NIST Wind Driven Fire Studies

NYCEMT86 · 23rd January 2010, 03:24 AM

Back in 2008 the FDNY, Department of Homeland Security, NIST, and a few other major city Fire Departments conducted tests to study the effects of fire under heavy wind conditions. (Article here)

Well I completely forgot that the complete studies were released in early 2009 and I haven't seen them posted here, so I figure you guys would enjoy the information provided.

Both studies are in PDF

NIST Lab Test

NIST 7 Story Building Experiment

vinniem · 23rd January 2010, 03:33 AM

Originally Posted by NYCEMT86

Back in 2008 the FDNY, Department of Homeland Security, NIST, and a few other major city Fire Departments conducted tests to study the effects of fire under heavy wind conditions. (Article here)

Well I completely forgot that the complete studies were released in early 2009 and I haven't seen them posted here, so I figure you guys would enjoy the information provided.

Both studies are in PDF

NIST Lab Test

NIST 7 Story Building Experiment

What does this have to do with 911?

NYCEMT86 · 23rd January 2010, 03:41 AM

Originally Posted by vinniem

What does this have to do with 911?

Maybe you should read it first then you will have a better understanding.

vinniem · 23rd January 2010, 03:43 AM

Originally Posted by NYCEMT86

Maybe you should read it first then you will have a better understanding.

It is a test conducted on a 7 storey building with a wind of 20mph added.

It has NOTHING to do with 911 whatsoever.

NYCEMT86 · 23rd January 2010, 03:46 AM

Originally Posted by vinniem

It is a test conducted on a 7 storey building with a wind of 20mph added.

It has NOTHING to do with 911 whatsoever.

Well your ignorance towards fire science is pretty blatant. I suggest you read both entire studies before making such comments.

funk de fino · 23rd January 2010, 04:02 AM

Originally Posted by vinniem

It is a test conducted on a 7 storey building with a wind of 20mph added.

It has NOTHING to do with 911 whatsoever.

Were there no fires in the buildings on 911?

bill smith · 23rd January 2010, 04:50 AM

Originally Posted by funk de fino

Were there no fires in the buildings on 911?

hort-lived local fires Funk.After that nothing that couldn't be put out with two lines.

Mr.Herbert · 23rd January 2010, 05:15 AM

Originally Posted by bill smith

hort-lived local fires Funk.After that nothing that couldn't be put out with two lines.

No hugs from Daddy last night Bill? Had to come here for attention?

ElMondoHummus · 23rd January 2010, 05:33 AM

Originally Posted by NYCEMT86

Back in 2008 the FDNY, Department of Homeland Security, NIST, and a few other major city Fire Departments conducted tests to study the effects of fire under heavy wind conditions. (Article here)

Well I completely forgot that the complete studies were released in early 2009 and I haven't seen them posted here, so I figure you guys would enjoy the information provided.

Both studies are in PDF

NIST Lab Test

NIST 7 Story Building Experiment

NYCEMT86: Would you say that these experiments would be a rough simulation of the stack effect induced in the main towers? It seems to me that it would be no better than a very rough modeling given that a wind driven fire would be more of a "push" of air towards the fire, whereas stack effect would be more of a "pull". But I'm a layman, not a firefighter or fire researcher; for all I know, the end results may indeed be equivalent, despite the difference I see. Anyway, is stack effect the similarity that applies to the towers fires?

triforcharity · 23rd January 2010, 06:20 AM

ElMondo,

Yes, In my opinion, it would, But, not so rough. It's actually very simmilar in my opinion. I have only briefly scanned the report, and will spend the weekend reading them. I hadn't seen these, so they are certainly facinating.

Of course, a fire the size that we saw on 9/11, it creates its own stack effect so to speak. It also exaggerates the normal stack effect present in the towers.

But, at that altitude, the winds alone will help to fan the fires. Couple that with the stack effect normally present, and its a raging inferno of hell.

16.5 · 23rd January 2010, 06:28 AM

Originally Posted by vinniem

It is a test conducted on a 7 storey building with a wind of 20mph added.

It has NOTHING to do with 911 whatsoever.

Hmmm, what is that muffled sound I am hearing coming before that locked door?

Vinnie's not gonna take it, never did and never will!

Say, vinnie, I never got around to welcoming you to the site, you've been here a couple of weeks and already you are a super moderator making value judgments on something you have not read and declaring them irrelevant.

You know, you could NOT post on something you don't understand, try it, it is fun!

JimBenArm · 23rd January 2010, 06:46 AM

But then who would we play with?

vinniem · 23rd January 2010, 06:48 AM

Originally Posted by funk de fino

Were there no fires in the buildings on 911?

Yes there were big fires in 110 storey buildings, 1000 feet in the air, with little or no wind, and the fires were unfought.

Perhaps you could explain how that relates to these 20mph wind tests on a 7 storey building on fire with no planes involved.

NYCEMT86 · 23rd January 2010, 06:51 AM

Originally Posted by bill smith

hort-lived local fires Funk.After that nothing that couldn't be put out with two lines.

Hey Bill, are you still stuck on Chief Palmer's transmission? Chew on this topic I wrote a while ago then get back to me.

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

NYCEMT86: Would you say that these experiments would be a rough simulation of the stack effect induced in the main towers? It seems to me that it would be no better than a very rough modeling given that a wind driven fire would be more of a "push" of air towards the fire, whereas stack effect would be more of a "pull". But I'm a layman, not a firefighter or fire researcher; for all I know, the end results may indeed be equivalent, despite the difference I see. Anyway, is stack effect the similarity that applies to the towers fires?

It would be a combination of both pushing and pulling. With any sized fire, it strives on oxygen (along with fuel and heat) so it does create its own vacuum that will drawn in more oxygen. With the size of the fires that we can clearly see in the photos and videos of the exterior of both towers there would be a large vacuum or pulling as you described it, on those fire floors. The pushing obviously would be from the high winds that the towers themselves created.

This vacuum can be seen more clearly during a backdraft.

Backdraft

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

ETA:

I removed the egg experiment because it wasn't the best example out there.

triforcharity · 23rd January 2010, 06:59 AM

Originally Posted by vinniem

Yes there were big fires in 110 storey buildings, 1000 feet in the air, with little or no wind, and the fires were unfought.

Perhaps you could explain how that relates to these 20mph wind tests on a 7 storey building on fire with no planes involved.

Google "Fire convection currents" for me, and report what you find.

PS. It won't be what you think.

JimBenArm · 23rd January 2010, 07:00 AM

Originally Posted by vinniem

Yes there were big fires in 110 storey buildings, 1000 feet in the air, with little or no wind, and the fires were unfought.

Perhaps you could explain how that relates to these 20mph wind tests on a 7 storey building on fire with no planes involved.

Yes, they needed to build 110 story buildings and crash planes into them, otherwise absolutely nothing learned from this will apply.

They also need to build another 110 story building, rig it with explosives, and bring it down so we can do a comparison.

Then do it all again using fricken' sharks with lasers.

Otherwise, no one will ever know what really happened. And Baby Jeebus will cry. You don't want to make Baby Jeebus cry, do you?

ElMondoHummus · 23rd January 2010, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by vinniem

Yes there were big fires in 110 storey buildings, 1000 feet in the air, with little or no wind, and the fires were unfought.

Perhaps you could explain how that relates to these 20mph wind tests on a 7 storey building on fire with no planes involved.

Perhaps you also want to expound on how cancer research involving rats or artificial joint research involving sheep are also inapplicable to medical treatments on people, given that no humans are involved.

You should not make foolish statements like that. Modeling in science involves identifying the relevant elements and modeling those instead of obsessing over modeling inapplicable elements. What are the important elements for modeling high-rise fires? To me as a layman, I'd imagine wind speed (if you've never been to the top of the Twin Towers - for the record, I have, back in the 70's - then you may not realize the constant wind that is experienced at that height), pressure, and fuel load. You don't need a 110 story tower to model pressures and wind velocities; fans and proper design can do that for you (engineers and firefighting folks here: Feel free to expand on or correct what I've written if needed).

Instead of putting your effort towards taking the opposite stance of "debunkers" at every turn, how about you evaluate evidence and models on their own merits? I'm not any sort of fire researcher or engineer, yet I in 5 seconds was able to come up with a possible application of these studies to the Twin Towers, and NYCEMT86 - who's had firefighter training, BTW - validated it. Start with reality instead of an imperative of negation next time; you might learn something.

JimBenArm · 23rd January 2010, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

Perhaps you also want to expound on how cancer research involving rats or artificial joint research involving sheep are also inapplicable to medical treatments on people, given that no humans are involved.

You should not make foolish statements like that. Modeling in science involves identifying the relevant elements and modeling those instead of obsessing over modeling inapplicable elements. What are the important elements for modeling high-rise fires? To me as a layman, I'd imagine wind speed (if you've never been to the top of the Twin Towers - for the record, I have, back in the 70's - then you may not realize the constant wind that is experienced at that height), pressure, and fuel load. You don't need a 110 story tower to model pressures and wind velocities; fans and proper design can do that for you (engineers and firefighting folks here: Feel free to expand on or correct what I've written if needed).

Instead of putting your effort towards taking the opposite stance of "debunkers" at every turn, how about you evaluate evidence and models on their own merits? I'm not any sort of fire researcher or engineer, yet I in 5 seconds was able to come up with a possible application of these studies to the Twin Towers, and NYCEMT86 - who's had firefighter training, BTW - validated it. Start with reality instead of an imperative of negation next time; you might learn something.

Nuh-uh! No way!

And you're a big meany head, too!

ElMondoHummus · 23rd January 2010, 07:31 AM

Originally Posted by JimBenArm

Nuh-uh! No way!

And you're a big meany head, too!

That's pretty spry, Jim; you don't seem so decrepit after all!

...

NYCEMT86 · 23rd January 2010, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

...Snip...

You should not make foolish statements like that. Modeling in science involves identifying the relevant elements and modeling those instead of obsessing over modeling inapplicable elements. What are the important elements for modeling high-rise fires? To me as a layman, I'd imagine wind speed (if you've never been to the top of the Twin Towers - for the record, I have, back in the 70's - then you may not realize the constant wind that is experienced at that height), pressure, and fuel load. You don't need a 110 story tower to model pressures and wind velocities; fans and proper design can do that for you (engineers and firefighting folks here: Feel free to expand on or correct what I've written if needed).

...Snip...

You explained it well. The one good thing about fire is that you can manipulate it so much that you can achieve the general effect that you want during training or even research.

triforcharity · 23rd January 2010, 09:05 AM

Agreed NYCEMT, He did just fine. ElMondo has explained quite elequently exactly what is wrong with Vinnie's assumptions.

We can also do these type scenarios without even building a scale building. We can it it with a single room, and extrapolate with computer simulations, and actually get quite the accurate results.

vinniem · 23rd January 2010, 09:59 AM

Still waiting for this test to be connected with 911 conspiracies.

I know there were buildings on fire on 911 but that is somewhat tenuous.

Can I just start some threads about plane crashes and let you guys join the dots?

Dog Town · 23rd January 2010, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by vinniem

Still waiting for this test to be connected with 911 conspiracies.

Reading the explanations provided, by others. Leads one to think, that only a very dense person would state the above , again!

vinniem · 23rd January 2010, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by Dog Town

Reading the explanations provided, by others. Leads one to think, that only a very dense person would ask the above question, again!

Ok, I am dense. please spell it out to me.

Dog Town · 23rd January 2010, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by vinniem

Ok, I am dense. please spell it out to me.

Read the thread, for comprehension this time.

vinniem · 23rd January 2010, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by Dog Town

Read the thread, for comprehension this time.

I have read it. Nobody has linked this to the WTC fires. The WTC fires were unfought, spread over several acres, in little or no wind, what does that have to do with this test? Nothing.

vinniem · 23rd January 2010, 10:13 AM

This test was meant to be an apartment building, nowhere is the wtc mentioned in the reports.

What is the connection?

Algebra34 · 23rd January 2010, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by vinniem

This test was meant to be an apartment building, nowhere is the wtc mentioned in the reports.

What is the connection?

There is none vinniem. It's sort of how they try to keep comparing the WTC to things like toy factories and highway bridge collapses. You see, there is no comparison. None ever in the history of the world.

Sam.I.Am · 23rd January 2010, 10:20 AM

There's dense and then there's neutron star dense...

ElMondoHummus · 23rd January 2010, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by vinniem

Still waiting for this test to be connected with 911 conspiracies.

I know there were buildings on fire on 911 but that is somewhat tenuous.

Can I just start some threads about plane crashes and let you guys join the dots?

You see, this is your problem: Instead of discussion of relevant issues, you'd rather attack. This is why we're more than justified in lumping you in with all other truthers: You do not care about discovering the knowledge, you'd rather attack the discussion of it.

Of course there's no direct link between a study of structure fires and 9/11 conspiracies. These tests do not speak towards hijackings of airplanes or identification of terrorists. What they do do, however, is inform fire and structure researchers how fires progress in certain conditions. It doesn't directly apply to how it affects a structure built like the Twin Towers, but it does speak to the detail of how a fire progresses in windy conditions. It is basic knowledge, which serves as a building block that can be used to evaluate and reevaluate existing research such as the NIST report. Studies like this, like the Cardington Fire Tests, and others are used to build models of fire propogation, and the validity of those models are continually evaluated as time goes on. New research induces new evaluations. That's how knowledge progresses.

So, in spite of not having a direct link, how does this relate to 9/11 conspiracies? Well, implicit in the attack on NIST is the critique that their fire models are wrong; how many times do we see conspiracy peddlers claim that the tower fires could not have affected the tower in the way it did on 9/11? Sure, part of that misapprehension is due to the fact that you all find it convenient to ignore impact damage when you people forward that complaint, but a good deal of it comes from the fact that conspiracy fantasists say the NIST report cannot be right. These issues address a specific issue that can be applied to the Twin Towers: Fires and combatting it in windy conditions. It provides more knowledge to add to the existing body, and drives forward that body of knowledge. Eventually, the accumulation of such knowledge may modify what was concluded in the NIST report. It likely won't directly affect it by itself, but that's not the goal or the point: The point is to forward the general field. This is what these reports do.

So that's what the relation to the September 11th conspiracies is. Like practical aerodynamics to evaluate the various "bad pilot" claims, and like the somewhat specialized chemistry needed to understand Astaneh-Asl's observations, this is a study that adds to our knowledge of basic fire principles and fire fighting, and provides context necessary to evaluate various claims forwarded by truthers regarding firefighting. No, the studies don't directly address 9/11 or conspiracies. They don't have to in order to be relevant to our interests in this subforum; if you look at his history, NYCEMT86 has made a thread as well as a few posts aimed at giving a general, brief education into firefighting principles. That ends up being background knowledge. This is background knowledge about structure fires and practical firefighting of a wind driven fire.

That's the difference between you conspiracy advocates and the rest of us: We are interested in context and knowledge; you all are only interested in pushing a worldview. That's why you don't get how these reports are applicable: They're context and basic knowledge. Something too many of you ignore when you dive into 9/11 history.

fuelair · 23rd January 2010, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by vinniem

Ok, I am dense. please spell it out to me.

No need, you just covered it quite well!

vinniem · 23rd January 2010, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by Algebra34

There is none vinniem. It's sort of how they try to keep comparing the WTC to things like toy factories and highway bridge collapses. You see, there is no comparison. None ever in the history of the world.

I thought as much. Yeah the Kader toy factory often gets an airing when they are desperate.

Have a search for the thread on the toilet paper factory. It is hysterical.

Arus808 · 23rd January 2010, 03:43 PM

nice to see pd.... vinniem play nice with the other deluded truther.

NYCEMT86 · 23rd January 2010, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by Algebra34

There is none vinniem. It's sort of how they try to keep comparing the WTC to things like toy factories and highway bridge collapses. You see, there is no comparison. None ever in the history of the world.

Great strawman. My OP is in no way a comparison. This is the simple process of using applied sciences to the fundamental dynamics of all high rise fires, including the WTC.

triforcharity · 23rd January 2010, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by vinniem

I thought as much. Yeah the Kader toy factory often gets an airing when they are desperate.

Have a search for the thread on the toilet paper factory. It is hysterical.

When the TM dolts say stuff like "Normal office fires won't hurt steel" we can show that to be absolutely false.

With toilet paper no less.

BTW, here is a link for your review. I would LOVE to know what you have to say about it.

http://www.fpemag.com/archives/artic...ue_id=27&i=153

LashL · 23rd January 2010, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by NYCEMT86

Back in 2008 the FDNY, Department of Homeland Security, NIST, and a few other major city Fire Departments conducted tests to study the effects of fire under heavy wind conditions.

Great post, NYCEMT. Thanks for that. An acquaintance/contact of mine (a FDNY Battalion Chief) was heavily involved in those studies, and sent along video that was taken of the burning of that 7 storey building quite some time ago. I'll try to see if I can find it, as it is quite impressive.

NYCEMT86 · 23rd January 2010, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by LashL

Great post, NYCEMT. Thanks for that. An acquaintance/contact of mine (a FDNY Battalion Chief) was heavily involved in those studies, and sent along video that was taken of the burning of that 7 storey building quite some time ago. I'll try to see if I can find it, as it is quite impressive.

No problem. I think it would be great if you add those videos to this topic and if your acquaintance has anything further to offer, it would be appreciated as well.

Sword_Of_Truth · 23rd January 2010, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by vinniem

Originally Posted by Algebra34

There is none vinniem. It's sort of how they try to keep comparing the WTC to things like toy factories and highway bridge collapses. You see, there is no comparison. None ever in the history of the world.

I thought as much. Yeah the Kader toy factory often gets an airing when they are desperate.

Have a search for the thread on the toilet paper factory. It is hysterical.

OH MY GAWD!

This is the same band of morons who think that beer cans and barbecues = skyscrapers:

Quote:

it is easily testable, and i have done so:

stand an empty beer can (representing a 767 fuselage) on a BBQ grill (representing wtc perimeter columns) on 2 red bricks (steel reinforced concrete wtc floors) onto an iron fireplace grate (massive wtc core columns).
smash the beer can with a sledge hammer (representing the force that alleged 500mph momentum would generate).
observe how little (none!) of the beer can actually penetrates thru the BBQ grill.

replace the 2 red bricks (now cracked) with 2 fresh bricks and use a full beer can lying on it's side (representing a 767 wing with full fuel tanks).
again smash and observe!

stand the whole affair on edge and we have a far more accurate model of a real aluminum 767 (with a plastic nosecone) striking a massive steel and concrete wtc than either the bogus NIST diagrams or equally bogus fag purdue animation.

Burning rabbit cages = skyscrapers:

A stack of childrens toy wooden blocks = skyscrapers:

Quote:

I set up an experiment testing how a plane might break up upon impacting arrayed steel columns like the WTC wall. The plane and the columns were both constructed of similar pieces of wood (which here favors the plane, since in real life, aluminum is weaker than steel). The dimensions of the models were not perfect, but they were a rough match for the WTC and a 767. I did not put floors into the model, so this also favors the plane.

I pushed the plane forcefully into the "wall", and while the fuselage penetrated the wall after reasonably strong force was applied, the wings broke off at the root where the wings met the plane. The wings actually bent backwards and slid into the hole alongside the fuselage. The wood of the wings actually broke. A few "columns" broke where the fuselage went in, and a couple broke on either side of the fuselage hole, where the wings broke off-- but basically the array of columns were much stronger than the long wings.

A multi-storey rabbit cage = skyscrapers:

A stack of toilet paper tubes = skyscrapers:

A stack of plastic trays = skyscrapers:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

(Shamelessly stolen, with at least one original find by myself, from Gravy's 9/11 denier humor page)

You idiots asked for examples of steel framed structures, not hit by anything, that collapsed to the ground from fire alone and that's what we gave you.

We asked for examples of your ideas and you gave us beer cans, childrens blocks, homeless bunnies, kindergarten arts and crafts projects and a man who knows he is fat and very little else vandalizing his employers office supplies. Everything but steel framed buildings behaving the way you think they should.

And you wonder why we think you're all mentally retarded?

NYCEMT86 · 23rd January 2010, 06:26 PM

You can't forget this gem Sword.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

leftysergeant · 24th January 2010, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by vinniem

It is a test conducted on a 7 storey building with a wind of 20mph added.

It has NOTHING to do with 911 whatsoever.

It's quite clear to anybody capable of critical thought. It was as many storeys as were on fire in the towers. Totally applicable model.

23rd January 2010, 03:24 AM	#1
NYCEMT86 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Slums of Brooklyn Posts: 1,058	NIST Wind Driven Fire Studies Back in 2008 the FDNY, Department of Homeland Security, NIST, and a few other major city Fire Departments conducted tests to study the effects of fire under heavy wind conditions. (Article here) Well I completely forgot that the complete studies were released in early 2009 and I haven't seen them posted here, so I figure you guys would enjoy the information provided. Both studies are in PDF NIST Lab Test NIST 7 Story Building Experiment
	__________________ I bringth the Amber lamps "The most beautiful four words in the common language is: I told you so." - Vidal

23rd January 2010, 03:33 AM	#2
vinniem Banned Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 308	Originally Posted by NYCEMT86 Back in 2008 the FDNY, Department of Homeland Security, NIST, and a few other major city Fire Departments conducted tests to study the effects of fire under heavy wind conditions. (Article here) Well I completely forgot that the complete studies were released in early 2009 and I haven't seen them posted here, so I figure you guys would enjoy the information provided. Both studies are in PDF NIST Lab Test NIST 7 Story Building Experiment What does this have to do with 911?
vinniem Banned Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 308

23rd January 2010, 03:41 AM	#3
NYCEMT86 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Slums of Brooklyn Posts: 1,058	Originally Posted by vinniem What does this have to do with 911? Maybe you should read it first then you will have a better understanding.
	__________________ I bringth the Amber lamps "The most beautiful four words in the common language is: I told you so." - Vidal

23rd January 2010, 03:43 AM	#4
vinniem Banned Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 308	Originally Posted by NYCEMT86 Maybe you should read it first then you will have a better understanding. It is a test conducted on a 7 storey building with a wind of 20mph added. It has NOTHING to do with 911 whatsoever.
vinniem Banned Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 308

23rd January 2010, 03:46 AM	#5
NYCEMT86 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Slums of Brooklyn Posts: 1,058	Originally Posted by vinniem It is a test conducted on a 7 storey building with a wind of 20mph added. It has NOTHING to do with 911 whatsoever. Well your ignorance towards fire science is pretty blatant. I suggest you read both entire studies before making such comments.
	__________________ I bringth the Amber lamps "The most beautiful four words in the common language is: I told you so." - Vidal

23rd January 2010, 04:02 AM	#6
funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Alba Posts: 10,790	Originally Posted by vinniem It is a test conducted on a 7 storey building with a wind of 20mph added. It has NOTHING to do with 911 whatsoever. Were there no fires in the buildings on 911?
	__________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. Christopher 7 - There is no need to contact them for conformation. That is just a denial tactic

23rd January 2010, 04:50 AM	#7
bill smith Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8,408	Originally Posted by funk de fino Were there no fires in the buildings on 911? hort-lived local fires Funk.After that nothing that couldn't be put out with two lines.
bill smith Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8,408	__________________ Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough * To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

23rd January 2010, 05:15 AM	#8
Mr.Herbert Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 1,357	Originally Posted by bill smith hort-lived local fires Funk.After that nothing that couldn't be put out with two lines. No hugs from Daddy last night Bill? Had to come here for attention?
	__________________ Please go to www.curedfoundation.org and make a donation of only a dollar to help find a cure for a rare autoimmune disease that my son is currently battling called Eosinophilic Esophagitis. Learn more about EOE here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eosinophilic_esophagitis

23rd January 2010, 05:33 AM	#9
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 11,939	Originally Posted by NYCEMT86 Back in 2008 the FDNY, Department of Homeland Security, NIST, and a few other major city Fire Departments conducted tests to study the effects of fire under heavy wind conditions. (Article here) Well I completely forgot that the complete studies were released in early 2009 and I haven't seen them posted here, so I figure you guys would enjoy the information provided. Both studies are in PDF NIST Lab Test NIST 7 Story Building Experiment NYCEMT86: Would you say that these experiments would be a rough simulation of the stack effect induced in the main towers? It seems to me that it would be no better than a very rough modeling given that a wind driven fire would be more of a "push" of air towards the fire, whereas stack effect would be more of a "pull". But I'm a layman, not a firefighter or fire researcher; for all I know, the end results may indeed be equivalent, despite the difference I see. Anyway, is stack effect the similarity that applies to the towers fires?
	__________________ must take this very carefully....booze is wise men's drink..... -pillory "... I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness" -Prof. Ann Althouse

23rd January 2010, 06:20 AM	#10
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,176	ElMondo, Yes, In my opinion, it would, But, not so rough. It's actually very simmilar in my opinion. I have only briefly scanned the report, and will spend the weekend reading them. I hadn't seen these, so they are certainly facinating. Of course, a fire the size that we saw on 9/11, it creates its own stack effect so to speak. It also exaggerates the normal stack effect present in the towers. But, at that altitude, the winds alone will help to fan the fires. Couple that with the stack effect normally present, and its a raging inferno of hell.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

23rd January 2010, 06:28 AM	#11
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,700	Originally Posted by vinniem It is a test conducted on a 7 storey building with a wind of 20mph added. It has NOTHING to do with 911 whatsoever. Hmmm, what is that muffled sound I am hearing coming before that locked door? Vinnie's not gonna take it, never did and never will! Say, vinnie, I never got around to welcoming you to the site, you've been here a couple of weeks and already you are a super moderator making value judgments on something you have not read and declaring them irrelevant. You know, you could NOT post on something you don't understand, try it, it is fun!
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,700

23rd January 2010, 06:46 AM	#12
JimBenArm Based on a true story! Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 12,975	But then who would we play with?
	__________________ *"JimBenArm is right"* Hokulele Mom

23rd January 2010, 06:48 AM	#13
vinniem Banned Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 308	Originally Posted by funk de fino Were there no fires in the buildings on 911? Yes there were big fires in 110 storey buildings, 1000 feet in the air, with little or no wind, and the fires were unfought. Perhaps you could explain how that relates to these 20mph wind tests on a 7 storey building on fire with no planes involved.
vinniem Banned Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 308

23rd January 2010, 06:59 AM	#15
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,176	Originally Posted by vinniem Yes there were big fires in 110 storey buildings, 1000 feet in the air, with little or no wind, and the fires were unfought. Perhaps you could explain how that relates to these 20mph wind tests on a 7 storey building on fire with no planes involved. Google "Fire convection currents" for me, and report what you find. PS. It won't be what you think.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

23rd January 2010, 07:00 AM	#16
JimBenArm Based on a true story! Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 12,975	Originally Posted by vinniem Yes there were big fires in 110 storey buildings, 1000 feet in the air, with little or no wind, and the fires were unfought. Perhaps you could explain how that relates to these 20mph wind tests on a 7 storey building on fire with no planes involved. Yes, they needed to build 110 story buildings and crash planes into them, otherwise absolutely nothing learned from this will apply. They also need to build another 110 story building, rig it with explosives, and bring it down so we can do a comparison. Then do it all again using fricken' sharks with lasers. Otherwise, no one will ever know what really happened. And Baby Jeebus will cry. You don't want to make Baby Jeebus cry, do you?
	__________________ *"JimBenArm is right"* Hokulele Mom

23rd January 2010, 07:22 AM	#17
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 11,939	Originally Posted by vinniem Yes there were big fires in 110 storey buildings, 1000 feet in the air, with little or no wind, and the fires were unfought. Perhaps you could explain how that relates to these 20mph wind tests on a 7 storey building on fire with no planes involved. Perhaps you also want to expound on how cancer research involving rats or artificial joint research involving sheep are also inapplicable to medical treatments on people, given that no humans are involved. You should not make foolish statements like that. Modeling in science involves identifying the relevant elements and modeling those instead of obsessing over modeling inapplicable elements. What are the important elements for modeling high-rise fires? To me as a layman, I'd imagine wind speed (if you've never been to the top of the Twin Towers - for the record, I have, back in the 70's - then you may not realize the constant wind that is experienced at that height), pressure, and fuel load. You don't need a 110 story tower to model pressures and wind velocities; fans and proper design can do that for you (engineers and firefighting folks here: Feel free to expand on or correct what I've written if needed). Instead of putting your effort towards taking the opposite stance of "debunkers" at every turn, how about you evaluate evidence and models on their own merits? I'm not any sort of fire researcher or engineer, yet I in 5 seconds was able to come up with a possible application of these studies to the Twin Towers, and NYCEMT86 - who's had firefighter training, BTW - validated it. Start with reality instead of an imperative of negation next time; you might learn something.
	__________________ must take this very carefully....booze is wise men's drink..... -pillory "... I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness" -Prof. Ann Althouse

23rd January 2010, 07:27 AM	#18
JimBenArm Based on a true story! Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 12,975	Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus Perhaps you also want to expound on how cancer research involving rats or artificial joint research involving sheep are also inapplicable to medical treatments on people, given that no humans are involved. You should not make foolish statements like that. Modeling in science involves identifying the relevant elements and modeling those instead of obsessing over modeling inapplicable elements. What are the important elements for modeling high-rise fires? To me as a layman, I'd imagine wind speed (if you've never been to the top of the Twin Towers - for the record, I have, back in the 70's - then you may not realize the constant wind that is experienced at that height), pressure, and fuel load. You don't need a 110 story tower to model pressures and wind velocities; fans and proper design can do that for you (engineers and firefighting folks here: Feel free to expand on or correct what I've written if needed). Instead of putting your effort towards taking the opposite stance of "debunkers" at every turn, how about you evaluate evidence and models on their own merits? I'm not any sort of fire researcher or engineer, yet I in 5 seconds was able to come up with a possible application of these studies to the Twin Towers, and NYCEMT86 - who's had firefighter training, BTW - validated it. Start with reality instead of an imperative of negation next time; you might learn something. Nuh-uh! No way! And you're a big meany head, too!
	__________________ *"JimBenArm is right"* Hokulele Mom

23rd January 2010, 07:31 AM	#19
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 11,939	Originally Posted by JimBenArm Nuh-uh! No way! And you're a big meany head, too! That's pretty spry, Jim; you don't seem so decrepit after all! ...
	__________________ must take this very carefully....booze is wise men's drink..... -pillory "... I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness" -Prof. Ann Althouse

23rd January 2010, 07:35 AM	#20
NYCEMT86 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Slums of Brooklyn Posts: 1,058	Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus ...Snip... You should not make foolish statements like that. Modeling in science involves identifying the relevant elements and modeling those instead of obsessing over modeling inapplicable elements. What are the important elements for modeling high-rise fires? To me as a layman, I'd imagine wind speed (if you've never been to the top of the Twin Towers - for the record, I have, back in the 70's - then you may not realize the constant wind that is experienced at that height), pressure, and fuel load. You don't need a 110 story tower to model pressures and wind velocities; fans and proper design can do that for you (engineers and firefighting folks here: Feel free to expand on or correct what I've written if needed). ...Snip... You explained it well. The one good thing about fire is that you can manipulate it so much that you can achieve the general effect that you want during training or even research.
	__________________ I bringth the Amber lamps "The most beautiful four words in the common language is: I told you so." - Vidal

23rd January 2010, 09:05 AM	#21
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,176	Agreed NYCEMT, He did just fine. ElMondo has explained quite elequently exactly what is wrong with Vinnie's assumptions. We can also do these type scenarios without even building a scale building. We can it it with a single room, and extrapolate with computer simulations, and actually get quite the accurate results.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

23rd January 2010, 09:59 AM	#22
vinniem Banned Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 308	Still waiting for this test to be connected with 911 conspiracies. I know there were buildings on fire on 911 but that is somewhat tenuous. Can I just start some threads about plane crashes and let you guys join the dots?
vinniem Banned Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 308

23rd January 2010, 10:06 AM	#23
Dog Town Space for Rent Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Sunny blue sky, cold water. Posts: 4,462	Originally Posted by vinniem Still waiting for this test to be connected with 911 conspiracies. Reading the explanations provided, by others. Leads one to think, that only a very dense person would state the above , again!
	__________________ "Yes. I often wonder why it is that the nutjobs, who clearly think they're among a tiny handful of people who "get it", are wholly incapable of communicating effectively enough so that other people can understand them and "get it", too." Gee Mack, JREF 5/15/09 Last edited by Dog Town; 23rd January 2010 at 10:07 AM. Reason: reworded

23rd January 2010, 10:07 AM	#24
vinniem Banned Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 308	Originally Posted by Dog Town Reading the explanations provided, by others. Leads one to think, that only a very dense person would ask the above question, again! Ok, I am dense. please spell it out to me.
vinniem Banned Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 308

23rd January 2010, 10:08 AM	#25
Dog Town Space for Rent Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Sunny blue sky, cold water. Posts: 4,462	Originally Posted by vinniem Ok, I am dense. please spell it out to me. Read the thread, for comprehension this time.
	__________________ "Yes. I often wonder why it is that the nutjobs, who clearly think they're among a tiny handful of people who "get it", are wholly incapable of communicating effectively enough so that other people can understand them and "get it", too." Gee Mack, JREF 5/15/09

23rd January 2010, 10:11 AM	#26
vinniem Banned Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 308	Originally Posted by Dog Town Read the thread, for comprehension this time. I have read it. Nobody has linked this to the WTC fires. The WTC fires were unfought, spread over several acres, in little or no wind, what does that have to do with this test? Nothing.
vinniem Banned Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 308

23rd January 2010, 10:13 AM	#27
vinniem Banned Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 308	This test was meant to be an apartment building, nowhere is the wtc mentioned in the reports. What is the connection?
vinniem Banned Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 308

23rd January 2010, 10:20 AM	#28
Algebra34 Banned Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 637	Originally Posted by vinniem This test was meant to be an apartment building, nowhere is the wtc mentioned in the reports. What is the connection? There is none vinniem. It's sort of how they try to keep comparing the WTC to things like toy factories and highway bridge collapses. You see, there is no comparison. None ever in the history of the world.
Algebra34 Banned Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 637

23rd January 2010, 10:20 AM	#29
Sam.I.Am Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Hunting Moose and Squirrel Posts: 4,154	There's dense and then there's neutron star dense...
	__________________ "Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"... About my avatar.

23rd January 2010, 11:03 AM	#30
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 11,939	Originally Posted by vinniem Still waiting for this test to be connected with 911 conspiracies. I know there were buildings on fire on 911 but that is somewhat tenuous. Can I just start some threads about plane crashes and let you guys join the dots? You see, this is your problem: Instead of discussion of relevant issues, you'd rather attack. This is why we're more than justified in lumping you in with all other truthers: You do not care about discovering the knowledge, you'd rather attack the discussion of it. Of course there's no direct link between a study of structure fires and 9/11 conspiracies. These tests do not speak towards hijackings of airplanes or identification of terrorists. What they do do, however, is inform fire and structure researchers how fires progress in certain conditions. It doesn't directly apply to how it affects a structure built like the Twin Towers, but it does speak to the detail of how a fire progresses in windy conditions. It is basic knowledge, which serves as a building block that can be used to evaluate and reevaluate existing research such as the NIST report. Studies like this, like the Cardington Fire Tests, and others are used to build models of fire propogation, and the validity of those models are continually evaluated as time goes on. New research induces new evaluations. That's how knowledge progresses. So, in spite of not having a direct link, how does this relate to 9/11 conspiracies? Well, implicit in the attack on NIST is the critique that their fire models are wrong; how many times do we see conspiracy peddlers claim that the tower fires could not have affected the tower in the way it did on 9/11? Sure, part of that misapprehension is due to the fact that you all find it convenient to ignore impact damage when you people forward that complaint, but a good deal of it comes from the fact that conspiracy fantasists say the NIST report cannot be right. These issues address a specific issue that can be applied to the Twin Towers: Fires and combatting it in windy conditions. It provides more knowledge to add to the existing body, and drives forward that body of knowledge. Eventually, the accumulation of such knowledge may modify what was concluded in the NIST report. It likely won't directly affect it by itself, but that's not the goal or the point: The point is to forward the general field. This is what these reports do. So that's what the relation to the September 11th conspiracies is. Like practical aerodynamics to evaluate the various "bad pilot" claims, and like the somewhat specialized chemistry needed to understand Astaneh-Asl's observations, this is a study that adds to our knowledge of basic fire principles and fire fighting, and provides context necessary to evaluate various claims forwarded by truthers regarding firefighting. No, the studies don't directly address 9/11 or conspiracies. They don't have to in order to be relevant to our interests in this subforum; if you look at his history, NYCEMT86 has made a thread as well as a few posts aimed at giving a general, brief education into firefighting principles. That ends up being background knowledge. This is background knowledge about structure fires and practical firefighting of a wind driven fire. That's the difference between you conspiracy advocates and the rest of us: We are interested in context and knowledge; you all are only interested in pushing a worldview. That's why you don't get how these reports are applicable: They're context and basic knowledge. Something too many of you ignore when you dive into 9/11 history.
	__________________ must take this very carefully....booze is wise men's drink..... -pillory "... I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness" -Prof. Ann Althouse

23rd January 2010, 02:06 PM	#31
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,932	Originally Posted by vinniem Ok, I am dense. please spell it out to me. No need, you just covered it quite well!
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,932	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

23rd January 2010, 03:42 PM	#32
vinniem Banned Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 308	Originally Posted by Algebra34 There is none vinniem. It's sort of how they try to keep comparing the WTC to things like toy factories and highway bridge collapses. You see, there is no comparison. None ever in the history of the world. I thought as much. Yeah the Kader toy factory often gets an airing when they are desperate. Have a search for the thread on the toilet paper factory. It is hysterical.
vinniem Banned Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 308

23rd January 2010, 03:43 PM	#33
Arus808 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,202	nice to see pd.... vinniem play nice with the other deluded truther.
Arus808 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,202	__________________ Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato. “Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.” “Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”

23rd January 2010, 04:04 PM	#34
NYCEMT86 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Slums of Brooklyn Posts: 1,058	Originally Posted by Algebra34 There is none vinniem. It's sort of how they try to keep comparing the WTC to things like toy factories and highway bridge collapses. You see, there is no comparison. None ever in the history of the world. Great strawman. My OP is in no way a comparison. This is the simple process of using applied sciences to the fundamental dynamics of all high rise fires, including the WTC.
	__________________ I bringth the Amber lamps "The most beautiful four words in the common language is: I told you so." - Vidal Last edited by NYCEMT86; 23rd January 2010 at 04:13 PM.

23rd January 2010, 04:44 PM	#35
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,176	Originally Posted by vinniem I thought as much. Yeah the Kader toy factory often gets an airing when they are desperate. Have a search for the thread on the toilet paper factory. It is hysterical. When the TM dolts say stuff like "Normal office fires won't hurt steel" we can show that to be absolutely false. With toilet paper no less. BTW, here is a link for your review. I would LOVE to know what you have to say about it. http://www.fpemag.com/archives/artic...ue_id=27&i=153
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity Last edited by triforcharity; 23rd January 2010 at 04:46 PM.

23rd January 2010, 05:18 PM	#36
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Administrator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 26,221	Originally Posted by NYCEMT86 Back in 2008 the FDNY, Department of Homeland Security, NIST, and a few other major city Fire Departments conducted tests to study the effects of fire under heavy wind conditions. Great post, NYCEMT. Thanks for that. An acquaintance/contact of mine (a FDNY Battalion Chief) was heavily involved in those studies, and sent along video that was taken of the burning of that 7 storey building quite some time ago. I'll try to see if I can find it, as it is quite impressive.