Ask all firefighting and fire related questions here

[Dave Rogers]

yep. do you read what was vaporized?

The point I was making is that your reasoning, "A report says A, B, C and D were vapourised therefore E must have been vapourised" is utterly inane. If there were any doubt about the accuracy of the report, that would make your reasoning even more absurd.

so you would like to see that data then?

I imagine it would be of passing interest.

Dave

 

[Senenmut]

The point I was making is that your reasoning, "A report says A, B, C and D were vapourised therefore E must have been vapourised" is utterly inane. If there were any doubt about the accuracy of the report, that would make your reasoning even more absurd.

I imagine it would be of passing interest.

Dave

well if rj lee reported this:
"Many of the materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds, vaporized and then condensed during the WTC Event."

and Asteneh-Asl said he saw ""melting of girders in World Trade Center." he also saw that "fireproofing melted into a glassy residue"

put 1 and 1 together in that the temps reached did vaporized lead, melted steel and also melted fireproofing. i dont know why you guys have such a problem with this?
whats the big deal about this guys?

to the firefighters, whats the big deal about all this? it was just an office fire.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Are you not aware that all those substances have lower boiling points than A36 steel, and therefore would vapourise at lower temperatures? Really, this is an extraordinarily stupid line of argument. Water vapourised and then condensed during the WTC event. If you boil a steel kettle, are you worried that the steel will vapourise because the water in it is vapourising?

Dave

Let's also remember that part of the presumption behind the RJ Lee report was that high temperatures did indeed melt some steel (quote: "... a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel)"). but those statements were presumptions. They were operating on the information that they had to date, and IIRC, that was mostly what FEMA had produced. They didn't have the benefit of the NIST study which came later and showed that the temperatures pre-collapse were insufficient to melt steel. My point here is that the R.J. Lee report did indeed discuss molten steel, but their discussion presumed that it had been generated in the fires; they never, ever concluded it. How could they have? Their purpose was to conduct an environmental survey of the dust, not study how the fires would've affected the steel. Molten steel was one of their working suppositions, and later was shown to be wrong when NIST published their studies.

Anyway, just thought that was worth noting. Inevitably, one of the resident conspiracy peddlers will read the R.J. Lee Report and stumble across lines representative of the one I quoted above, and try to catch us in an "A HA!" moment. Figured I'd point out that we've dealt with this claim before and know exactly what the R.J. Lee Report says, and more importantly, what it means.

 

[BigAl]

well if rj lee reported this:
"Many of the materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds, vaporized and then condensed during the WTC Event."

and Asteneh-Asl said he saw ""melting of girders in World Trade Center." he also saw that "fireproofing melted into a glassy residue"

put 1 and 1 together in that the temps reached did vaporized lead, melted steel and also melted fireproofing. i dont know why you guys have such a problem with this?
whats the big deal about this guys?

Senenmut is clearly unfamiliar with drastic difference in the vaporization temps of cadmium, mercury and "various organic compounds" in comparison with the vaporization point of steel (!) and is to ignorant to know to look them up before he rants has no business "just asking question, the same ones, over and over and over.

He's also unfamiliar with the range of temps found in all common fires.

 

[Dave Rogers]

put 1 and 1 together in that the temps reached did vaporized lead, melted steel and also melted fireproofing. i dont know why you guys have such a problem with this?

And I don't know why you have such a problem reading the replies we've already given you. You've put one and one together, and got several hundred. Unfortunately, your level of incomprehension seems too great for you even to understand your level of incomprehension.

Dave

 

[Senenmut]

Let's also remember that part of the presumption behind the RJ Lee report was that high temperatures did indeed melt some steel (quote: "... a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel)"). but those statements were presumptions. They were operating on the information that they had to date, and IIRC, that was mostly what FEMA had produced. They didn't have the benefit of the NIST study which came later and showed that the temperatures pre-collapse were insufficient to melt steel. My point here is that the R.J. Lee report did indeed discuss molten steel, but their discussion presumed that it had been generated in the fires; they never, ever concluded it. How could they have? Their purpose was to conduct an environmental survey of the dust, not study how the fires would've affected the steel. Molten steel was one of their working suppositions, and later was shown to be wrong when NIST published their studies.

