Idiots. All of them.

I saw this op/ed written by some fool named James “I spout randomly about that which I have no idea” Quintiere.

It seems that in this man’s immense comprehension of building construction and fire safety, that he is convinced that only jet fuel can burn, and that regular materials can’t burn hot enough to melt metal. Hate to break it to you kids, but most skyscrapers have what’s called a four hour fire rating. The buildings are designed to supress paper and or furniture fires, not JP4 explosions. The four hour rating means that something will not become structurally unsound until after four hours of exposure to a certain, generally accepted (and certified by Underwriter’s Labratories) standard. So these things should be able to resist a 767 hit, which didn’t even exist on paper at the time of construction? Oh yeah. Buildings are invincible!

Wrong. Not only did the jet fuel and physical collision more or less obliterate four hours of fire coating on the steel, they brought the overall heat of the inside of those spaces so high that the fire control systems were either completely ineffective or destroyed.

He continues to moan about how WTC7 wasn’t hit by a plane but still collapsed. Okay, hello, two hundred acres of concrete just cascaded down to the ground level and structurally damaged everything around them. hence bye-bye tower seven.

And this comment:

“The site teams at the towers were focused on rescue, retrieval and cleanup, not investigation.”

Okay, let’s put your wife in there somewhere and you complain about them being focused on rescue. Prick.

It’s even more disturbing to find out this man is the Professor of Fire Protection Engineering College Park (U of M). Good thing I didn’t go to their Architecture school.

This is typical of what I’ve come to expect of America in the post 9.11 era. People using the event to foward their own agendas. I saw a sign on the beltway a few days ago:

“36,000 kids died of starvation on 9.11. Just like they do everyday.” or soemthing equivalent. It reminds me of the stupid British boy band kid who said “who cares abotu 9.11, I want to talk about the animals” as he went off on a tirade about animal rights when asked about how he felt about September 11th. He was appropriately bitch slapped by his record label and “band” mates.

Why are stupid people breeding? Can we put a stop to this? PLEASE!?

Bang. Head. On. Wall. Repeat. Ad. Nauseum.

  1. .sara says:

    <a href="" rel="nofollow">why didn't the automatic sprinklers in the WTC put out the fire?</a>

    and sure, those buildings were spec'd to withstand the impact of a full-sized commercial plane, but <i>not</i> a 767, loaded with 24k gallons of jet fuel moving at full speed.

    investigation into why the buildings collapsed? he has to be joking. you could probably convince me that research and testing needs to be done to see about reinforcing existing sky scrapers and building stronger ones in the future, but why these, even those that weren't hit w/ the planes collapsed? it's not that difficult to figure out.

    in fact, i remember listening to NPR that day and they interviewed one of the engineers from the WTC project. <i>he</i> was shocked the buildings held up as long as they did!

    what a blowhard.

  2. Chad says:

    Any sort of man-made collapse that registers as a 6.1 on the Richter Scale (at the surface, not miles below in the crust) *will* bring down adjacent buildings.

    The 1994 Northridge earthquake in southern California was a 6.7. The scale's logarithmic, but you get the idea.

  3. cs says:

    While true that the jet fuel played less of a role in the destruction of the towers than the <a href="" rel="nofollow">domino</a> <a href="" rel="nofollow">effect</a>, I find it odd that Mr. Quintiere (whoo seems like a fairly well-read dude) fails to really point the finger - that article is less about "why the towers fell" and more about "the funding of the investigation". The non-commital diatiabe continues: if the feds aren't doing anything, and the state isn't doing anything. . .then WHO IS!? Someone's giving orders in the cleanup and collection of evidence . . .

    Also, he says in the beginning <blockquote>&quot;THE JET fuel fires in the World Trade Center towers did not bring down those two buildings.&quot;</blockquote> but then concludes with: <blockquote>&quot;High-rise buildings are required to survive the impact of a modern commercial aircraft. Why shouldn't that include survival from the fire that would erupt? Building codes require that the structural elements of high-rise building withstand a three-hour test in a furnace. Why did the buildings collapse in less time? Was this terrorist attack an isolated event that had no bearing on high-rise vulnerability or on the consequences of fire in general?&quot;</blockquote> What is this guy trying to say!?!

    Weird. All you have to do is <a href="" rel="nofollow">read his creds</a> to see where his sympathies lie and understand this convoluted op-ed.

  4. .sara says:

    and let me tell you something about the earthquake, chad: for all the damage it did coming from <i>beneath</i> the earth's crust over a relatively large land area, i can't even begin to imagine the way it felt to have all of that energy surging through lower manhattan that day.

  5. Anang says:

    There is a company in Alaska that the gtemheroal hot water wasn't hot anought to make steam so they used ammonia it makes steam at a much lower tem. in a closed system & bio degradable

Post a comment

Name or OpenID (required)

(lesstile enabled - surround code blocks with ---)