feed it, but that is a long ways up to pump water in order to gravity feed the system. Remember, fire systems are flushed and tested every so often. Why run a huge-ass pump to try to push it all the way up the hill when you can use a medium sized pump to push it halfway?



I imagine if twoothers were good at math and science, they wouldn't be twoothers.

Oh, and I found the awful truth long ago. Usually when you ask 'What are they thinking?!' the answer is that they aren't.
 
clarsct said:
I work at a complex that has one 350,000 gallon tower and two other 350,000 gallon tanks. Which goes over 1,000,000 gallons of water on facitlity for fire suppression, for those of you counting. The building I work in is a one story building that covers 1.8 million square feet, and it is simply one of the buildings on campus.

180,000 gallons of water would not be unreasonable for a tank of sprinkler water.
Click to expand...
I've never seen a 350,000 gal tower before, but as I posted previously, 180,000 gal is not unreasonable.


The problem you get with high rise buildings is getting enough water pressure to run the actual sprinkler heads.
Click to expand...
Agree. But flow is equally as important as pressure.
Most heads will not function at less that about 95 PSI.
Click to expand...
This does not conform to my experience. Cite please? A sprinkler head will "function" at almost 0 flow and 0 pressure, i.e. the link will fuze, the glycerine will burst, etc. It just needs adequate flow and pressure to protect the occupancy.
You can buy heads that are low flow, but you'll still need somewhere in the range of 75 PSI to run them, and then you will need more to make up the difference
Click to expand...
.
Again, I question the 75 psi statement. The rest of the statement sounds like you are saying with "low flow" heads (whatever they are) you have to decrease the sq. ft. coverage/head?? Please explain what you mean.
Each water pipe you hang adds weight.
Click to expand...
Of course. But what does this have to do with water flow/pressure/extinguishing capability?

There might be a reservoir in a tower that size, but putting that much water that high in the air creates other problems. You can't dampen for sprinkler water. If you did, and you had a fire, suddenly you are damping for a weight that isn't there.
Click to expand...
Good point. Hadn't considered that.

I doubt it is a 180,000 gallon tank. It would be more like 500-1000 every so many stories attached to a pump. The tank would be there in case the pump started.
Click to expand...
Possibly, but my experience is that you just take suction from the city underground main (assuming you have a reliable supply there), and then provide a booster pump at regular intervals as you increase elevation
You could get a negative pressure wave through the system unless you have a way to negate it. The tank is the way you do that.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you are talking about here exactly.
And that would be at most. There was probably a pump every so many feet that would boost pressure in the system. This is probably the most cost effective way to manage it. You could gravity feed it, but that is a long ways up to pump water in order to gravity feed the system.
Click to expand...
Agree. see above.

Actually, if you have a gravity system, you just use a small fill pump to continually make up for any pipe leakage, etc. In a fire situation, once the gravity tank is empty, you are SOL as that little pump is ineffective.
Remember, fire systems are flushed and tested every so often. Why run a huge-ass pump to try to push it all the way up the hill when you can use a medium sized pump to push it halfway?
Click to expand...
Actually, the testing on a wet-pipe sprinkler system as far as water usage is concerned is rather small. The two inch drain where the riser enters the building is probably tested monthly for about 30 seconds. The inspector's test connection (which simulates flow from one sprinkler head) is probably tested twice a year.

On large systems, there are sectional valves that can be closed to avert having to drain an entire system.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom