• 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.

Should the FDNY have focused more on saving WTC7

DGM

Skeptic not Atheist
DGM
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
24,757
Location
West of Northshore MA
Considering this exchange was off topic (and would likely end up in AAH) I figured I'd start a new thread:

DGM said:
So we can assume you would go on record as saying the FDNY made a bad call pulling rescue efforts away from the collapsed towers (in fear of WTC7 collapse)?
Click to expand...

Tony Szamboti said:
I think they should have hooked up to the three large siamese fittings on the outside of WTC 7 and charged the sprinkler system with water from the fireboats in the Hudson river about 400 to 500 yards away. There are photos showing water being used on WTC 6 at 1:30 PM in the afternoon.
Click to expand...

First of all, why WTC7 and not one of the other buildings lost on that day?

Second, Is this even feasible? I'm no expert but, it seams they would have had to drag a lot of hose though an area that was actually piled with debris. There really was no "clear shot".

Third, why would a "truther" bother suggesting this? High rise buildings don't fail in fires, right?
 
DGM said:
Considering this exchange was off topic (and would likely end up in AAH) I figured I'd start a new thread:





First of all, why WTC7 and not one of the other buildings lost on that day?

Second, Is this even feasible? I'm no expert but, it seams they would have had to drag a lot of hose though an area that was actually piled with debris. There really was no "clear shot".

Third, why would a "truther" bother suggesting this? High rise buildings don't fail in fires, right?
Click to expand...


Saving burning property is low on the list of priorities of firefighters.
 
Animal said:
Saving burning property is low on the list of priorities of firefighters.
Click to expand...

True and false.

Naturally, saving life is number one. The next priority is in fact to save property but not at the possible expense of personnel. This is where it gets tricky and the experience of the firefighters/captains comes into play.

WTC7 was lost due to concerns for the first priority. (Any FF feel free to step in).

The point is. Why would the chiefs on site take any risk of personnel? Surely it would be risky to implement Tony's plan?
 
Last edited:
Wtc7 was an out of control mess, with nobody inside. They did what they should have done.

Truthers are ignorant to reality.
 
NoahFence said:
Wtc7 was an out of control mess, with nobody inside. They did what they should have done.

Truthers are ignorant to reality.
Click to expand...
I agree.

The point is, should/could they do more to possibly prevent even more damage? If so, why expend this manpower on this particular building?

WHAT'S SO DAMN IMPORTANT ABOUT IT? (as to be worth the risk)
 
DGM said:
I agree.

The point is, should/could they do more to possibly prevent even more damage? If so, why expend this manpower on this particular building?

WHAT'S SO DAMN IMPORTANT ABOUT IT? (as to be worth the risk)
Click to expand...

As I said to Tony in the other thread, it would have been a fine idea, if the Fire Department had say, 343 other firefighters to help out.

In the worst day this country has ever seen, I can't begin to imagine why anybody would give a crap about an empty building that was a lost cause anyway. What if it stood? Would they then believe in the reality of 19 terrorists?

I doubt it.
 
I think before asking the question "should they have done something different", an answer to "if they did it differently, would it have mattered?" is in order.

That, and "is it realistic to have had a working protocol in place for every possible event that could take place in such a densely populated city?"
 
Careyp74 said:
I think before asking the question "should they have done something different", an answer to "if they did it differently, would it have mattered?" is in order.
Click to expand...

This question is impossible to answer until you define what this "different" could be. (leading back to the original question).
Careyp74 said:
That, and "is it realistic to have had a working protocol in place for every possible event that could take place in such a densely populated city?"
Click to expand...

I can't see this as even possible. I can however, see a "government" agency spending my money trying to do this. :rolleyes:
 
"Anyway. I was looking at WTC7 and I noticed that it wasn't looking like it was straight. It was really wierd. The closest corner to me (the SK corner) was kind of out of whack with the SW comer. It was impossible*to tell whether that corner (the SW) was leaning over more or even if it was leaning the other way. With all of the*smoke and the debris pile. 1 couldn't exactly tell what was going on. but I sure could see the building was leaning*over in a way it certainly should not be. I asked another guy looking with me and he said "That building is going*to come down, we better get out of here." So we did."
M.J.. Employed at 45 Broadway.

And others mentioned that the building was structualy compromised

So given the building was probably doom right after being struck by WTC 1, would you risk more men to save it, when it was better to have them search for the 350 or so the FDNY just lost.
 
DGM said:
The point is. Why would the chiefs on site take any risk of personnel?
Click to expand...

This concern was a lot bigger than just one building. You can't replace 343 firefighters overnight. They had to think about every fire that was going to happen for weeks afterward.
 
"FDNY Chief Hayden: By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on. we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going*to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down*about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."

It's easy to see why they made the decision they did if you know what they were dealing with, a building that would most likely have to be torn down even if the fires were stopped.

You could even make a case for doing a controlled demolition to take the danger of an uncontroled collapse away. But to do that would prove near impossible given real controlled demolition are not quick easy things to do.
 