Anyway, just thought that was worth noting. Inevitably, one of the resident conspiracy peddlers will read the R.J. Lee Report and stumble across lines representative of the one I quoted above, and try to catch us in an "A HA!" moment. Figured I'd point out that we've dealt with this claim before and know exactly what the R.J. Lee Report says, and more importantly, what it means.

are you referring to this NIST:
from an article dealing with "Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False"

"Moreover, a scientist who formerly worked for NIST has reported that it has been “fully hijacked from the scientific into the political realm,” with the result that scientists working for NIST “lost [their] scientific independence, and became little more than ‘hired guns.’”11 Referring in particular to NIST’s work on the World Trade Center, he said everything had to be approved by the Department of Commerce, the National Security Agency, and the Office of Management and Budget---“an arm of the Executive Office of the President,” which “had a policy person specifically delegated to provide oversight on [NIST’s] work.” [12]

 

[Senenmut]

And I don't know why you have such a problem reading the replies we've already given you. You've put one and one together, and got several hundred. Unfortunately, your level of incomprehension seems too great for you even to understand your level of incomprehension.

Dave

your lack of understanding is noted.....

 

[BigAl]

are you referring to this NIST:
from an article dealing with "Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False"

"Moreover, a scientist who formerly worked for NIST has reported that it has been “fully hijacked from the scientific into the political realm,” with the result that scientists working for NIST “lost [their] scientific independence, and became little more than ‘hired guns.’”11 Referring in particular to NIST’s work on the World Trade Center, he said everything had to be approved by the Department of Commerce, the National Security Agency, and the Office of Management and Budget---“an arm of the Executive Office of the President,” which “had a policy person specifically delegated to provide oversight on [NIST’s] work.” [12]

So what? Senenmut leaps to the presumption that ""approved" means that someone has say over content and conclusions. It's funny that none of the hundreds of engineers that worked on the report have complained that they were overridden or have blown any whistles.

How does this make the facts and science in the report wrong. It's not like NIST is the only organization that has published papers about the collapse. None of them conclude that anything but fire and lack of firefighting was the root cause of the collapse.

 

[tfk]

Senenmut,

More JAQing off in public?

Don't you guys ever look for answers on your own?

I'm going to change the order of your questions a bit.

do you think he was misrepresented when Astaneh mentioned that he " saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."

What does it matter what I think? Let's ask Astaneh-Asl himself:

Personal communication, Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl to Ron Wieck:

Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 12:02 PM
To: Ronald Wieck
Subject: Re: 'Hardfire' Appearance

Dear Ronald: All those who use my quote in this context of conspiracy
theories are absolutely wrong and are doing a dis-service to the truth,
the victims and their families and the humanity. No one should use that
specific quote "molten metal" out of context, to indicate that I have
seen molten metal and then use my good name and reputation as a
researcher to conclude that there was a conspiracy.

All I tell to those who use my name is: "please stop using a phrase
"molten steel" from eight years of my work and statements to further
your absolutely misguided and baseless conspiracy theories and find
another subject for your discussion . You are hurting the victims'
families immensely and if you have any humanity you would stop doing so
and will not use my name nor the out of context words from my work " .
But will they listen?

Best wishes and hoping that these conspiracy theorists will stop using
my name in any context.
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E., Professor
University of California , Berkeley

And:

Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 1:22 PM
To: Ronald Wieck
Subject: Re: 'Hardfire' Appearance

Dear Ronald: Please also feel free to bring to their attention that they
find results of our findings by simply searching Google for "Astaneh
WTC". There is a Design Magazine article that is freely accessible on
the internet and provides good coverage of my work. It is at:
http://www.designnews.com/article/6471-Did_The_Building_Do_It_.php.
Again, please plead with these conspiracy theorists to stop using my
name in any context what so ever regarding conspiracy theories. It
causes quite a lot of pain for me to have my work abused in this way
Thank you.
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E., Professor
University of California , Berkeley

Now please answer this question:

Is THIS sufficient proof for you that A-A does NOT believe in "molten metal" at the WTC ground site?

