It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mind Explaining These Things To Me?

page: 12
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   
You're forgetting that the intake of air is very important
This is why a bunsenburner will be hotter then any wildfire, it's a perfect combustion.



In studying fires in a warehouse storage rack geometry, Ingason [9] found an average solid-flame temperature of 870°C. At the visible flame tips, the average temperature was 450°C, but the range was large, covering 300~600°C. In a related study, Ingason and de Ris [10] found typical flame tip temperatures of 400°C for burner flames of propane, propylene, and carbon monoxide fuels.

Sullivan et al. [16] cite Australian studies on wildfire flames, finding that flame tip temperature corresponds to 300°C, while peak values around 927°C can be expected.

In the SFPE Handbook, Heskestad [11] recommends using a value of 650°C for the temperature rise at the flame tip, i.e., an actual temperature of about 670°C. This seems notably high compared to the experimental data cited above, and Heskestad does not provide any explanation where his value comes from. Also in the Handbook, Mudan and Croce [12] summarize some continuous-flame region measurements for various liquid pools. With the exception of a few data points, most values lie between 827°C to 1127°C. The variations appear to be more attributable to experimental technique than to type of liquid being burned. Most of the values are for quite large (many meters in diameter) pools. Fundamental radiation considerations would suggest that smaller pools might show somewhat lower temperatures, but data to demonstrate this point seem sparse. Curiously, in a later study [13], Heskestad adopts a criterion of 500°C rise as defining the flame tip temperature, i.e. an actual temperature of about 520°C.

Taking all of the above information in account, it appears that flame tip temperatures for turbulent diffusion flames should be estimated as being around 320~400°C. For small flames (less than about 1 m base diameter), continuous flame region temperatures of around 900°C should be expected. For large pools, the latter value can rise to 1100~1200°C.



Also note this




The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [15] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.


Again, there were SIGNS of a mild, moderate, cool, dying, fire.
There were NO signs of a fire that was either raging, hot, or any of those things.

I'm not sayig it isn't possible to reach that heat, but all signs show it didn't on 9/11.

But don't take MY word for it, you're now discussing facts with head of FEMA.
So if you don't believe him, why do you believe the rest of his report ?




posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   
The top quote you took from the section entitled 'Flame temperatures of open flames', which is seperate to the section on room fires which is what is relevent:


Flame temperatures in room fires


There is fairly broad agreement in the fire science community that flashover is reached when the average upper gas temperature in the room exceeds about 600°C. Prior to that point, no generalizations should be made: There will be zones of 900°C flame temperatures, but wide spatial variations will be seen. Of interest, however, is the peak fire temperature normally associated with room fires. The peak value is governed by ventilation and fuel supply characteristics [14] and so such values will form a wide frequency distribution. Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [15] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.


That's your 2nd quote in context, it's worth noting that these would be 'ordinary' fires, not ones fuelled by hundreds of gallons of aviation fuel.

In this case due to the pools of fuel which are not normal to a room fire, we would be looking at laminar diffusion flames.


A laminar diffusion flame is a candle. The fuel comes from the wax vapor, while the oxidizer is air; they do not mix before being introduced (by diffusion) into the flame zone. A peak temperature of around 1400°C is found in a candle flame [3].


Don't forget the melting point of steel is 1370 degrees C, it didn't have to melt though, only soften slighty, just enough to buckle.

Even forgetting that fact, if the floor and support columns were heated up enough then they would expand enough to compromise their fixings and eventually give way. We don't literally need the steel to melt for this to happen, the struture as a whole just needed to lose wnough integrity so as to initiate the collapse, which went on from there.

The figure of 250 degrees is ridiculous though and I don't care who said it, wherever it was Bush, FEMA man or Superman. Anyone with more than half a brain can work out that a statement saying that 'the temperatures reached at the wtc would not have been higher then 250°C' is a load of rubbish



[edit on 27-8-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

That's your quote in context, it's worth noting that these would be 'ordinary' fires, not ones fuelled by hundreds of gallons of aviation fuel.

In this case due to the pools of fuel which are not normal to a room fire, we would be looking at laminar diffusion flames.


No it is not




In studying fires in a warehouse storage rack geometry, Ingason [9] found an average solid-flame temperature of 870°C. At the visible flame tips, the average temperature was 450°C, but the range was large, covering 300~600°C. In a related study, Ingason and de Ris [10] found typical flame tip temperatures of 400°C for burner flames of propane, propylene, and carbon monoxide fuels.



But lets forget the theory and look at the facts ... missing flames, thick black smoke, no red hot fire that engulfs the tower. There are flames yes, but only at a few different spots, also note that when you look at the holes .. all you see is blackness inside, no fires.
Then FEMA decides to keep the temperature analysis out of their report to come up with a story that heat caused the tower to collapse.

C'mon!

[edit on 27-8-2005 by Shroomery]



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Again, a candle:


A peak temperature of around 1400°C is found in a candle flame [3].



Your saying this:


is over 5x hotter than this:



Says it all I think...........


Well, it could very well be true.
It's not because you have a little flame versus a big flame that the bigger flame will be hotter.
It will produce more heat, but that's not the same.



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery

Originally posted by AgentSmith

That's your quote in context, it's worth noting that these would be 'ordinary' fires, not ones fuelled by hundreds of gallons of aviation fuel.

In this case due to the pools of fuel which are not normal to a room fire, we would be looking at laminar diffusion flames.


No it is not


Err, no that IS your quote (2nd one) in it's original context. Sorry, I suggest you read it again.
And it is talking about a regular room fire, not one fuelled by hundreds of gallons of fuel.

-----------Seperation so there is no more confusion

The quote below that you love so much is from the 'Open fire' section, not the 'room fire' section.



In studying fires in a warehouse storage rack geometry, Ingason [9] found an average solid-flame temperature of 870°C. At the visible flame tips, the average temperature was 450°C, but the range was large, covering 300~600°C. In a related study, Ingason and de Ris [10] found typical flame tip temperatures of 400°C for burner flames of propane, propylene, and carbon monoxide fuels.




But lets forget the theory and look at the facts ... missing flames, thick black smoke, no red hot fire that engulfs the tower. There are flames yes, but only at a few different spots, also note that when you look at the holes .. all you see is blackness inside, no fires.
Then FEMA decides to keep the temperature analysis out of their report to come up with a story that heat caused the tower to collapse.

C'mon!

[edit on 27-8-2005 by Shroomery]


Well that depends which pictures you want to look at doesn't it? There are loads which show the fire buring inside, and once again it didn't need to melt the steel, it just needed to weaken it and to cause enough expansion to compromise the integrity of the joins.

And if you bother to read the official report that Howard posted there are plenty of pages showing the temperatures in the tower, with pretty pictures too.



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Yup, you're so right, cause that quote from me doesn't list any fuels now does it?

And congratz on comparing the candle to the fires of the WTC.
Apples and oranges anyone ?


Have fun with your disinfo tactics, I'm not gonna bother with you anymore.



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   
I know this is difficult for you so I'll try and make it simple:

Your first quote regarding the fuels are in an OPEN space (even a large warehouse would be an open space, well according to them anyway looking at how the article is written up).

I pointed out that in the SECOND quote which relates to a room fire, which already had high figures, was (one assumes) without hundreds of gallons of jet fuel in the equation.

Dis-info tatics? great another one that thinks that anyone who supports elements of the 'official' story is either a sheep or an agent.. *yawn*







[edit on 27-8-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Have fun with your disinfo tactics, I'm not gonna bother with you anymore.


Crap! You finally found out that we are mind control slaves under the control of the bush administration. Fear our wrath!!



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
I know this is difficult for you so I'll try and make it simple:

Your first quote regarding the fuels are in an OPEN space





In studying fires in a warehouse storage rack geometry



Idiot ..



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Again, a candle:


A peak temperature of around 1400°C is found in a candle flame [3].



Your saying this:


is over 5x hotter than this:



Says it all I think...........






That's the initial fireball, not the fire that allegedly brought that tower down.

But what do you expect from a device that's sole purpose is to burn, and concentrate a flame to output light?

As I've posted elsewhere, there is no evidence of the fires sustaining themselves for a long period of time at more than 600 degrees Celsius. Maybe there were 700 or even 800 degree Celsius fires in a handful of parts of the building right after impact, and for a very brief amount of time, but there were no sustained fires of this temperature.

Why do I say this?



Steel glows when it's hot. None of the steel at the WTC complex was ever recorded via photographs, videos, etc., of either before or during or after collapse, glowing any of these colors except a dark rusty color. Every piece of steel spotted at the WTC on 9/11 was a cool color, indicating no exposure to temperatures much greater than 600 degrees Celsius. The perimeter columns even had aluminum coverings, which melt at 600 degrees Celsius. Most of these survived, until collapse, perfectly well.

There are other problems with claiming the fires above 600 degrees for any sustained amount of time:


  • The fires were localized and did not spread to floors where fires had not already been started by the initial impact and explosions (only one small exception to this: a small fire 10 floors up in the North Tower). If the fires were of great temperature, they wouldn't have any problems feeding on hydrocarbon materials that burn at higher temperatures (certain office materials) and spreading through the building that way. However, this never happened, and the fires mostly stayed where they began.
  • The vast majority of the fire remained within the building, and did not emerge from the buildings as most major building/skyscraper fires do. There was some emergence of flame in the North Tower at one point, but that was it.
  • There is no evidence of heat-shattered glass, which would occur from temperatures much higher than 600 degrees Celsius. The only window breakage more apparently was caused by the failure of aluminum panels, which greatly soften around these temperatures.
  • The majority of the fires stayed localized to the impact regions.
  • The smoke gradually darkened in both towers after impact, which indicated problems with the fires (uncombusted hydrocarbons; soot in the smoke; weaker fires burning at lower temperatures: the fires were dying). The South Tower's fires never recovered, meaning they continued to die up until collapse, while the North Tower's began outputting healthier smoke before collapse.


This shouldn't really be a surprise at all. Hydrocarbon fires (feeding off of oils, fuel, plastics, etc.) generally do not get much hotter than 800 degrees at max, without pressurization of pre-heating of air. The 800-degree fires are typically reached by mixed flames anyway, such as what you would get from a blow-torch. For jet fuel and plastic office supplies to produce a maximum-temp'ed hydrocarbon burn is pretty unlikely, and it doesn't appear that it happened at the WTC.

If there is any reason that an unmixed hydrocarbon fire would reach maximum temps of 800 degrees Celsius, I'd like to know what it was. Further, if there was any pre-heating of the air or pressurization that could propel the temperatures even higher than a max hydrocarbon fire temperature, I'd love to hear about that as well. But until then, there is neither any evidence nor any reason to believe that the fires at the WTC, feeding off of jet fuel, and later, plastics, etc. from office supplies, would have sustained any temperatures above 600 degrees Celsius.

[edit on 27-8-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery

Originally posted by AgentSmith
I know this is difficult for you so I'll try and make it simple:

Your first quote regarding the fuels are in an OPEN space





In studying fires in a warehouse storage rack geometry



Idiot ..


Not really, your the idot truncating what I said to meet your own end, are you so desperate you have to resort to such petty measures now?

Here's what I exactly said, in context:


Your first quote regarding the fuels are in an OPEN space (even a large warehouse would be an open space, well according to them anyway looking at how the article is written up).

I pointed out that in the SECOND quote which relates to a room fire, which already had high figures, was (one assumes) without hundreds of gallons of jet fuel in the equation.


And here's the article in it's original format:





Flames temperatures of open flames


For convenience, we can subdivide the turbulent diffusion flames from unwanted fires into two types: flames in the open, and room fires. First we will consider open flames.
The starting point for discussing this topic can be the work of the late Dr. McCaffrey, who made extensive measurements [4] of temperatures in turbulent diffusion flames. He used gas burners in a "pool fire" mode (i.e., non-premixed) and studied various characteristics of such fire plumes. He described three different regimes in such a fire plume:

Slightly above the base of the fire begins the continuous flame region. Here the temperatures are constant and are slightly below 900°C.
Above the solid flame region is the intermittent flame region. Here the temperatures are continuously dropping as one moves up the plume. The visible flame tips correspond to a temperature of about 320°C.
Finally, beyond the flame tips is the thermal plume region, where no more flames are visible and temperature continually drop with height.
French researchers at the University of Poitiers recently made the same types of measurements and reported numerical values [5] indistinguishable from McCaffrey's. Cox and Chitty [6] measured similar plumes and obtained very similar results: a temperature of 900°C in the continuous flame region, and a temperature of around 340°C at the flame tips. The latter value does not appear to be a universal constant. Cox and Chitty later measured slightly higher heat release rate fires, and found a flame tip temperature of around 550°C. In a later paper [7], researchers from the same laboratory examined turbulent diffusion flames under slightly different conditions, and found peak values of 1150-1250°C for natural gas flames, which is rather higher than 900°C. The above results were from fires of circular or square fuel shape. Yuan and Cox [8] measured line-source type fires. They found a temperature of 898°C in the continuous flame region, and a flame tip temperature of around 340°C. This suggests that such results are not dependent on the shape of the fuel source.

In studying fires in a warehouse storage rack geometry, Ingason [9] found an average solid-flame temperature of 870°C. At the visible flame tips, the average temperature was 450°C, but the range was large, covering 300~600°C. In a related study, Ingason and de Ris [10] found typical flame tip temperatures of 400°C for burner flames of propane, propylene, and carbon monoxide fuels.

Sullivan et al. [16] cite Australian studies on wildfire flames, finding that flame tip temperature corresponds to 300°C, while peak values around 927°C can be expected.

In the SFPE Handbook, Heskestad [11] recommends using a value of 650°C for the temperature rise at the flame tip, i.e., an actual temperature of about 670°C. This seems notably high compared to the experimental data cited above, and Heskestad does not provide any explanation where his value comes from. Also in the Handbook, Mudan and Croce [12] summarize some continuous-flame region measurements for various liquid pools. With the exception of a few data points, most values lie between 827°C to 1127°C. The variations appear to be more attributable to experimental technique than to type of liquid being burned. Most of the values are for quite large (many meters in diameter) pools. Fundamental radiation considerations would suggest that smaller pools might show somewhat lower temperatures, but data to demonstrate this point seem sparse. Curiously, in a later study [13], Heskestad adopts a criterion of 500°C rise as defining the flame tip temperature, i.e. an actual temperature of about 520°C.

Taking all of the above information in account, it appears that flame tip temperatures for turbulent diffusion flames should be estimated as being around 320~400°C. For small flames (less than about 1 m base diameter), continuous flame region temperatures of around 900°C should be expected. For large pools, the latter value can rise to 1100~1200°C.



Flame temperatures in room fires


There is fairly broad agreement in the fire science community that flashover is reached when the average upper gas temperature in the room exceeds about 600°C. Prior to that point, no generalizations should be made: There will be zones of 900°C flame temperatures, but wide spatial variations will be seen. Of interest, however, is the peak fire temperature normally associated with room fires. The peak value is governed by ventilation and fuel supply characteristics [14] and so such values will form a wide frequency distribution. Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [15] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.
The peak expected temperatures in room fires, then, are slightly greater than those found in free-burning fire plumes. This is to be expected. The amount that the fire plume's temperature drops below the adiabatic flame temperature is determined by the heat losses from the flame. When a flame is far away from any walls and does not heat up the enclosure, it radiates to surroundings which are essentially at 20°C. If the flame is big enough (or the room small enough) for the room walls to heat up substantially, then the flame exchanges radiation with a body that is several hundred °C; the consequence is smaller heat losses, and, therefore, a higher flame temperature.[url]http://www.doctorfire.com/flametmp.html/url]


Sorry about the quoting, but some people obviously have problems reading.

[edit on 28-8-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 02:25 AM
link   
I find it amazing that there are this many people on THIS site that actually believe the official story. I've decided not to argue about this anymore with people and just direct them to the PBS Documentary "America Rebuilds" where larry silverstein says that they blew up tower 7 to "prevent further loss of life".

How did they already have explosives in the building?

Is it a coincidence that the building that was "pulled" had offices of cia, secret service, fbi, mayor juliani's emergency bunker that was evacuated at 9am (just when it was usefull), and the IRS which has some 60,000 document pertaining to wall street investigations of securitys fraud, and other such crimes?

I knew tower 7 was demolished when it happend, by the way it fell.. I've seen a dozen or so demolishions, even the news reporters were saying how it looked like "well placed dynomite" in tower 7.


Seriously.....


wake the f... up.

nero
hitler
kgb
mi6
now the neo-nazis






[edit on 28-8-2005 by senseless04]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 08:11 AM
link   
you know senseless, there are actually people that believe they went in WTC7 on 9/11 to place those demolitions... go figure.

These people will do anything to believe what's fed to them.

[edit on 28-8-2005 by Shroomery]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery
you know senseless, there are actually people that believe they went in WTC7 on 9/11 to place those demolitions... go figure.

These people will do anything to believe what's fed to them.

[edit on 28-8-2005 by Shroomery]


And some people believe that they meant pull everyone out of the building.
In fireman's terms that's what it means.
I know that the demolition people later used the term 'pull it' for blowing up WTC 6, but it's the same as a lot of words/phrases - they mean different things to different people.
Maybe he actually meant to tie a bit of rope around the building and 'pull it' down with a tractor? You never know do you...

Bit like Gay can mean happy or a homosexual.

What you've got to do is look at the context of which it was said and who it was said to. It was said to a fireman, so one would imagine it was said with the meaning it would to a fireman and to pull everyone out.
I didn't realise the firebrigade had anything to do with demolitions anyway? Might be different for you lot over the water but they don't here.

And Shroomery, you should know all about feeding something crap and keeping it in the dark, maybe that's what your name's all about?
To keep the real issues under cover and keep everyone busy arguing over the same 3 year old points again and again until the end of time.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 10:25 AM
link   

And Shroomery, you should know all about feeding something crap and keeping it in the dark, maybe that's what your name's all about?


Or maybe his name means he is in to magic mushrooms. You know the ones that make you high? Maybe thats where he's gettings some of his crazy ideas. He makes his own magic mushrooms in his shroomery.

disclaimer: that was humor. Don't take offense.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by Shroomery
you know senseless, there are actually people that believe they went in WTC7 on 9/11 to place those demolitions... go figure.

These people will do anything to believe what's fed to them.

[edit on 28-8-2005 by Shroomery]


And some people believe that they meant pull everyone out of the building.
In fireman's terms that's what it means.
I know that the demolition people later used the term 'pull it' for blowing up WTC 6, but it's the same as a lot of words/phrases - they mean different things to different people.
Maybe he actually meant to tie a bit of rope around the building and 'pull it' down with a tractor? You never know do you...

Bit like Gay can mean happy or a homosexual.

What you've got to do is look at the context of which it was said and who it was said to. It was said to a fireman, so one would imagine it was said with the meaning it would to a fireman and to pull everyone out.
I didn't realise the firebrigade had anything to do with demolitions anyway? Might be different for you lot over the water but they don't here.

And Shroomery, you should know all about feeding something crap and keeping it in the dark, maybe that's what your name's all about?
To keep the real issues under cover and keep everyone busy arguing over the same 3 year old points again and again until the end of time.



I guess that would all depend on the context ..

he said " i received a phone call from the fire fighters.. they said we've had such a terrible loss of life, the best thing we could do is... pull it.. so then they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building fall.." why would the building fall if they were just evacuating?

next you'll be saying pat roberson ment "take them out to dinner" not "TAKE THEM OUT" right?


here i go.. arguing after i just said i wouldnt.. go watch "Loose Change" (im such a nice guy, if you dont have it ill let you download it from my site), if you still believe what you believe.. then well, go learn something about science.. then if you still believe what you believe... go join the new world order, because theres no hope for you.





[edit on 28-8-2005 by senseless04]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   

he said " i received a phone call from the fire fighters.. they said we've had such a terrible loss of life, the best thing we could do is... pull it.. so then they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building fall.." why would the building fall if they were just evacuating?


Why would the building fall if they were just evacuating? Because since there wasn't any firefighters their to fight the fires in the building, then the fire was capable of destroying the building.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaTerminator

he said " i received a phone call from the fire fighters.. they said we've had such a terrible loss of life, the best thing we could do is... pull it.. so then they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building fall.." why would the building fall if they were just evacuating?


Why would the building fall if they were just evacuating? Because since there wasn't any firefighters their to fight the fires in the building, then the fire was capable of destroying the building.


but this building was stronger than both the towers put togther... was made to withstand such a blast.. was 2 blocks away from the first and second tower.. had an emergency bunker in it.. AND DID NOT HAVE A DIRECT PLANE HIT (so no 1000000000 degree jet fuel to melt the central colums). AND ONLY HAD 2 FREAKING FIRES IN IT

PLUS THERE WAS NO ONE TO EVACTUATE BECAUSE THE ENTIRE BUILDING HAD ALREADY BEEN EVACUATED AT 9AM.

and, you completely missed my point. What are you some kind of tin foil hat wearing disinformationist? You're either a puppet or so blind you couldnt see your hand infront of your face.

LA LA LA LA LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU IT WASNT THE GOVERNMENT LA LA LA LA LA LA LA

(it wasnt the government, it was rogue elements within our government)

and a couple other things...

1) A modern steel structure has NEVER EVER EVER collapsed due to fire.

2) There was a high rise in brazil i believe? that burned for 14 hours and spread across 40 some odd floors eventually reaching the roof..

GUESS WHAT IT DIDNT COLLAPSE.. must have been because it didnt have 123890412390490123890481239048 degree jet fuel to feed the fire right?

well then how did tower 7 fall?

3) If the fire fighters (most firefighter tapes are still avalible, except the section where the towers collapse which has been declared "national security") thought that they could controll the first and second tower, then how could they not control the fires on 2 floors in tower 7?


LETS ROLL!!!



[edit on 28-8-2005 by senseless04]

[edit on 28-8-2005 by senseless04]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
And some people believe that they meant pull everyone out of the building.


After the building had been evacuated for hours?


In fireman's terms that's what it means.


You mean pull out?


Pull it is placing a direct action upon a singular pronoun. As in, to say, placing the action of demolition upon a building. It would not make sense to use in the sense of pulling numbers of people out of a building, especially when that building had been on fire for several hours and was evacuated ages ago, even by the firefighters. That's what he was talking about: they didn't feel like even fighting the fire, so they elected to "pull it." It's not that complicated.


I know that the demolition people later used the term 'pull it' for blowing up WTC 6, but it's the same as a lot of words/phrases - they mean different things to different people.


The only people that "pull it" means something different to are those that can't accept the fact that their government would do something of this magitude to its own people for propoganda purposes. Everyone else gets what Larry's saying.


Maybe he actually meant to tie a bit of rope around the building and 'pull it' down with a tractor? You never know do you...




That's probably your back-up argument on this one, isn't it?



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   
I know I've posted these before in other threads, but since we seem to be covering the same ground in this thread . . .

www.firehouse.com...


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.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.





Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.



www.firehouse.com...



Boyle: I see him grab a guy from the 21 Battalion and this was the first assignment he was giving out, so I rushed right into the small circle of guys and I ended up getting in on the assignment. And what it was was four engines, three trucks to World Trade Center 7.

Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?

Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.

Firehouse: How many companies?

Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty.



A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join