Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
07-09-2011, 13:01   #31
Di0genes
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by weisses View Post
Ohh that dangerous office furniture
Hang on a second, you claimed you were a fireman?

http://www.ukfiretraining.com/inp/view2.asp?ID=39

Quote:
These items include;
* armchairs,
* upholstered benches and stools,
* beds and bedding where there is sleeping accommodation,
* wardrobes and dressing tables,
* dining chairs and tables,
* curtains, drapes and cushions,
* artificial foliage, trees, shrubs and flowers,
* desks and office furnishings,
* carpets
Quote:
1(b) Combustible materials
All of the combustible materials in, or forming part of, the premises should be identified and their hazard assessed. Some, such as wallpaper on the walls, should cause little concern, but others, especially those that may be easily ignited, may require action to be taken to eliminate, control or avoid the hazard.
Items to be considered include;
(i) Materials that form part of the business operations
* large quantities of paper, including files, folders and contents of waste bins,
* many plastic materials, especially foamed plastics,
* packaging materials,
* fabrics and clothing,
* timber, hardboard, chipboard and similar products,
* chemicals which may be combustible or react with other chemicals to produce heat,
* display and exhibition materials,

Large numbers of videos or computer tapes have been found to be a particular hazard and purpose-designed storage for these items should be provided.
Quote:
This fire test conducted by Factory Mutual Engineering and Research (FME&R) not long ago stands the notion that office areas are low-risk occupancies on its head. Combustible contents and interior finishes are numerous within office environments, and possible sources of ignition abound. In fact, according to an FME&R study of 490 office building fires, the average loss was $260,000.
Beyond statistics, the past 10 years, a decade which has seen some of the most catastrophic high-rise fires in history, have presented some compelling evidence of the fire hazards inherent in the average office environment.
On February 23, 1991, a 12-alarm fire burned out of control for 19 hours, killing three fire fighters and gutting eight floors of One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia (See page 265, Disaster Recovery World, or Vol. 4 No. 2, Disaster Recovery Journal ).
On May 4, 1988, a blaze killed one person and destroyed four floors of the 62-story First Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles. Sixty-four fire companies battled the fire for three-and-one-half hours before bringing it under control (See page 258, Disaster Recovery World, or Vol. 1 No. 4, Disaster Recovery Journal ).
In Atlanta, the June 30, 1989, Peachtree 25th Building fire killed five people, injured 20 others, and heavily damaged the floor on which the blaze originated.
All too often it has taken spectacular events like these to prompt local governments to adopt stricter building codes or for companies to recognize the necessity of fire protection equipment and procedures.
Prevention of loss from such office fires is really quite simple. Tests conducted at FME&R’s full-scale fire testing center in West Glocester, RI, and the statistics on commercial fires clearly demonstrate that properly installed and well maintained automatic sprinkler systems and other basic protection equipment can virtually eliminate the chance of significant losses.
However, fire prevention is more than a matter of installing hardware. Obviously, the surest way to safeguard against fire losses is to assure that fires don’t start in the first place. Companies should make it a priority to develop an employee-driven, five-part Property Conservation plan and to take steps to eliminate hazards.
http://www.drj.com/drworld/content/w2_089.htm

Anyone who has taken even a cursory fire safetly course in their workplace can point out how seriously combustable the objects around our desks are, and wouldn't be making jokes about it.

Your smilies stretch your credibility as a self proclaimed firefighter.
Di0genes is offline  
Advertisement
07-09-2011, 13:21   #32
weisses
Registered User
 
weisses's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dingle
Posts: 1,612
I meant it in the way that it brought down that skyscraper jaysus

You make it sound like i am assuming you could walk around in a office on fire for 20 mins and walk out eating a magnum ice cream don't be pathetic
weisses is online now  
07-09-2011, 13:27   #33
Di0genes
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by weisses View Post
I meant it in the way that it brought down that skyscraper jaysus

You make it sound like i am assuming you could walk around in a office on fire for 20 mins and walk out eating a magnum ice cream don't be pathetic
You said "Oooh Dangerous Office Furniture " The sarcastic tone of your post suggested you didn't really think a office fire would be dangerous. Or am I wrong?

Just because you're having trouble making yourself understood its not my fault.

And plenty of skyscrapers and large buildings have been destroyed or partially destroyed by office fires alone.

The Windsor Building in Madrid, The McCormick Center in Chicago, One Meridian Plaza,
http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

Either way you're flat out wrong saying "Dangerous office furniture " and deserved to be corrected.

What with you being a fireman and all...

Last edited by Di0genes; 07-09-2011 at 13:29.
Di0genes is offline  
07-09-2011, 13:54   #34
weisses
Registered User
 
weisses's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dingle
Posts: 1,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Di0genes View Post
You said "Oooh Dangerous Office Furniture " The sarcastic tone of your post suggested you didn't really think a office fire would be dangerous. Or am I wrong?

Just because you're having trouble making yourself understood its not my fault.

And plenty of skyscrapers and large buildings have been destroyed or partially destroyed by office fires alone.

The Windsor Building in Madrid, The McCormick Center in Chicago, One Meridian Plaza,
http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm




Either way you're flat out wrong saying "Dangerous office furniture " and deserved to be corrected.

What with you being a fireman and all...

Okay just say it again OOOHHHH THAATT DANGEROUS OFFICE FURNITURE in the context of levelling a 47 story skyscraper in seconds

as i was trying to explain in the post at 12:17

You need to read things first ... then maybe you can understand the crap you post yourself ...

And the only one in here getting corrected is you with warnings and a ban ...
weisses is online now  
07-09-2011, 14:01   #35
WhatNowForUs?
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 484
Quote:
Originally Posted by weisses View Post
Okay just say it again OOOHHHH THAATT DANGEROUS OFFICE FURNITURE in the context of levelling a 47 story skyscraper in seconds

as i was trying to explain in the post at 12:17

You need to read things first ... then maybe you can understand the crap you post yourself ...

And the only one in here getting corrected is you with warnings and a ban ...
I thought the fire lasted for hours?
WhatNowForUs? is offline  
Advertisement
07-09-2011, 14:09   #36
Penn
NIPPLE SALADS!
 
Penn's Avatar
Allow me to pour some water on this office fire and tell everyone to calm it down.
Penn is online now  
07-09-2011, 14:12   #37
Di0genes
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by weisses View Post
Okay just say it again OOOHHHH THAATT DANGEROUS OFFICE FURNITURE in the context of levelling a 47 story skyscraper in seconds
But you just wrote "ooooh dangerous office furniture",



Quote:
You need to read things first ... then maybe you can understand the crap you post yourself ...
Where exactly have I posted crap?


Quote:
And the only one in here getting corrected is you with warnings and a ban ...
Telling people not to be pathetic, or a drama queen is a surefire way to earn yourself a ban.
Di0genes is offline  
07-09-2011, 14:36   #38
weisses
Registered User
 
weisses's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dingle
Posts: 1,612
I just put him on the ignore list .... Just not worth getting banned
weisses is online now  
Thanks from:
07-09-2011, 16:01   #39
King Mob
Registered User
 
King Mob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,910
Weisses any chance you'll address my question about the blatant dishonest editing of the footage?

Quote:
Okay just say it again OOOHHHH THAATT DANGEROUS OFFICE FURNITURE in the context of levelling a 47 story skyscraper in seconds
But it didn't level it in seconds, the building was burning uncontrolled for hours. Why do you keep saying is was seconds?
Why couldn't office furniture cause long lasting, hot fires?

Any comment on the video detailing the actual way the building collapsed?
King Mob is offline  
Advertisement
07-09-2011, 16:48   #40
weisses
Registered User
 
weisses's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dingle
Posts: 1,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Mob View Post
Weisses any chance you'll address my question about the blatant dishonest editing of the footage?


But it didn't level it in seconds, the building was burning uncontrolled for hours. Why do you keep saying is was seconds?
Why couldn't office furniture cause long lasting, hot fires?

Any comment on the video detailing the actual way the building collapsed?
if you mean the penthouse videos i agree its left out in a lot of videos not the one op posted though

I hope you didn't think that i meant from the moment the fires started untill the building collapsed was seconds ??

Even with the penthouse going down first i still cant believe al 43 collums collapsed exactly at the same time .... Due to office fires...... The moments i highligted in op video explains my point as well

About the video explaining the collapse ?? Dont know tbh i will check if i can find other experts talking about that.

Is it true that what was said in the video about withholding parts of the report for the public ?
weisses is online now  
07-09-2011, 16:57   #41
King Mob
Registered User
 
King Mob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,910
Quote:
Originally Posted by weisses View Post
if you mean the penthouse videos i agree its left out in a lot of videos not the one op posted though
It's only shown once in the video in the op.
It's not shown at all in the video you posted.
Now why is this section of the collapse being left out?

Why have I had to ask this question so many times for it to be even acknowledged let alone answered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by weisses View Post
I hope you didn't think that i meant from the moment the fires started untill the building collapsed was seconds ??
Yes, if you don't mean that you should stop saying that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by weisses View Post
Even with the penthouse going down first i still cant believe al 43 collums collapsed exactly at the same time .... Due to office fires...... The moments i highligted in op video explains my point as well
They didn't. No one says they did and if you watch the unedit footage conspiracy theorists are trying to hide, you can see this isn't the case.
Some columns failed which causes the east penthouse to fall and puts more weigh on other columns which in turn fail.
Then as the internal structure is collapsing the outer shell falls around it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by weisses View Post
About the video explaining the collapse ?? Dont know tbh i will check if i can find other experts talking about that.
Why do you need experts to form your own opinion now all of a sudden?