DGM said:
This question is impossible to answer until you define what this "different" could be. (leading back to the original question).
Click to expand...

That problem would have to be taken care of by those that already think the answer is 'yes'

DGM said:
I can't see this as even possible. I can however, see a "government" agency spending my money trying to do this. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Nor do I, and I feel that this point should be in the minds of those looking to blame the FDNY for any events that took place.
 
DGM said:
Considering this exchange was off topic (and would likely end up in AAH) I figured I'd start a new thread:

Originally Posted by DGM
So we can assume you would go on record as saying the FDNY made a bad call pulling rescue efforts away from the collapsed towers (in fear of WTC7 collapse)?
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti
I think they should have hooked up to the three large siamese fittings on the outside of WTC 7 and charged the sprinkler system with water from the fireboats in the Hudson river about 400 to 500 yards away. There are photos showing water being used on WTC 6 at 1:30 PM in the afternoon.
Click to expand...



First of all, why WTC7 and not one of the other buildings lost on that day?

Second, Is this even feasible? I'm no expert but, it seams they would have had to drag a lot of hose though an area that was actually piled with debris. There really was no "clear shot".

Third, why would a "truther" bother suggesting this? High rise buildings don't fail in fires, right?
Click to expand...

I am not an expert either but yes, the friction in the hoes would be proportional to several things, inner diameter of the hose, velocity of the water within the hose, smootness of the lining of the hose and whether or not its a wet or dry hose(is it deliberatly designed to sweat water out along its length or not), and the length of the hose.

As far as charging the stand pipes, this would have been possible only on one side of the structure IIRC since the SW was so badly damaged. Furthermore many valves would have to be closed to avoid sending water to damaged pipes. This charging would take hours to accomplish if you had FFs chasing around the building finding leaks in damaged piping and closing valves. Then there is the matter of added structural load by adding water to those pipes. The extent of structural damage was not well established. It would not do well to begin charging the pipes and send men in only to have collapses occur due to added load.
Furthermore what are you going to save? Water damage alone will make much of what you do 'save' unsalvagable, the structure itself was a near write off even with a preliminary assessment of the damage and all buildings to its south were already destroyed.

There comes a point when one knows that there is no danger to life within the burning structure and one suspects that there is a great degree of risk in sending men in to save whats left of the building itself.

Its fantastic that Tony can sit back with all he can research 11 years later and play Fire Chief and state that there was enough time, material, men and water to save WTC 7. This is worse than Monday morning quarterbacking since no quarterback worries that sending out a wide reciever for a pass is extremely risky. To extend the analogy, the quarterback knows the size and abilities of the defense facing him. Its not like there is a 400 pound gorilla in a footbal jersey hiding in the defensive backfield who may jump out and mash the receiver.

If Tony were in WW1 I am sure he'd be all for full frontal mass charges into machine gun fire.
 
DGM said:
True and false.

Naturally, saving life is number one. The next priority is in fact to save property but not at the possible expense of personnel. This is where it gets tricky and the experience of the firefighters/captains comes into play.

WTC7 was lost due to concerns for the first priority. (Any FF feel free to step in).

The point is. Why would the chiefs on site take any risk of personnel? Surely it would be risky to implement Tony's plan?
Click to expand...

You are pretty much dead on.

Life first, property second.

During training, we are advised to avoid breaking anything more than we have to. Try opening a door before kicking it down. Only break windows or vent the roof if it's necessary to do so. etc.

However, once a building is fully involved and all life is safely secured, then it becomes a "surround-and-drown" operation and the only property we're out to protect at that point is any neighboring structures.

We do not and will not put firefighters into dangerous situations to save a structure. Period.

The firefighting at WTC7 was abandoned because no more life was at stake and continued effort would have put fireman at worthless risk. I would have made that same call to pull-out without a hint of hesitation.

I would venture a guess that triforcharity (also a firefighter) would agree with me.
 
Last edited:
If the FDNY had saved 7 truthers would be crying about how this proves inside job because they were trying to putting out a fire in an empty building instead of rescuing people trapped in the collapse. Likely there would be mention of black ops teams removing memos from 7 that detailed the plans Bush drew up for 9/11.
 
Sabretooth said:
You are pretty much dead on.

Life first, property second.

During training, we are advised to avoid breaking anything more than we have to. Try opening a door before kicking it down. Only break windows or vent the roof if it's necessary to do so. etc.

However, once a building is fully involved and all life is safely secured, then it becomes a "surround-and-drown" operation and the only property we're out to protect at that point is any neighboring structures.

We do not and will not put firefighters into dangerous situations to save a structure. Period.

The firefighting at WTC7 was abandoned because no more life was at stake and continued effort would have put fireman at worthless risk. I would have made that same call to pull-out without a hint of hesitation.

I would venture a guess that triforcharity (also a firefighter) would agree with me.
Click to expand...

Which is why I said a burning building was a low priority.

I was assuming that the priorities would have been.
1. Victims
2. Lives of fire fighters
3. Adjacent properties so the fires would not spread further.
4. The burning structure.

I agree with the pull out call as well
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom