See other 9/11 Articles
Title: "Seven is exploding"
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0
Published: Apr 16, 2007
Author: Canale 5
Post Date: 2007-05-05 10:55:52 by honway
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 1141
Comments: 92
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: honway (#0)
The explosions were clearly audible toward the end of the video...
Those damn Italian KOOKS!! ROTFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
Counterpunch: Dark Fire - The Fall of WTC 7 There were five emergency power systems in WTC 7. Three of them (American Express, OEM, U.S. Secret Service) drew fuel from the other two and larger systems (Salomon Smith Barney, Silverstein Properties). (1c), (8) The emergency power for the building (Silverstein Properties) was provided by two 900 kW generators on the southwest corner of Floor 5. They drew fuel from a 275 gallon tank nearby, and this was replenished by pumps drawing from two 12,000 gallon tanks at ground level under the loading dock, at the southwest corner of the building. The SSB emergency power system used nine 1,725 kW generators on Floor 5: three in the southwest corner, two near the west end of the north face, four at the east end of the north face. Louvers for air intake and exhaust were situated on the building faces near the generators. Because there was already a 275 gallon "day tank" on this floor, the SSB system pumped on demand from their own pair of 6,000 gallon storage tanks, also situated under the loading dock, under the southwestern part of the building. The fuel supplier was contracted to keep the tanks full, and they were full that day. Fuel pipes for all systems except SSB ran up the western side of the core of the building, along elevator shafts. The SSB pipes ran up a shaft through mechanical spaces near the southwest corner of the building. Kindling After 1 p.m. on September 11, 2001, WTC 7 was an evacuated, stricken building. The southwest corner and central third of the south face had been ripped open by the cascading debris from the collapse of WTC 1. Fires burned in sections of Floors 6 through 30 at different times, and they migrated along their floors independently, seeking new sources of fuel. From the street the fires on Floors 11 and 12 appeared most intense. Many fires in the area went unchecked because utility power for electrical pumps, and water pressure for fire engines had either diminished or been lost. This is what happened. A Pumped Oil Spill The debris fall ripping into the southwest corner ruptured the oil pipes of the SSB pressurized fuel distribution system. Operating as intended -- the lack of utility power triggering the "need", and the lack of pressure due to a severed pipe signaling the "demand", the SSB system pumped oil up from its 12,000 gallon basement reservoir, maximally with a pressure of 50 psi (pounds per square inch) and flow rate of 75 gpm (gallons per minute), onto Floor 5. Pumping would have started at 9:59 a.m., when Con Ed cut utility power to WTC 7; and the spilling would have started a half hour later when the pressurized pipe was cut. The SSB pumps could have drained the two 6,000 gallon tanks in 2 hours and 40 minutes. Engineers from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation found that "there was a maximum loss of 12,000 gallons of diesel from two underground storage tanks registered as 7WTC." (10) Additionally, "Both tanks were found to be damaged by debris and empty several months after the collapse. Some fuel contamination was found in the gravel below the tanks and the sand below the slab on which the tanks were mounted, but no contamination was found in the organic marine silt/clay layer underneath." (7) By contrast, 20,000 gallons of oil was recovered from the two 12,000 gallon tanks of Silverstein Properties. (10) Pulled up by the emergency pumps, the SSB diesel fuel went , from the 6,000 gallon storage tanks, under the loading dock, under the southwestern part of the building, to floor 5. It may all have been pumped out by 1 p.m., or it may have been pumped out at a rate as low as 29 gpm for 7 hours. Since this fuel was absent from the wreckage, it was burned. You can see it as the huge plume of black smoke rising from the World Trade Center, in panoramic photographs of that day. Diesel fuel can supply 2.13 MW of power per gpm given an air supply of 1333 cfm (cubic feet per minute). (11) Thus, a diesel fuel gusher of 75 gpm burning with excess air would produce 160 MW of heat; a total energy of 1536 GJ for the 12,000 gallons. This energy is equivalent to that released by an explosion of 367 tons of TNT. If the pumping rate is lower, or the air supply is throttled, then the burning would occur at a lower rate. Since the louver system along Floor 5 was designed to supply each of the nine SSB engines with 80,000 cfm, it seems likely that a fuel oil fire there would find sufficient air for combustion. For a discussion of heat at 9/11, and energy units, CounterPunchers will soon be able to have my study, "the Thermodynamics of 9/11", to be published shortly on the CounterPunch website as part of our final package on the actual physics and engineering realities of the collapse of the WTC buildings.
"...how do we know they haven't been lying about all the rest, as well?" Indeed.
Official fairy talers are fond of posting quotes like that. It sure makes that deisel fuel seem like a powerful exposive, doesn't it? What always gets left out is flame speed. Flame speed for TNT is somewhere around 20,000 feet per second. In other words it releases it's energy quickly and with a much higher velocity. I bet a good rain shower unleashes as much energy as a few hundred tons of TNT too, but normally rain does not take down buildings.
That would work out as a fine explanation, but the SW corner was not damaged very much. The gouge out of the corner that NIST portrays in their report is not a gouge at all, but smoke obscuring the corner. The SW corner actually only suffered superficial damage.
Flame speed or no flame speed, a concrete and steel bridge in Oakland was melted by 8,000 gallons of gasoline, and then collapsed, by 8,600 gallons of burning gasoline, which has less BTU's per pound than diesel fuel. So the statement that "No steel structure has ever collapsed due to fire" is unequivocally untrue.
You wouldn't need a big gouge. All you'd need is a piece of debris puncturing a pressurized fuel line, which was designed to provide emergency power without external electricity. So....What did happen to the 12,000 gallons of diesel fuel, which was not found at the site. And where did all the black smoke come from during the hours preceding the collapse if not from the 12,000 gallons of diesel fuel?
Congratulations on getting your "Enemies" site up so quickly. I'm impressed.
LMAO! Oh no, not a steel bridge falling! 8000 gallons of gasoline working on ONE beam, which did not melt, it sagged. If you're going to compare the bridge to WTC 7 then I have no use for you any more. Run along.
It *sagged?* That was quite some *sag*, I must say.
Thanks, but it was not very difficult. It's made from Joomla, an off the shelf, free CMS, with a couple of free plug in components.
"Witnesses reported flames rising up to 200 feet into the air. Heat exceeded 2,750 degrees and caused the steel beams holding up the interchange from eastbound I-80 to eastbound Interstate 580 above to buckle and bolts holding the structure together to melt, leading to the collapse, California Department of Transportation director Will Kempton said. Bottom line, a concrete and steel structure collapsed solely due to fire.
Look, you're either too stupid or too disingenuous to warrant further response from me, if you believe there is some comparison between 7 and this bridge. 7 was a complete and total collapse. If this bridge were a comparable case, the entire section would have had to have fallen and taken out the roadway below. Did it? No. So Bye! You get the honor of being my very first bozo.
The video starts out with the statement that "No steel structure has ever collapsed due to fire." Now you're coming out with "You can't compare a steel bridge with a steel building." You're not good enough to be my #1, you'll be my third.
From: http://sky-fire.tv/index.cgi/thunderstorms.html When you see comparisons between the energy of the deisel or jet fuel and the energy of TNT, ask youself why thunderstorms don't take out entire cities every day.
And of course they always completely ignore the fact the WTC each has a plane fly into them.
"Be convinced that to be happy means to be free and that to be free means to be brave. Therefore do not take lightly the perils of war." -- Thucydides
The problem with your theory is the diesel fuel tanks were underground below the loading dock and on the ground floor. No fires were reported in these locations. No fires were reported on floor 5 --------------------------------------- http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf Fires were reported on floors 6,7,8,10,11, and 19.
Thanks for the additional information. Since there were no fires in WTC 7 on floor five or below, we can rule out the farfetched claim that diesel fuel pumps were supplying fuel to fires from a tank located below the loading dock.
The fires shown here are on the 11th floor of WTC 7. Suggesting on a public forum that fuel lines that stopped at the 5th floor were feeding this fire and the fires above it makes one an "accessory after the fact" in my view.
The tanks were below. However the generators they supplied were on the 5th floor. Therefore pressurized fuel lines were necessary. Furthermore the 5th floor had "louvers" to insure an adequate supply of air to the generators. Since these systems are designed to start automatically when power fails, the pumps started the minute the building's elecricity went off. The pressurized fuel fed the fires along the path(s) of the fuel lines wherever they were ruptured.