I'm specifically asking you about the simulation of the collapse.
Is that a reasonable explanation or not?
Is the explanation the same as the strawman you are trying to pretend is the official explanation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by weisses View Post
Is it true that what was said in the video about withholding parts of the report for the public ?
Where does it say that exactly?
King Mob is offline  
07-09-2011, 17:24   #42
weisses
Registered User
 
weisses's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dingle
Posts: 1,612
I said before that i was more interested in the lack of damage on the north side ... you are obsessed with that whole penthouse conspiracy thing

The building came down in 14 seconds ... inc penthouse the fires are not relevant to me in context with wtc 7 collapsing thats why i said an will keep saying it came down in seconds

Okay nice simulation looks good

Im just not agreeing with the official office fire implosion thats all don't portrait me as yet another ct nut please

Were discussing similair topics in different threads ... Typing on my android half the time do maybe points get overlooked etc

Just keep breathing man
weisses is online now  
07-09-2011, 22:31   #43
King Mob
Registered User
 
King Mob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,910
Quote:
Originally Posted by weisses View Post
I said before that i was more interested in the lack of damage on the north side ... you are obsessed with that whole penthouse conspiracy thing
I'm not obessed with it, I'm just trying to get someone who "doubts the official story" to actually address this fact. No one seems to want to for some reason.
So again, because you still haven't answered the question: why does the video you posted not show the total collapse?

Quote:
Originally Posted by weisses View Post
The building came down in 14 seconds ... inc penthouse the fires are not relevant to me in context with wtc 7 collapsing thats why i said an will keep saying it came down in seconds
Great but you understand saying "It caught fire and after several hours collapsed in seconds" looks the same as saying it caught fire and collapsed in seconds.

So then you disagree with the "experts" in the op's video who say that the building fell in 7 seconds.
Why do they claim this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by weisses View Post
Okay nice simulation looks good
So then you understand that the offical story has nothing in common with the straw man you originally presented, that all of the supports suddenly collapsed at the same time?
Can you point out what is impossible about the simulation?
Can you show were it's in conflict with the facts?

Quote:
Originally Posted by weisses View Post
Im just not agreeing with the official office fire implosion thats all don't portrait me as yet another ct nut please
But your disagreement comes from you only seeing what conspiracy theorists are showing you.
When you first started posting on this thread you hadn't seen the actual start of the collapse because that footage is rarely shown by conspiracy theorists.
And the reason for you doubt, that there should have been a section that collapses before the rest of the building, is shown in this section conspiracy theorists are trying to keep from you.

So now that you've been shown what you claimed to expect in an uncontrolled collapse, what reason do you have to actually doubt the official story?
King Mob is offline  
07-09-2011, 23:56   #44
enfant terrible
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by weisses View Post
Building was damaged? yes

Parts of building collapsing? could easly happen

Total building collapsing the way it did no way
It was badly damaged it had just been hit by a falling 110 story sky scraper.

It had a hole in it which firefighters described as about a third the size of the building.

Other firefighters described the whole corner of the building being missing.

enfant terrible is offline  
Thanks from:
08-09-2011, 00:48   #45
weisses
Registered User
 
weisses's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dingle
Posts: 1,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Mob View Post
I'm not obessed with it, I'm just trying to get someone who "doubts the official story" to actually address this fact. No one seems to want to for some reason.
So again, because you still haven't answered the question: why does the video you posted not show the total collapse?


Great but you understand saying "It caught fire and after several hours collapsed in seconds" looks the same as saying it caught fire and collapsed in seconds.

So then you disagree with the "experts" in the op's video who say that the building fell in 7 seconds.
Why do they claim this?


So then you understand that the offical story has nothing in common with the straw man you originally presented, that all of the supports suddenly collapsed at the same time?
Can you point out what is impossible about the simulation?
Can you show were it's in conflict with the facts?


But your disagreement comes from you only seeing what conspiracy theorists are showing you.
When you first started posting on this thread you hadn't seen the actual start of the collapse because that footage is rarely shown by conspiracy theorists.
And the reason for you doubt, that there should have been a section that collapses before the rest of the building, is shown in this section conspiracy theorists are trying to keep from you.

So now that you've been shown what you claimed to expect in an uncontrolled collapse, what reason do you have to actually doubt the official story?
I would ask that question to the one who made that video if i were you

For that collapse thing ask the experts in the video why they say this ..they make that claim not me

tbh simulations are simulations .... they probably had simulations somewhere before they build the towers and look wat happend
weisses is online now  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search