Will you now stop using his name in this context? Will you now correct other truthers who do?

did he ever deny saying vaporized?

You want me to find a list of everything that he's said for you? I'm quite sure that there are a LOT of things that he's never denied in public that he nevertheless does not believe.

But let's go thru the phases. Iron melts at around 2800°F. It boils (aka "vaporizes") at 5182°F.

If we can show that A-A does not claim to have seen melted steel, then we can safely conclude that he never claimed to have seen vaporized steel. Right?

Can you now put 2 & 2 together? Does he believe that he saw "vaporized steel" or "vaporized metal".

Of course, if he never saw molten steel, then it's not fair to call it "vaporized". You'd have to call it "sublimated steel".

Are you astute enough to pick up on sarcasm?

___

what makes you think A 36 steel didnt vaporize? the rj lee report found:
"Many of the materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds, vaporized and then condensed during the WTC Event."

"Vaporize" is a term used by hyperventilating reporters looking for a sound bite. And by teenagers raised on sci-fi movies.

Many things will boil at fire temperatures (1100°C - 1300°C). Steel ain't one of them.

The couple of individual pieces that showed "unusual thinning" - which is the 90% source of the "vaporized" quote - did not vaporize. Even tho the reporter who filed the story used that word.

Neither did the IRON or STEEL melt. Even tho a careless reading of the WPI report will lead you to believe that.

It corroded. Typical, high temp corrosion.

And then the corrosion products MAY have melted at a temp below 1000°C. But iron & steel melt up around 1500°C.

do you have the data that showed that it was leaning? how would ya rule out lean vs wind?

Tell ya what. Why don't you do some of your own research. It'll be good for you.


Tom

 

[bill smith]

We're on the shores of a Great Lake, and practice drafting from the lake on a regular basis. One has to ensure those two sections of H.S. are joined perfectly, or else air can get in and the pump operator will never get a prime.
We have relay pumped at large fires before, and amen to the time factor. Also, comms between each pump operator have to be clear as co-ordination is required to relay pump effectively. (Relay pumping is connecting two or more pumpers 'in series', giving the water a 'push' from Pumper to Pumper to move water long distances.)

The consensus of opinion seems to be that pumping the water to WTC7 would have been no real problem seeing that it was only about 100 yards away from the river's edge. Yet hour after hour went by with not even an attempt made to do this.

As a commanding fire oficer would you be satisfied with this level of professionalism from your officers and their men ?

 

[BigAl]

The consensus of opinion seems to be that pumping the water to WTC7 would have been no real problem seeing that it was only about 100 yards away from the river's edge. Yet hour after hour went by with not even an attempt made to do this.

YOu are a consensus of one/

As a commanding fire oficer would you be satisfied with this level of professionalism from your officers and their men ?

The commanding officer kept his men alive which is his first priority when no civilian lives are at risk. Once WTC7 was evacuated, that was the situation.

He did good.

All the firemen at WTC did good.

 

[bill smith]

Senenmut,

More JAQing off in public?

Don't you guys ever look for answers on your own?

I'm going to change the order of your questions a bit.



What does it matter what I think? Let's ask Astaneh-Asl himself:

Personal communication, Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl to Ron Wieck:

Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 12:02 PM
To: Ronald Wieck
Subject: Re: 'Hardfire' Appearance



And:

Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 1:22 PM
To: Ronald Wieck
Subject: Re: 'Hardfire' Appearance




Now please answer this question:

Is THIS sufficient proof for you that A-A does NOT believe in "molten metal" at the WTC ground site?

Will you now stop using his name in this context? Will you now correct other truthers who do?