You are missing an essential point. The fuel lines your post identified stopped at floor five. There were no fires on floor five or below. The fires were all above where the fuel lines stopped. Therefore, the fuel lines that stopped on floor five did not supply the fires.
If you actually believe this nonsense you are posting, then you should have no problem finding a photo of a fire at WTC 7 on or below floor five. The problem is there are no such photos because there were no fires on floor 5 or below.
What's so special about floors 1-5 that there were fires elsewhere but not on those floors? And if I do show there were fires on those floors are you going to admit you've been rebutted, or are you going to come up with some other explanation that they weren't important?
LOL I tried, but I can't bring myself to have anyone on bozo.
If the fuel lines stopped at the 5th floor, how did they feed fires on the 6th floor and above?
"Heat, from any source and at any temperature, turns steel into wet noodles." - Destro's Theorem
If you provide a photograph of a fire at WTC 7 on any of the floors 1 thru 5 I will acknowledge that if the diesel fuel pumps were running they could have fueled fires on floors 1 thru 5. If you find the FEMA Performance Study was accurate and you cannot find a photo of a fire on floors 1 thru 5, will you acknowledge a fuel line that stopped at floor five,where the generator was located, could not fuel a fire on the floors above floor 5?
In your post, the fuel supply system you described stopped at the generator. The generator was on floor 5. The fuel lines described in your reply did not extend above floor five.
This video is complete deceptive ... so it epitomizes the *truth* movement. First, it claims "no steel structure had ever collapsed before due to fire". That is complete false. Why do honway and critter think we have fire codes that require special protection of steel structural members in steel buildings in the first place? Then it shows videoclips of the WTC 7 collapse that are deceptive. They are deceptive because the videos begin more than 7 seconds after the collapse actually began. You see, the east penthouse mechanical room, on the same side of the building as the diesel tank, suddenly sank into the structure more than 7 seconds before the rest of the building collapsed. Here it is: --------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
That is correct. And also, if there were no fires below Floor 6 then this theory is not viable. So it should be fairly easy to prove or disprove this hypothesis. If it can be demonstrated there were no fires below Floor 6, I will not put forth any further argument. However, I'm fairly certain that there were fires everywhere both above and below Floor 5. So I will do some checking and get back to you.
Perhaps you are focusing too much on the 5th floor and below as the initiation point for the collapse. There are papers (such as http://wtc.nist.gov/media/ScheuermanStatementDec2006.pdf ) that look into the failure and conclude that the failure could have begun well above that (particularly on the 12th floor) and simply spread from there. Remember, Chief Hayden is quoted saying "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." Here is a first responder with WTC7 in the background during an interview. --------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
You are correct, Critter, and this is also the explanation for the difference between what AGA, in ignorance (I assume), is claiming here, and what happened to the bridge in Oakland. Gasoline burns very, very fast; it is nearly explosive in its burning, and because of the rate at which it burns, it creates a lot more quick heat. Diesel fuel has a lot more power as a fuel because it does burn slower, and thus creates a more sustained ''push'' inside of an engine, whereas gasoline burns much faster, akin to an explosion inside of each cylinder on each stroke. Trying to compare what diesel fuel does to what gasoline does is really, really ignorant.
The Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
Another self-taught scientist weighs in. The Oakland overpass did not collapse because of "flame speed." The overpass collapsed because it got heated so much that the bolts supporting the structure melted, the steel beam(s) buckled, and the structure collapsed. And heat is measured in *BTU's*, which means that a gallon of diesel fuel or kerosene produces more heat than a gallon of gasoline.
