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: 1149
Comments: 92
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-14) not displayed.
.
.
.
#15. To: Critter (#14)
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.
# No signs of fire or smoke were reported below the 6th Floor from the exterior, stairwells or lobby areas Thanks for the information in your reply.
No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby The theory purports that diesel fuel was being pumped out of a compromised fuel line from about the time that WTC-1 fell. The lack of any observed smell of diesel fuel argues against there being thousands of gallons of diesel sloshing around on the floor to ignite hours later. Having warned the Port Authority in 1998 and 1999 about the diesel tank, the FDNY was clearly aware of its existence and danger. December 20, 2001 Fire Department officials warned the city and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1998 and 1999 that a giant diesel fuel tank for the mayor's $13 million command bunker in 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high-rise that burned and collapsed on Sept. 11, posed a hazard and was not consistent with city fire codes. The 6,000-gallon tank was positioned about 15 feet above the ground floor and near several lobby elevators and was meant to fuel generators that would supply electricity to the 23rd-floor bunker in the event of a power failure. Although the city made some design changes to address the concerns -- moving a fuel pipe that would have run from the tank up an elevator shaft, for example -- it left the tank in place. But the Fire Department repeatedly warned that a tank in that position could spread fumes throughout the building if it leaked, or, if it caught fire, could produce what one Fire Department memorandum called "disaster." Putting a tank underground typically protects it from falling debris, and impedes leaks or tank fires from spreading throughout the building. Engineering experts have spent three months trying to determine why 7 World Trade Center, part of the downtown complex that included the 110-story towers, collapsed about seven hours after being damaged and set on fire by debris from the damaged landmark buildings. Some of the experts, who said that no major skyscraper had ever collapsed simply because of fire damage, have recently been examining whether the diesel tanks -- there were others beneath ground level -- played an important role in the building's stunning demise. The Port Authority, which owns the land on which the building stood and issued the building permit for the tank and its fireproof enclosure, said yesterday that it believed the structure had in fact met the terms of the city's fire code. Though the tank was on a tall fireproof pedestal, it was still effectively on the lowest floor of the building, as the code requires, said Frank Lombardi, the Port Authority's chief engineer. The authority also worked with Fire Department officials to eliminate the department's original objections, Mr. Lombardi said. "We made sure that it was in agreement with the code," Mr. Lombardi said, adding that the tank was placed in an eight-inch-thick masonry enclosure. A spokesman for the Fire Department said yesterday that he could not authoritatively say whether all the concerns of its officials had been addressed by the Port Authority. But when reached yesterday, the department official who wrote several of the warning memorandums said he regarded the Port Authority's interpretation of the code to be "a stretch." The official, Battalion Chief William P. Blaich, said he still considered the tank's placement to have been unsafe. The Port Authority has long held that, as a matter of law, it does not have to abide by city fire codes. But after the 1993 bombing of the towers, the Port Authority signed a memorandum of understanding with the city pledging to not only meet the city's fire codes, but also to often take additional precautions. A spokesman for the city's office of emergency management, Francis E. McCarton, said the city accepted the Port Authority's determination that the tank and its placement were properly safe. He said it was essential that the mayor's command center have a backup energy source and placing it on ground floor was unacceptable because the area was deemed to be susceptible to floods. "We put it in the area where we needed to put it," Mr. McCarton said. Any suggestion that the tank's position was a factor in the collapse of the building was ''pure speculation,'' he said. He added that the tank had fire extinguishers and was surrounded by the thick, fire-resistant containment system, and that the fiery collapse of the towers could never have been anticipated in the city's planning. No one is believed to have died in the collapse of 7 World Trade Center. But its collapse did further complicate the rescue and recovery efforts under way at the scene. The engineering and fire experts who have been examining the collapse of 7 World Trade Center have not settled on the final cause of the disaster. But they have seen evidence of very high temperatures typical of fuel fires in the debris from the building and have raised questions about whether the diesel accounted for those conditions. At least two firefighters who were at the scene, Deputy Chief James Jackson and Battalion Chief Blaich, said that the southwest corner of the building near the fuel tank was severely damaged, possibly by falling debris, and that the tank might have been breached. Mr. Jackson said that about an hour before the building's collapse, heavy black smoke, consistent with a fuel fire of some sort, was coming from that part of the building. The Port Authority said it was unlikely the heavy masonry surrounding the tank could have been breached, and its officials have raised the possibility that the two diesel tanks buried just below the ground floor of the building might have contributed to the fire. They have also asserted that structural damage from falling debris is a more likely culprit in the collapse. Several fire experts said that, whatever the questions surrounding the city's code, installing giant fuel tanks above the occupied spaces of a building posed serious risks.
I do not have to be a scientist to understand basic facts, O BRILLANT ONE. Now you want to claim that kerosene and diesel fuel take "much, much longer" to burn than gasoline. All things are in relationships; for instance, if gas burns in one second, and kerosene in two seconds, tnen kerosene burns half as fast, thus shows a slower flame speed and a slower release of heat. This is why kerosene/diesel fuel is also much safer to haul; oh, by the way, had about 80 over the road trucks including tankers. And that brings up the point, HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF A DIESEL/KEROSENE LOADED TANKER EXPLODING? Inquiring minds want to know, because I never have....... Are you vaguely aware that jet aircraft go Mach 2 using fuels similar to kerosene ¿No shit? REALLY!? Of course, here you are comparing apples to organges, as you seem to really, really, really, really, really like to do, as if all of us are stupid, right? Have you ever looked at a break down of a jet engine, and the methodology used to reach those tempatures and thrust? Because if you have not, I have, and IF they used AV gas, they would have more slightly more thrust, but much, much higher tempatures, such that the life of the engines would be severly curtailed. IF IF IF they could build an engine, at any price, that could stand the tempatures. Simply put, AV gas DOES NOT fit the technology of jet engines; never has and never will. I'm sure that your "much much higher temperature" gasoline never has melted a 55 gallon drum either. Damned if I know, because no one I know has ever been stupid enough to pour gasoline into an open drum and drop a match into it. Doesn`t mean it has not happened, but whoever did it, if they lived to tell of it, certainly never spoke of it to anyone! gasoline fire did "melt" a fairly large section of a concrete and steel bridge. First off, concrete does not melt. It will crack and scale, if enough heat is applied, but it don't melt. Second, the bridge sagged, but the steel did not melt either. That is what happens to steel when it gets hot; it sags, esp. when it is loaded with weight. By the way, concrete is heavy, so the bridge was carrying a lot of weight, and that is what caused the sag as the steel lost its tensile strenght. You need to consider something; just because some ignorant so-called newsreporter said something about a bridge melting, does not make it fact. The pictures I saw of the bridge certainly had steel sagging down, but I saw no puddles of steel below the bridge... but hey, maybe you know something I do not! Ummmmmmmmm, probably not...... 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 - And once again, apples and what, pears(?), this time! Is this another example of ignorance, or just plain stupidity? Undistilled crude is EXTREMELY dangerous because it is FULL of many, many different chemicals, including natural gas. And what is in the undistilled crude varies widely from oil field to oil field, but in nearly all cases, except in some cases of very heavy crude, it is flammable with only a spark. In fact, oil field fires have been set off with dropped tools sparking on a steel deck, and with static electricity. So I would suggest that you look for other types of info, or, read a few books, before you continue to lecture me.
The Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
I wish I lived in a world where diesel does not catch fire and steel becomes stronger with fire not weaker. I am so pissed off that we have all had to pay the scam for diesel fuel fire warning stickers and the biggest scam of all - fireproofing steel beams in buildings when now we know thanks to the scholarship of these 9/11 truthers steel is not affected by fire heat - even heat from burning jet fuel or diesel fires. That is millions of dollars wasted on needless fireproofing and warning labels. That is the real scam - the fireproofing and flammable warning label industry.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Paper burns 10 times faster than wood or coal. Which one would you heat your house with, the one with the "faster flame speed," or the one that takes longer to get going, but releases more energy once it does? You're confusing volatility, energy, temperature, and heat. The issue at hand is what fuels can generate enough heat to melt steel. Gasoline, crude oil, and kerosene all have that ability under the right conditions. And all of them can generate temperatures in the high 2,000's Farenheit. LMAO. Why don't they use av gas on the space shuttle instead of aluminum and a perchlorate oxidizer, for "more thrust" then? Gasoline does not generate any higher temperatures than other hydrocarbons. It simply vaporizes and ignites at a lower temperature. Care to explain why diesel engines are heavier than gasoline engines, then? The diesel fuel should burn cooler and generate less heat, according to your theory. So why's all that cast iron necessary when many automobile engines can get by with aluminum almost everywhere except the combustion chambers? I put "melt" in quotes. The gasoline generated enough heat to cause a structural collapse of a metal and concrete bridge. The fire generated enough heat to melt certain critical components and cause a collapse of a steel and concrete structure. Again you're confusing volatility with heat with temperature. Since crude oil is denser than gasoline, someone using your theories would expect the mixture to burn at lower temperatures than gasoline. However the fact is crude oil fires burn just as hot if not hotter. That's because it has the denser hydrocarbons which really heat things up once the more volatile lo- temperature burning components get the other things to their [higher] ignition temperatures. I'd suggest you look at how hot a gas fire, a kerosene fire, and a crude oil fire burn - AND - how much energy for a given quantity each releases.
http://stopthelie.com/freeway_collapse.html FREEWAY COLLAPSE I can already hear defenders of the official account screaming "See, fire can cause a steel structure to collapse-the bridge collapsed!" Comparing the circumstances surrounding the fire and subsequent partial collapse of this bridge to the circumstances surrounding the fires and subsequent complete collapse of the towers and WTC 7 is flawed from end to end. This fact should be obvious to most people; but let's point out a few things just in case they weren't already noticed. So to quickly recap: -Ending with a paragraph from The 1-hour Guide to 9/11.
1. All "un-offical" accounts of WTC 7 have - up to this time - begun with the statement "No steel structure has ever collapsed due to fire." This statement is now demonstrably untrue, so they're modifying their statement. "But...but...but...it was a freeway bridge! But...but...but...it weakened a load-bearing truss! [Professor Thomas Eagar, do you hear them saying that trusses can be heated to the point of failure? LMAO!]" Doesn't matter. It was a steel structure, and it collapsed due to fire. Fires can generate enough heat to cause steel to structurally fail. The claim that they cannot are at the core of all "un-official" 911 accounts. 2. Building 7 had "louvers" designed to insure adequate air supply to the emergency power generators. Therefore air supply to the fires is not an issue. All fires in Building 7 had plenty of air.
* * * This is what happened. A Pumped Oil Spill From your Counterpunch article, the one you "forgot" to provide a link for: November 28, 2006 By MANUEL GARCIA, Jr. * * * This article is a visualization of what probably happened. Only gods and the dead have certainty; we, the living, have rationality and courage to guide us through the puzzles and the perils of life. When technical accuracy might otherwise require an author to mire his work in a morass of qualifiers, he may choose to preface his work by stating a general qualifier that attaches to the entirety of what follows, the sum and each individual part. In this case, extracting a quote without providing the qualifying preface generates the classic quote out of context. The author, Manuel Garcia, Jr., qualified his article as being only his "visualization of what probably happened," in his opinion. He explicitly stated that he lacked certainty regarding what happened. The source used to "support" your claim to certainty in what happened admits he is uncertain and his entire article was only speaking of his perceived "probability." Where he says, as you quoted, "This is what happened," it is in the context solely of his perception of probability. Quoting from where the qualifier appears to where AGAviator started quoting, including the first paragraph quoted by AGAviator: WTC 7: By The Numbers WTC 7 was a 176 m (576 ft) tall, 47 story building with a trapezoidal cross section (about): 99 m (325 ft) along the north face, 76 m (249 ft) along the south face, 45 m (148 ft) north-south width, and 47 m (153 ft) along the east and west sides, (4). WTC 7 was about 107 m (350 ft) north of WTC 1, across Vesey Street. A number of engineering reports have been written about the collapse of WTC 7, because of its uniqueness. A consistent story emerges through the mass of detail. The basic model of the WTC 7 collapse was stated in the earliest report, by FEMA (1c), and increasingly amplified upon by subsequent investigators at NIST -- the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a federal agency within the U.S. Commerce Department's Technology Administration. See footnotes (5), (6), (7) and (8). WTC 7 was built in 1987 over an existing Consolidated Edison electrical substation. The Con Ed substation was three stories high, and took up the northern half of the footprint of WTC 7. The 1967 construction of the substation accounted for the eventuality of a building above it, and a much larger and stronger foundation was built. Also, a series of columns rose through the area of the substation, for future use. The design of WTC 7 was larger than anticipated by the provisions of 1967, so additional foundation columns were sunk. Also, the placement of columns in WTC 7 above Floor 7 did not match all the tops of columns connected to bedrock and waiting to be used. Thus, a series of trusses were designed to transfer the vertical loads above Floor 7 and redistribute them laterally to match the waiting columns below Floor 4. This transition used triangular assemblies of structural steel joined into a framework spanning two stories, Floors 5 & 6. Part of the transition structure included a Floor 5 made of 11 inches of reinforced concrete on top of a 3 inch 18 gage composite metal deck (supported on I beams); Floor 6 was 3 inches of concrete on a 3 inch 20 gage metal deck; the northern half of Floor 7 was 5 inches of reinforced concrete on a 3 inch 18 gage metal deck, and the southern half of Floor 7 was 8 inches of concrete with two layers of reinforcement (no metal deck). Floors 8 and up (except 21, 22, 23) had 2.5 inches of concrete over 3 inch 20 gage metal decks. These metal decks were sheets of metal with corrugations (metal thickness listed by gage number). The combination of three massive floors and interconnected triangular supports made the framework of Floor 5 to Floor 7 a diaphragm locking WTC 7 together laterally, core columns and walls (encasing elevator shafts and stairwells) to perimeter columns. The construction of WTC 7 above Floor 7 was similar to that of the WTC Towers (9). The irregular framing between Floors 5 and 7 made for less desirable tenant space, but it was well protected by the robust construction, an ideal location for the building's machinery and the emergency power systems. Machine Space and Emergency Power Systems Only machinery resided on Floors 5 and 6. Floor 6 had two large cut-outs, one along the east side, another in the southwest corner, to allow for two-story mechanical spaces. A set of louvers spanned the height of Floors 5 and 6 along the eastern face of the building. Table 1 lists the equipment that resided on Floors 5 through 9 (ground level is floor 0). Table 1, Machinery on Floors 5 to 9, WTC 7 Floor Items 9 1 generator (1 tank) for (tenant) U. S. Secret Service 8 1 generator (1 tank) for (tenant) American Express 7 3 generators (1 tank) for the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management 6 switchgear, storage 5 11 generators (1 tank), switchgear, transformers. The "tank" noted in the table would be a 275 gallon diesel fuel tank, the maximum size allowed on any given floor by the NYC Building Code. 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)
This argument is demonstrably untrue. A New York Times article of November 29, 2001, stated, "experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire...." That some people have failed to retain the correct terminology, "modern, steel-reinforced high-rise," does not suddenly apply an inartful comment to "all unofficial accounts." This argument is demonstrably irrelevant. No steel frame building similar to the WTC towers had ever collapsed due to fire. Regarding the bridge, the assertion is that steel bolts were compromised, not massive steel beams. The FEMA Report stated there was relatively light structural damage prior to the collapse of WTC-7. Lead NIST investigator Shyam Sunder stated, "Our working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time." A working hypothesis cannot magically transform itself into a declarative statement of "this is what happened." The NIST Report states, "Floor 5 -- which did not have any exterior windows and contained the only pressurized fuel distribution system on the south, west and north floor areas -- is considered a possible fire initiation location, subject to further data and/or analysis that improve knowledge of fire conditions in this area." The NIST Report states, "This finding allows for the possibility, though not conclusively, that the fuel may have contributed to a fire on Floor 5." New York Times Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center November 29, 2001 By JAMES GLANZ Almost lost in the chaos of the collapse of the World Trade Center is a mystery that under normal circumstances would probably have captured the attention of the city and the world. That mystery is the collapse of a nearby 47-story, two-million-square-foot building seven hours after flaming debris from the towers rained down on it, igniting what became an out-of-control fire. Engineers and other experts, who quickly came to understand how hurtling airplanes and burning jet fuel had helped bring down the main towers, were for weeks still stunned by what had happened to 7 World Trade Center. That building had housed, among other things, the mayor's emergency command bunker. It tumbled to its knees shortly after 5:20 on the ugly evening of Sept. 11. The building had suffered mightily from the fire that raged in it, and it had been wounded by the flying beams falling off the towers. But experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire, and engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country. As engineers and scientists struggle to explain the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, they have begun considering whether a type of fuel that was inside the building all along created intensely hot fires like those in the towers: diesel fuel, thousands of gallons of it, intended to run electricity generators in a power failure. One tank holding 6,000 gallons of fuel was in the building to provide power to the command bunker on the 23rd floor. Another set of four tanks holding as much as 36,000 gallons were just below ground on the building's southwest side for generators that served some of the other tenants. Engineers and other experts have already uncovered evidence at the collapse site suggesting that some type of fuel played a significant role in the building's demise, but they expect to spend months piecing together the picture of what remains a disturbing puzzle. "Even though Building 7 didn't get much attention in the media immediately, within the structural engineering community, it's considered to be much more important to understand," said William F. Baker, a partner in charge of structural engineering at the architectural firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. "They say, `We know what happened at 1 and 2, but why did 7 come down?' " Engineers said that here and across the country, diesel-powered generators are used in buildings like hospitals and trading houses, where avoiding power outages is crucial. Partly for that reason, Jonathan Barnett said, a definitive answer to the question of what happened in 7 World Trade Center is perhaps the most important question facing investigators. "It's just like when you investigate a plane crash," said Dr. Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute. "If we find a weakness in the building or a deficiency in the building that causes that collapse, we then want to find that weakness in other buildings and fix it." In many ways, 7 World Trade Center, built and owned by Silverstein Properties, was structurally similar to its towering cousins across Vesey Street to the south. The weight of the building was supported by a relatively tight cluster of steel columns around the center of each floor and a palisade of columns around the outside, in the building's facade. Sprayed on the steel, almost like imitation snow in holiday decorations, was a layer of fireproofing material, generally less than an inch thick. Although the fireproofing was intended to withstand ordinary fires for at least two hours, experts said buildings the size of 7 World Trade Center that are treated with such coatings have never collapsed in a fire of any duration. Most of three other buildings in the complex, 4, 5 and 6 World Trade, stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire. Still, experts concede, in a hellish day, 7 World Trade might have sustained structural injuries never envisioned in fire codes. That day began with flaming pieces of steel and aluminum and, horribly, human bodies raining around the building. With the collapse of both towers by 10:30 a.m., larger pieces of the twin towers had smashed parts of 7 World Trade and set whole clusters of floors ablaze. An hour later, the Fire Department was forced to abandon its last efforts to save the building as it burned like a giant torch. It fell in the late afternoon, hampering rescue efforts and hurling its beams into the ground like red-hot spears. Within the building, the diesel tanks were surrounded by fireproofed enclosures. But some experts said that like the jet fuel in the twin towers, the diesel fuel could have played a role in the collapse of 7 World Trade. "If the enclosures were damaged, then yes, this would be enough fuel to explain why the building collapsed," Dr. Barnett said. Dr. Barnett and Mr. Baker are part of an assessment team organized by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to examine the performance of several buildings during the attacks. If further studies of the debris confirm the findings of extremely high temperature, Dr. Barnett said, "the smoking gun would be the fuel." Others experts agreed that the diesel fuel could have speeded the collapse, but said the building might have met the same fate simply because of how long it burned. "The fuel absolutely could be a factor," said Silvian Marcus, executive vice president for the Cantor Seinuk Group and a structural engineer involved in the original design of the building, which was completed in 1987. But he added, "The tanks may have accelerated the collapse, but did not cause the collapse." Because of those doubts, engineers hold open the possibility that the collapse had other explanations, like damage caused by falling debris or another source of heat. The fuel tanks were not the only highly flammable materials in the building. But while some engineers have speculated that a high-pressure gas main ruptured and caught fire, there was none in the area, said David Davidowitz, vice president of gas engineering at Consolidated Edison. The building was served only by a four-inch, low-pressure line for the building's cafeteria, Mr. Davidowitz said. The mayor's command bunker, built in 1998, included electrical generators on the seventh floor, where there was a small fuel tank, said Jerome M. Hauer, director of the mayor's Office of Emergency Management from 1996 to 2000. That tank was fed by a tank containing thousands of gallons of diesel fuel on a lower floor, he said. Francis E. McCarton, a spokesman for the emergency management office, confirmed that assessment. "We did have a diesel tank in the facility," he said. "Yes, it was used for our generating system." The manager of the building when it collapsed, Walter Weems, said the larger tank sat on a steel-and-concrete pedestal on the second floor and held 6,000 gallons of diesel fuel. He said an even larger cache, four tanks containing a total of 36,000 gallons of diesel fuel, sat just below ground level in the loading dock near the southwest corner of the building. "I'm sure that with enough heat it would have burned," Mr. Hauer said of the diesel. "The question is whether the collapse caused the tank to rupture, or whether the material hitting the building caused the tank to rupture and enhance the fire." Falling debris also caused major structural damage to the building, which soon began burning on multiple floors, said Francis X. Gribbon, a spokesman for the Fire Department. By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons. A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said. "Any structure anywhere in the world, if you put it in these conditions, it will not stand," Mr. Marcus said. "The buildings are not designed to be a torch."
This is an intellecually honest statement. Nobody knows with complete certainty what caused the collapse of WTC7. However I'd have to say it's more "probable" that a diesel fuel fire weakened the structure to the point of collapse, than the structure was blown up with explosives because Silverstein said "pull." You replied: I was discussing the conspiracy theory accounts of the WTC collapses, not what the MSM says. Are you claiming that the New York Times supports the "un- official" stories of the "controlled demolition" of WTC7? Last but not least, if you really, truly, absolutely can't give up your notion that WTC7 collapsed because Silverstein said pull, that does not completely rule out the collapse due to diesel fuel fires weakening the structure. All you have to do is allege that "they" placed some of their explosives along the pressurized fuel lines, which started some fires that burned out of control, and everybody walks away happy. But you have to say *probably.* LOL.
This statement is now demonstrably untrue, so they're modifying their statement. Go away shill. One beam collapsed, not the entire structure. Notice it landed on top of another section of the structure which still stands? Duh! But you know all this. You pretend to be stupid but in reality, you are just shilling for the Official Fairy Tale. Go chase yourself.
This is an intellecually honest statement. Nobody knows with complete certainty what caused the collapse of WTC7. Yes, the author of the piece was being intellectual honest by including his qualifying statement. You were being intellectually DIShonest by omitting a link and the qualifying statement. You are still being intellectually DIShonest. He did not qualify his article by saying he did not have "complete certainty," he said his "article is a visualization of what probably happened." However I'd have to say it's more "probable" that a diesel fuel fire weakened the structure to the point of collapse, than the structure was blown up with explosives because Silverstein said "pull." Even in the absence of evidence, you are entitled to your unsupported opinion. I was discussing the conspiracy theory accounts of the WTC collapses, not what the MSM says. What you -said- was, "All 'un-offical' accounts of WTC 7 have - up to this time - begun with the statement 'No steel structure has ever collapsed due to fire.'" What you said was in response to someone posting a subtitled report from Italian television which is MSM. In any context you care to put it, your statement is untrue. "The impossible happens - a first in the 100-year history of steel-frame towers. 'The South Tower collapsed...." [9/11 revealed, Rowland Morgan and Ian Henshall, p. 88] "However, as Hoffman points out, this suggestion was deceptive, because there are 'no examples of total progressive collapse of steel-framed buildings outside of [the alleged cases of] 9/11/01.'" [Debunking 9/11 Debunking, David Ray Griffin, p.164] Most unofficial accounts refer to steel-framed buildings. As for your BAC-like wordsmithing, ALL the sources were discussing buildings and not bridges. Are you claiming that the New York Times supports the "un- official" stories of the "controlled demolition" of WTC7? No. Are you claiming that a NYT article is not "'un-offical' accounts of WTC 7" which is the phrasing you employed? Last but not least, if you really, truly, absolutely can't give up your notion that WTC7 collapsed because Silverstein said pull, that does not completely rule out the collapse due to diesel fuel fires weakening the structure. Last but not least, I did not make any of the claims you attribute to me. I have said I have found no theory, the government theory or any other theory, completely persuasive. There is insufficient evidence available to state with certainty precisely what happened. All you have to do is allege that "they" placed some of their explosives along the pressurized fuel lines, which started some fires that burned out of control, and everybody walks away happy. All you have to do is make up some bullshit that I did not say, argue against it, and walk away happy. But you have to say *probably.* Probably. You have to take a source that says "probably" and assert that you walked down from a mountain with the text inscribed on stone tablets. LOL
Silverstein said "Pull" "Pull" my finger!
I put a link on my earlier comments, numbnuts. It was your post #3 on this thread. You had no earlier comments on this thread, numbnuts. And you are going to allege you have *complete certainty* that Silverstein said "Pull," which therefore means explosive charges were detonated? I have *absolute certainty* to a degree of metaphysical certitude that Silverstein said "Pull." To be more precise, Silverstein said, "pull it." "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/silverstein_pullit.html In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: "... we're getting ready to pull building six." ... "We had to be very careful about how we demolished building six. WTC-6 BEING PULLED "' ... maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." What do you think Silverstein meant when he said, "maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it?" I have more evidence than you do. And you would post it but then you would have to kill everyone on the net. Imagination is not evidence. The conspiracy theories all have said - up to this point - that fires don't get hot enough to melt steel and that no steel structures have collapsed due to fire. This is, of course, bullshit. Fires can get hot enough to melt steel. What is questioned is whether any particular fire in the WTC on 9/11 could have gotten hot enough to severely weaken or melt steel. The NIST report stated that the jet fuel burned up in about 15 minutes. What remained was oxygen starved fires burning whatever combustibles were available. Neither before nor since has any steel frame hi-rise office building had its steel frame demolished by fire. The government conspiracy theory is just another conspiracy theory. If this was not a conspiracy then one person had to do it all. All 9/11 theories, of necessity, are conspiracy theories, just as are all theories about the Lincoln assassination. This is not a question of whether a conspiracy theory applies, but which one applies. Also, in the Italian broadcast it appears that the broadcaster uses the word edificio which is building. It appears that the subtitle is responsible for the imprecise language and the broadcast, in Italian, is terminologically correct. Buildings and bridges are both load-bearing structures, Bubba. If a fire can bring down a bridge it can bring down a building. Impeccable logic. The frame of a mobile home is a load bearing structure. If a fire can bring down a mobile home, it can therefore bring down a steel-frame hi-rise office building. Have another Billy Beer, Bubba. I have said I have found no theory, the government theory or any other theory, completely persuasive. There is insufficient evidence available to state with certainty precisely what happened. Then you can't rule out the possiblity of pressurized fuel lines feeding fires that structurally weakened the building to the point of collapse. I cannot rule out a death ray from Mars, but there is about as much evidence for that as for your nonsense. If your pressurized fuel line sprayed fuel all over the floor on the 5th floor, it either ignited quickly or it formed a lake and flowed around a 40,000 sq ft area and down any stairs or elevators it could find. The NIST report says that no diesel odor was detected between 11:30 am and 2:30 pm. It would have been hard to miss. If your pressurized fuel line sprayed fuel all over the floor on the 5th floor, and it ignited quickly, all that diesel fuel was burning on the 5th floor for hours and hours undetected. Assuming the fire burned hot enough and long enough to cause the failure of immense structural steel beams, it is questionable why the fire did not burn hot enough and intense enough to burn through either an exterior wall, a floor or a ceiling and become visible as a raging inferno. It seems it must go through the steel beams without going through walls, floors or ceilings. Assuming fires on the other floors hot enough and intense enough to cause the failure of immense structural steel beams must also assume a fire which did not even break the windows. It must also assume that the fire burned for hours and hours, destroying the massive steel beams without destroying the line which is pumping the fuel into the room. And, of course, the pump continued to pump. "Pull" my finger! It is not available until you stop pulling your pud. What Really Happened sums up the pressurized fuel theory as follows. In evaluating the potential that a fire fed by fuel oil caused the collapse, it is necessary to determine whether the following events occurred: Although there is no physical evidence available, this hypothesis assumes that it is possible that both the inner and outer pipes were severed, presumably by debris from the collapse of WTC 1. Depending on ventilation sources for air, this is sufficient to flashover the space along the north wall of this floor. The temperature of the fire gases would be governed to a large extent by the availability of air for combustion. The hot gases generated would be blocked from impacting Trusses 1 and 2 by the masonry wall separating the generation area from the mechanical equipment room, assuming that this wall was still intact after collapse of the tower and there were no other significant penetrations of walls. The air required for combustion of 75-gpm (160 MW potential) diesel fuel is approximately 100,000 cubic feet per minute (cfm). If less air is available for combustion, the burning rate will decrease proportionally. As the engine generator sets come on line, automatic louvers open and 80,000 cfm are provided for each of the nine SSB engines. A portion is used as combustion air for the drive engines; the rest is for cooling, but could supply air to an accidental fire. Given open louvers and other sources for entry of air, it is, therefore, probable that a fuel oil spill fire would have found sufficient air for combustion. For this to happen, the fire must have propagated either fuel or hot gases to the members in the truss in the mechanical equipment room. If the double door to the mechanical equipment room was either open or fell from its frame at some point, or if the door was undercut, the spilled fuel oil might have flowed into the mechanical equipment room, enveloping truss members in the main (hottest) portion of the flame. Such a situation could produce an exposure possibly exceeding that in the standard furnace test producing localized heat fluxes approaching the 200 kW/m2 used by Underwriters Laboratories to simulate a hydrocarbon pool fire, with exposure temperatures in the range of 1,200 degrees Centigrade (2,200 degrees Fahrenheit). If such intense exposure existed, the steel would be weakened more rapidly than normally expected. If the door was of superior construction (as with a fire door), it is unlikely that the fire would have reached the trusses in the mechanical equipment room until such time that the door failed. So we have been presented with the following absurd story: =======================
http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1795 The originators of the video: "Seven is exploding" "Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." ~George Washington
Comments (56 - 92) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestif 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.
#41. To: nolu_chan (#37)
# No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby areas
#42. To: AGAviator, honway (#39)
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.
Link
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRADE CENTER;
City Had Been Warned of Fuel Tank at 7 World Trade Center
By JAMES GLANZ AND ERIC LIPTON
#43. To: AGAviator, Critter, Destro, YertleTurtle (#36)
Because of flame speed,
#44. To: richard9151, AGAviator, Critter, YertleTurtle (#43)
Undistilled crude is EXTREMELY dangerous because it is FULL of many, many different chemicals, including natural gas. And what is in the undistilled crude varies widely from oil field to oil field,
#45. To: richard9151, Destro (#43)
(Edited)
All things are in relationships; for instance, if gas burns in one second, and kerosene in two seconds, tnen kerosene burns half as fast, thus shows a slower flame speed and a slower release of heat.
And that brings up the point, HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF A DIESEL/KEROSENE LOADED TANKER EXPLODING? Inquiring minds want to know, because I never have.......
IF they used AV gas, they would have more slightly more thrust, but much, much higher tempatures, such that the life of the engines would be severly curtailed.
IF IF IF they could build an engine, at any price, that could stand the tempatures.
First off, concrete does not melt. It will crack and scale, if enough heat is applied, but it don't melt.
You need to consider something; just because some ignorant so- called newsreporter said something about a bridge melting, does not make it fact. The pictures I saw of the bridge certainly had steel sagging down, but I saw no puddles of steel below the bridge... but hey, maybe you know something I do not!
Undistilled crude is EXTREMELY dangerous because it is FULL of many, many different chemicals, including natural gas. And what is in the undistilled crude varies widely from oil field to oil field, but in nearly all cases, except in some cases of very heavy crude, it is flammable with only a spark.
So I would suggest that you look for other types of info, or, read a few books, before you continue to lecture me.
#46. To: richard9151, AGAviator, Critter, Destro, YertleTurtle (#43)
For the record, few in the scientific community doubt that it's theoretically possible for a building to experience failure if it is subjected to devastating heat for a sufficient period of time. And additional factors like no fire-proofing, no sprinkler systems, insufficient steel to "bleed off" heat or inferior construction greatly increase the possibility. However, what is "doubted" (or more accurately; considered downright impossible) is that such a failure would resemble anything like what was witnessed on 9/11. -Gradual, isolated, asymmetrical failures spread out over time; perhaps -simultaneous disintegration of all load bearing columns (leaving a pile of neatly folded rubble a few stories high) -no way.
#47. To: nolu_chan (#46)
(Edited)
1. This was an open air environment where flames were able to reach their absolute maximum temperature; white-hot and shooting upwards of 200 feet in the air.
#48. To: AGAviator, richard9151, Critter, YertleTurtle, honway, Kamala (#3)
Counterpunch: Dark Fire - The Fall of WTC 7 http://www.counterpunch.org/darkfire11282006.html
The Fall of WTC 7
Dark Fire
WTC 7 was mortally wounded. In 5 hours and 21 minutes, it would collapse. This article is a visualization of what probably happened. Only gods and the dead have certainty; we, the living, have rationality and courage to guide us through the puzzles and the perils of life.
#49. To: AGAviator (#47)
1. All "un-offical" accounts of WTC 7 have - up to this time - begun with the statement "No steel structure has ever collapsed due to fire."
Link
#50. To: nolu_chan, Destro, YertleTurtle (#49)
The source used to "support" your claim to certainty in what happened admits he is uncertain and his entire article was only speaking of his perceived "probability
This article is a visualization of what probably happened. Only gods and the dead have certainty; we, the living, have rationality and courage to guide us through the puzzles and the perils of life
This argument is demonstrably untrue. A New York Times article of November 29, 2001, stated, "experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire...."
I said All "un-offical" accounts of WTC 7 have - up to this time - begun with the statement "No steel structure has ever collapsed due to fire."
This argument is demonstrably untrue. A New York Times article of November 29, 2001, stated, "experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high- rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire...."
#51. To: AGAviator (#47)
1. All "un-offical" accounts of WTC 7 have - up to this time - begun with the statement "No steel structure has ever collapsed due to fire."
Enemies of the Republic
#52. To: AGAviator (#50)
#53. To: nolu_chan (#52)
You were being intellectually DIShonest by omitting a link and the qualifying statement.
I put a link on my earlier comments, numbnuts. You are still being intellectually DIShonest. He did not qualify his article by saying he did not have "complete certainty," he said his "article is a visualization of what probably happened."
And you are going to allege you have *complete certainty* that Silverstein said "Pull," which therefore means explosive charges were detonated? Even in the absence of evidence, you are entitled to your unsupported opinion.
I have more evidence than you do. What you -said- was, "All 'un-offical' accounts of WTC 7 have - up to this time - begun with the statement 'No steel structure has ever collapsed due to fire.'"
What you said was in response to someone posting a subtitled report from Italian television which is MSM.
Then your quoting it and the NYT are irrelevant to my point. The conspiracy theories all have said - up to this point - that fires don't get hot enough to melt steel and that no steel structures have collapsed due to fire. They've also pooh-pooed Dr. Thomas Eager's contention that load-bearing trusses were weakened by fires in the Twin Towers. Most unofficial accounts refer to steel-framed buildings. As for your BAC- like wordsmithing, ALL the sources were discussing buildings and not bridges.
Buildings and bridges are both load-bearing structures, Bubba. If a fire can bring down a bridge it can bring down a building. I have said I have found no theory, the government theory or any other theory, completely persuasive. There is insufficient evidence available to state with certainty precisely what happened.
Then you can't rule out the possiblity of pressurized fuel lines feeding fires that structurally weakened the building to the point of collapse. Hey Beavis!
#54. To: AGAviator (#53)
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/pullIt3.wmv
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc6_pull.wmv 
"... we're getting ready to pull building six."
The intent was to put a line around the buildings, hook it up to the pickup truck of a visiting redneck, and pull the buildings up to midtown. It was a most unfortunate happenstance that each building collapsed in a heap in a manner not unlike a controlled demolition shortly after the decision "to pull it" was made and before the building could be pulled up to midtown where it would have been safe. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema_report.html
#55. To: honway, *9-11* (#0)
Welcome to all foreign readers. Luogocomune is a news commentary site (all in Italian, thus far) featuring a large, separate section on 9/11. In a way, the whole website revolves around the idea that unless that paramount, unacceptable lie called "the 9/11 terrorist attacks" is removed and put into right perspective, the downward spiral towards this new "dark age" of humanity will never stop.
To us "9/11 victims" are not only the 3,000 people that perished on that day, but also some 650,000 civilians killed in Iraq since the invasion began, 100,000 plus Afghans who've met the same fate in their country, more than 3,000 US soldiers sent by "Dick & Rummy" to die under false pretense, and --sadly but truly -- the ever increasing number of first responders who were knowingly sent to their death by an administration that could be defined "criminal" for this one action alone.
It's for them all that we fight.
°°°
Now for some interesting news we wish to share with anyone interested in 9/11 worldwide.
On April 16, 2007, a major Italian network (Canale 5) has aired some conclusive evidence that Building 7 did not collapse on its own, but was deliberately taken down with the use of explosives.
The piece was part of a larger presentation we provided to the network as an update on the ongoing research on 9/11. In particular, we included a clip we had all seen many times before, but possibly never listened to with the full attention it deserved. Here is the 6 min. segment (please ignore yellow subtitles):
[More videos inside]. Yes, we all saw that last clip more than once, but each time we must have stopped at the powerful evidence the blast itself represents, while disregarding the ensuing exchange, which in our opinion represents the final nail in the coffin of the official version on WTC7. Without even the need to discuss Larry's intentionally ambiguous "pull it" statement.
Our presentation was broadcast as a rebuttal to a bunch of accusations leveled on the same channel ...
... by a group of Italian debunkers against the movie "Inganno Globale" (produced by this writer/website), which is possibly the "flagship" for 9/11 Italian truth seekers, being somehow the equivalent to any other major 9/11 movie in English available on the web.
For those who are interested, this is the entire, 42 min. presentation that was aired on Apr. 16th by Italian Canale 5, divided in the following 5 segments:
1 - Intro + Military stand-down.
2 - Pentagon + UA175
3 - WTC7 (the segment you just saw)
4 - Twin Towers + UA93
5 - 2 touching testimonies by W. Rodriguez and David "We were also killed on 9/11" Miller.
The narration is in Italian, all the original interviews are in English. Keeping an eye on the brief summary above each segment, however, may help you grasp the whole thing anyway.