You want me to find a list of everything that he's said for you? I'm quite sure that there are a LOT of things that he's never denied in public that he nevertheless does not believe.

But let's go thru the phases. Iron melts at around 2800°F. It boils (aka "vaporizes") at 5182°F.

If we can show that A-A does not claim to have seen melted steel, then we can safely conclude that he never claimed to have seen vaporized steel. Right?

Can you now put 2 & 2 together? Does he believe that he saw "vaporized steel" or "vaporized metal".

Of course, if he never saw molten steel, then it's not fair to call it "vaporized". You'd have to call it "sublimated steel".

Are you astute enough to pick up on sarcasm?

___



"Vaporize" is a term used by hyperventilating reporters looking for a sound bite. And by teenagers raised on sci-fi movies.

Many things will boil at fire temperatures (1100°C - 1300°C). Steel ain't one of them.

The couple of individual pieces that showed "unusual thinning" - which is the 90% source of the "vaporized" quote - did not vaporize. Even tho the reporter who filed the story used that word.

Neither did the IRON or STEEL melt. Even tho a careless reading of the WPI report will lead you to believe that.

It corroded. Typical, high temp corrosion.

And then the corrosion products MAY have melted at a temp below 1000°C. But iron & steel melt up around 1500°C.



Tell ya what. Why don't you do some of your own research. It'll be good for you.


Tom

Hey there T. How's it hangin '. lol

Dear Ronald: All those who use my quote in this context of conspiracy
theories are absolutely wrong and are doing a dis-service to the truth,
the victims and their families and the humanity. No one should use that
specific quote "molten metal" out of context, to indicate that I have
seen molten metal and then use my good name and reputation as a
researcher to conclude that there was a conspiracy.

All I tell to those who use my name is: "please stop using a phrase
"molten steel" from eight years of my work and statements to further
your absolutely misguided and baseless conspiracy theories and find
another subject for your discussion . You are hurting the victims'
families immensely and if you have any humanity you would stop doing so
and will not use my name nor the out of context words from my work " .
But will they listen?

Best wishes and hoping that these conspiracy theorists will stop using
my name in any context.
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E., Professor
University of California , Berkeley


Pretty difficult to take a tight descriptive phrase like 'Molten Metal'out of context isn't it T. Especially in combination with his other phrase 'I saw the melting of girders at the WTC'.

 

[BigAl]

Hey there T. How's it hangin '. lol

Dear Ronald: All those who use my quote in this context of conspiracy
theories are absolutely wrong and are doing a dis-service to the truth,
the victims and their families and the humanity. No one should use that
specific quote "molten metal" out of context, to indicate that I have
seen molten metal and then use my good name and reputation as a
researcher to conclude that there was a conspiracy.

All I tell to those who use my name is: "please stop using a phrase
"molten steel" from eight years of my work and statements to further
your absolutely misguided and baseless conspiracy theories and find
another subject for your discussion . You are hurting the victims'
families immensely and if you have any humanity you would stop doing so
and will not use my name nor the out of context words from my work " .
But will they listen?

Best wishes and hoping that these conspiracy theorists will stop using
my name in any context.
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E., Professor
University of California , Berkeley


Pretty difficult to take a tight descriptive phrase like 'Molten Steel'out of context isn't it T. Especially in combination with his other phrase 'I saw the melting of girders at the WTC'.

What part of "No one should use" don't you understand?

 

[bill smith]

Hey T....if I go back to where Mackey first posted the Astaneh email that you have reproduced here will I find that where you have written 'molten metal' , Mackey had posted Molten Steel' ?

PS.Sorry-The phrase was'molten metal' as you said.

'' No one should use that specific quote "molten metal" out of context, to indicate that I have seen molten metal.....''

 

[tsig]

so you would like to see that data then?

No,we will just take your word on it.