No shit, O BRILLANT ONE? Of course, because of flame speed, that heat is released over a much, much longer period of time, leading to an overall much, much lower tempature..... but what do I know....... Oh, that´s right! I do know! I have worked a lot of construction, generally, as the BOSS, if you understand the word. Many, many times, we used diesel fuel in five gal. cans, with the tops cut out, to mark opem holes or piles of dirt esp. during work shiffs at night. Probably, you have seen simialar things, if you simply think about it. And it is really amazing.... the TIN cans NEVER ONCE melted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And, we would use cut off 55 gal. drums, with diesel fuel and several pieces of rebar (which is made of SOFT steel) PLACED OVER THEM to melt tar (HELD IN A 5 GAL. BUCKET WHICH ALSO NEVER MELTED!) to repair or caulk sewer pipes with-------NEVER ONCE HAD A 55 GAL. DRUM MELT!!! AND, USED THEM FOR HOURS AND HOURS! AND DAYS AND DAYS!!!!!!!!!!!! Now, I understand how ignorance is an excuse for many things, but what you are talking about goes way, way beyond ignorance and borders on stupidity, but hey, what do I know.....
The Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
Like I said, another self-taught scientist. Now you want to claim that kerosene and diesel fuel take "much, much longer" to burn than gasoline. Are you vaguely aware that jet aircraft go Mach 2 using fuels similar to kerosene even though by your "reasoning" their engines would take "much, much, longer" to burn their fuel, and hence generate less thrust and speed, than if they used av gas (which nobody uses for high performance jets)? And the afterburners of those jet aircraft using fuels similar to kerosene reach temperatures of 3,000 degrees which again by your "reasoning" would be "an overall much, much" lower temperature than what you claim av gas would produce? That explains a lot I worked in construction a summer after I got out of college until I went on to better things. Now I do my own because I've seen first hand the work put out by people who do it for a living. I'm sure that your "much much higher temperature" gasoline never has melted a 55 gallon drum either. But nevertheless, a gasoline fire did "melt" a fairly large section of a concrete and steel bridge. And I have no doubt that a kerosene or diesel fuel fire under similar conditions would do the same thing Your point being? Last but not least, do some research on how hot oil well fires get- which burn totally undistilled crude which by your "resoning" should burn even at lower temperatures than kerosene or diesel - before you make any more uneducated utterances about hydrocarbon combustion.
So it should be fairly easy to prove or disprove this hypothesis. If it can be demonstrated there were no fires below Floor 6, I will not put forth any further argument. While it is not proof of the absence of fires not seen, NIST reported as follows: NIST PRELIMINARY REPORT L.2.2 Observed Fire Locations Photographs and videos were used to determine fire locations and movement within WTC 7. Most of the available information is for the north and east faces of WTC 7. Information about fires in other areas of the building was obtained from interviews, and is summarized as follows: From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.: PAGE L-22 ============================ http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf NIST RESPONSE TO THE WORLD TRADE CENTER DISASTER PART IIC - WTC-7 COLLAPSE April 5, 2005 ------------- Observed Fire Locations (11:30-2:30 pm) General Looking from southwest corner to the south face Looking from southeast corner to the south face [1] fires reported on floor 14, but photographs showed east face fires on floor Page 21 ===================== Observed Fires East Face Fires on Floors 11-12 near 2 PM Fires in WTC 7 -- which began soon after WTC 1 collapsed -- were observed on Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle about half an hour before collapse; Floor 12 was burned out by this time. Fires were also seen on Floors 12, 13, 22, 29, and 30 at various times during the day. Page 22 =====================
http://killtown.911review.org/wtc7/arch ive/nist_wtc7.html
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
Fire in SW corner near floors 10 or 11 I believe the south face gash is where Manuel Garcia, who came up with this theory of the collapse, believes the smoke from the burning diesel fuel was exiting the building.
The theroy being considered is the claim the diesel fuel in storage tanks under the loading dock was pumped up through fuel lines and fed the fires. The fuel lines in question stopped at the generator on floor five.Hence, these fuel lines did not fuel fires above floor 5.
Comments (41 - 92) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: honway (#0)
#3. To: (#0)
(Edited)
#4. To: honway (#0)
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#5. To: AGAviator (#3)
This energy is equivalent to that released by an explosion of 367 tons of TNT.
Enemies of the Republic
#6. To: AGAviator (#3)
The debris fall ripping into the southwest corner ruptured the oil pipes of the SSB pressurized fuel distribution system.
Enemies of the Republic
#7. To: (#5)
(Edited)
#8. To: Critter, Destro, YertleTurtle (#6)
That would work out as a fine explanation, but the SW corner was not damaged very much. The gouge out of the corner that NIST portrays in their report is not a gouge at all, but smoke obscuring the corner.