Part 1 - Intro + Military stand-down
a) After a brief intro the 9/11 Commission Report is presented as the equivalent of the infamous Warren Report, in that both Commissions openly refused to look at evidence that would compromise in any way the reconciliation of the Report with the desired, official version. b) The "Pandora's Box" of evidence against the hijackers emerged from the crash site of UA93 -- while the very plane is yet to be found -- is shown as an example of likely fabricated evidence by the FBI. c) Senator Dayton [thanks Eric Hufschmid for the footage] denounces as "lies" the Norad timelines appearing in the Report. d) The very heads of the Commission, Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, denounce in a book the Pentagon's "untrue" statements on their failure to act on 9/11. e) Rumsfeld's intercept procedure change order is paired with the illuminating testimony by Robin Hordon (Pilots for 911 Truth), resulting in a possible answer on how the military response could have been thwarted without necessarily involving "thousands of people" in the plot: All it took apparently was for Rummy not to pick up the phone.
Part 2 - Pentagon + UA175
a) Italian debunkers are caught in the act of resorting to the cheapest tricks in order to try and cast some doubt on the critics of the Pentagon's official version. b) A 2002 New York Times article is shown, reporting doubts on the authenticity of Hani Hanjour's "commercial license", while the alleged hijacker is clearly portrayed as someone who "could not fly at all". c) A collection of witnesses seeing a somehow smaller plane at the Pentagon is presented, while the fact that the debunkers seem unable to produce a witness speaking of a "large plane" themselves is underlined. d) Danielle O'Brien's testimony on what looked on their screens like a fighter jet is presented. e) The idea that "all it took for the hijackers to fly those planes right into their targets was to set the auto-pilot systems" is refuted both by the 330 degrees turn by "Hany Hanjour" before hitting the Pentagon -- losing sight of a target you have been so lucky to find in first place? -- and by the testimony of the controller who followed UA175 all the way into New York's harbor, executing maneuvers "you would only see in the movies". While both alleged pilots, as we know, had never flown a jet before in their life. (Nor had the other two, for that matter.)
Part 3 - WTC7
The same segment you saw above, in which: a) Danny Jowenko's opinion on WTC7's collapse is presented ("a controlled demolition"). b) A short clip from "Inganno Globale" follows, showing a side-by-side comparison between controlled demolitions and the World Trade Center collapses. c) A possible solution for the apparent mishap by the BBC on the actual collapse of the "Solomon Brother's Building" is suggested: It was CNN's earlier announcent that might have confused them. d) However, a good explanation for such foreknowledge must be found, especially since e) A testimony from a first responder moves that foreknowledge even further up, "between noon and one o' clock." f) Police is heard clearing the area because "the building is about to blow up." g) A firefighter is heard commenting "We gotta get back, seven is exploding," his collegue responding "I know, I know," right after a powerful blast is heard from the streets nearby.
Part 4 - Twin Towers + United 93
a) Scott Forbes' testimony is presented as a possible answer to the ever-recurring question, "How would it have been possible to place 'tons' of explosives in the Towers with everybody watching?" By doing it exactly "under everyone's eyes," the answer seems to be. b) Debunkers are shown scrambling through the dictionary in their desperate attempt to refute the tons of testimony about "explosions" in the Towers, prior and during the collapses: If you translate "scoppio" ("pop") into English -- they maintain -- you will get "explosion." Therefore it was only "pops" what all those people really heard. [Hey, let's cut them some slack. Someone may even fall for that!] c) The debunkers' statement that "there is no video actually confirming the sound of explosions" is confuted by the very clip [ending with "Seven is exploding"] you saw above. d) The debunkers' statement that "the idea of molten steel is sheer fantasy" is confuted by presenting different clips, including two reports on the "meteorite" now stored at the JFK hangar. e) How most of the crucial information about the true reasons for the Twin Towers' collapses ended up being sealed in court proceedings is revealed. f) The fact that the debunkers avoided confronting the notion that UA93 debris was found as far as eight miles away from the crash site is underlined, while the same fact is presented as definite proof that the plane did not fall in one piece into the infamous, "empty" hole. g) An interesting comment by a former NTSB official suggesting the "Let's Roll" story is but a nice legend -- "Just like the Alamo" -- ends the segment.
Part 5 - 2 Testimonies
a) William Rodriguez testimony confirms, among other things, that underground explosions took place in Tower 1 before the collapse. b) David Miller's condition, which he shares with hundreds of first responders, that "we now live with those buildings in our bodies" confirms, among other things, that the pulverization of the buildings was too fine to be the result of sheer force of gravity (which is the only force acting in a passive, non-induced structural collapse).
A final note: Except maybe for the "seven is exploding" sound bite, there was nothing truly exceptional in the broadcast but the broadcast itself. As the 9/11 web community at large, in fact, it seems at this point we have gathered enough evidence to make a valid case for a new investigation. We suggest researchers worldwide may want to shift some of their energies -- wherever possible -- towards their local media, to possibly achieve what we have luckily managed to achieve here in Italy.
As the times "are a' changing" fast, it may turn out much easier than expected to puncture the mainstream media cover that still protects the official version. After all it's not politics, it's ratings that they care most about, and Rosie O'Donnell has just shown us that once you have those on your side, nothing else truly matters.
Massimo Mazzucco
Note: Luogocomune is truly open to all different political views, and when I say "we," in the article, I refer to a vast majority of registered users, but not necessarily all of them.
If you want more info on the website, or if you want to register in order to leave a comment, please go HERE. Registration is quick and free, and all your personal info is guaranteed to be kept confidential.
We have also opened a new forum for English-speaking users who may want to discuss 9/11-related issues other than Tower7. Please be patient if our responses will not be in perfect English as well.
.
.
.