 

[tfk]

are you referring to this NIST:
from an article dealing with "Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False"

"Moreover, a scientist who formerly worked for NIST has reported that it has been “fully hijacked from the scientific into the political realm,” with the result that scientists working for NIST “lost [their] scientific independence, and became little more than ‘hired guns.’”11 Referring in particular to NIST’s work on the World Trade Center, he said everything had to be approved by the Department of Commerce, the National Security Agency, and the Office of Management and Budget---“an arm of the Executive Office of the President,” which “had a policy person specifically delegated to provide oversight on [NIST’s] work.” [12]

Terrific.

You google the phrase:

"scientist who formerly worked for NIST has reported that it has been “fully hijacked from the scientific into the political realm"

... and you get 4250 hits.

Now, besides the typical fact that it's a word-for-word cut & paste, something is unique about this story. A slight error in the fact that the reference number 11 was left out of brackets.

Every single one of the 10 versions of this story that I found had the same mutation.

Chasing back to the earliest version of the story (9/14/09), we arrive here:

Prison Planet.

Story by David Ray Griffin.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-mysterious-collapse-of-wtc-seven.html

On Griffin's own website, the first notice is Sept 1, 2009, and all references to "The mysterious collapse of WTC7" lead you to the opportunity to buy his new book, fully titled:

“The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report About 9/11 Is Unscientific and False”.

Fraud.

 

[tsig]

Hey T....if I go back to where Mackey first posted the Astaneh email that you have reproduced here will I find that where you have written 'molten metal' , Mackey had posted Molten Steel' ?

PS.Sorry-The phrase was'molten metal' as you said.

'' No one should use that specific quote "molten metal" out of context, to indicate that I have seen molten metal.....''

Bill, English is a fine language, you should learn it.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Problem as stated before is manpower and time, connecting those sections
of hose togather and relay pumpimg takes lot of time.

I've put those together on constrution sites and you need three men and a dog to do it. The hoses are heavy, awkward to handle and the clamps are a real pain to snap on.

 

[Retrograde]

Thanks, triforcharity: I may not know much about fires, but I do have some familiarity with Manhattan, having worked there shortly after the WTC was built. I wonder if some of the posters who claim it would have been easy to put out the WTC7 fires understand the lay of the land in September, 2001. Even on the best of days that part of the island is crowded and chaotic, with an insane amount of traffic on streets laid out in the 18th century. bill smith's suggestions seem to imply that he thinks WTC7 stood all by itself on a nice flat piece of easily accessible land (ok, it is on the flatter part of the island) instead of in a series of what are essentially concrete canyons filled with debris. 100 yards straight doesn't sound like much; add in the extra time and length to get a hose around all the obstacles is something else. Yes, a fireboat was used in San Francisco in 1989. However, the Marina is not lower Manhattan: it's more open, and the buildings are mostly wood-frame construction, less than 4 stories. Firefighting in the two cases is bound to be different.

I'm waiting for the suggestion that FDNY should have used helicopters with buckets of water, like California does for forest fires in remote areas.

(What is it about WTC 7? Why doesn't anyone obsess about buildings 3-6, which were also destroyed? Or the Greek church?)

 

[TruthersLie]

did he ever deny saying vaporized?

Yes he has, and he has been EXTREMELY outspoken as to his opinions about how truthers have taken his statements out of context and that he completely rejects truther ideas.

what makes you think A 36 steel didnt vaporize?

because the temperature required for it to vaporize was never met in the original fires, nor in the fires in the piles. If it never gets that hot, it can't vaporize.

But on an aside, how would nanothermite/thermate/thermite cause a36 steel to vaporize? Provide an explaination of how that would work. It should be easy.

the rj lee report found:
"Many of the materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds, vaporized and then condensed during the WTC Event."

All of the above listed items would melt and vaporize by the heat produced in the initial fires and in the fires in the piles. So it is not unexpected.

do you think he was misrepresented when Astaneh mentioned that he " saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."

Dr. A NEVER said he saw MELTING OF GIRDERS... that phrase is from the newspaper reporter who wrote the story. Please provide a direct quotation from Dr. A saying it. I'll wait for it.

How is that FOIA request going? Remember to fill in all the blanks. It helps.