#9. To: Critter (#6)
#10. To: AGAviator (#7)
Enemies of the Republic
#11. To: Critter (#10)
8000 gallons of gasoline working on ONE beam, which did not melt, it sagged.
#12. To: lodwick (#9)
I'm impressed.
Enemies of the Republic
#13. To: Critter (#10)
ONE beam, which did not melt, it sagged
So the bolts melted.
#14. To: AGAviator (#13)
Enemies of the Republic
#15. To: Critter (#14)
if you believe there is some comparison between 7 and this bridge.
You get the honor of being my very first bozo
#16. To: All (#5)
I bet a good rain shower unleashes as much energy as a few hundred tons of TNT too, but normally rain does not take down buildings.
How much energy does a thunderstorm release?
The energy in even a modest thundercloud can be impressive. The first atomic bomb was detonated in the desert near Alamagordo, NM on 16 July 1945. Though the energy released was awesome, it was several times less than that generated by the almost daily thunderstorms which dot the New Mexico mountains on a typical summer day.
Enemies of the Republic
#17. To: AGAviator (#15)
"No steel structure has ever collapsed due to fire."
#18. To: AGAviator (#3)
Pulled up by the emergency pumps, the SSB diesel fuel went , from the 6,000 gallon storage tanks, under the loading dock, under the southwestern part of the building, to floor 5.
#19. To: (#3)
(Edited)
Pulled up by the emergency pumps, the SSB diesel fuel went , from the 6,000 gallon storage tanks, under the loading dock, under the southwestern part of the building, to floor 5.
#20. To: All, AGAviator, *9-11* (#19)
#21. To: honway (#18)
#22. To: AGAviator (#21)
Since these systems are designed to start automatically when power fails, the pumps started the minute the building's elecricity went off. The pressurized fuel fed the fires along the path(s) of the fuel lines wherever they were ruptured.
#23. To: AGAviator (#21)
#24. To: honway (#23)
#25. To: AGAviator (#15)
You're not good enough to be my #1, you'll be my third.
Enemies of the Republic
#26. To: AGAviator (#24)
What's so special about floors 1-5 that there were fires elsewhere but not on those floors?
Enemies of the Republic
#27. To: Critter (#26)
#28. To: AGAviator (#24)
And if I do show there were fires on those floors are you going to admit you've been rebutted, or are you going to come up with some other explanation that they weren't important?
#29. To: AGAviator (#24)
What's so special about floors 1-5 that there were fires elsewhere but not on those floors?
#30. To: honway, AGAviator, honway, critter, ALL (#0)
#31. To: honway (#29)
The fuel lines described in your reply did not extend above floor five.
#32. To: AGAviator, honway, ALL (#31)
#33. To: Critter, AGAviator (#5)
What always gets left out is flame speed.
#34. To: richard9151 (#33)
#35. To: AGAviator, Critter (#34)
And heat is measured in *BTU's*, which means that a gallon of diesel fuel or kerosene produces more heat than a gallon of gasoline.
#36. To: richard9151, Destro, YertleTurtle (#35)
(Edited)
Because of flame speed, that heat is released over a much, much longer period of time, leading to an overall much, much lower tempature
Oh, that´s right! I do know! I have worked a lot of construction, generally, as the BOSS, if you understand the word
NEVER ONCE HAD A 55 GAL. DRUM MELT!!!
#37. To: AGAviator, honway (#31)
That is correct. And also, if there were no fires below Floor 6 then this theory is not viable.
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf
#38. To: nolu_chan (#37)
#39. To: nolu_chan (#37)
Looking from southwest corner to the south face
Fire on floors 6, 7, 8, 21, 30
Multiple fires observed on floors numbered 20’s and 30’s
Heavy black smoke coming out of south face gash; no fire observed
#40. To: BeAChooser (#32)
Perhaps you are focusing too much on the 5th floor and below as the initiation point for the collapse. There are papers (such as http://wtc.nist.gov/media/ScheuermanStatementDec2006.pdf ) that look into the failure and conclude that the failure could have begun well above that (particularly on the 12th floor) and simply spread from there.
.
.
.