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: 1230
Comments: 92
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 69.
#3. To: (#0)
(Edited)
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.
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.
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.
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.....
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.
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.
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 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 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: =======================
I must say you are trying very hard to eclipse someone else with limited posting capabilties as the premier spammer on this site. However I will briefly address a couple of your major comments. Right after he said "We've had such a terrible loss of life?" I really have never, ever, seen such a gross inability to place comments into their proper context as with the blithering idiots who assert that right after he expresses concern about a terrible loss of life, he would give a command to destroy a building and put even more lives at risk. It really takes a very special kind of stupid to make that allegation. In this context, "Pull" obviously means "Pull Back." Duh. But the same people who can't connect pulling back from a danger zone with a concern for a potential loss of life, also can't figure out that thick black smoke is from combustion of something quite a bit more messy than paper and office furniture.
In this context, "Pull" obviously means "Pull Back." Duh. There is nothing that quite compares to a blithering idiot who wants, shortly before 5:20 pm, to evacuate WTC-7 which had been evacuated by the firemen at about 11:30 am. When the FDNY Chief Officer for that scene arrived at Barclay and West Broadway, the firefighters were already evacuating the building. Firefighting was never started in building 7. The firefighters at WTC-7 were "pulled" at about 11:30 am. According to Larry Silverstein, after he said "pull it" they watched the building come down. The building came down at about 5:20 pm, about 6 hours after FDNY had evacuated the building, and about 3 hours after they abandoned the area around the building altogether. Damn, some gubermint pimps are too dumb to even read what the gubermint is saying.
More Silverstein: "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.' So what part of "They were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire" and "We've had such a terrible loss of life" do you blockheads not understand?
15-million-dollar emergency command center http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/anomalies.html Because Lucky Larry is a liar. There were only a few small fires. Later Larry tried to deny he said "pull it", a lie that failed because his video is all over the internet. But what can you expect from such a patriot who sued and collected for TWO terrorist attacks on buildings he had insured only a few months prior.
There are no replies to Comment # 69. End Trace Mode for Comment # 69.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#5. To: AGAviator (#3)
This energy is equivalent to that released by an explosion of 367 tons of TNT.
#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!!!
#43. To: AGAviator, Critter, Destro, YertleTurtle (#36)
Because of flame speed,
#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.
#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...."
#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
#60. To: nolu_chan (#54)
(1) What do you think Silverstein meant when he said, "maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it?"
(2)WhatNeverHappened.com
As far as your cut and paste from WhatNeverHappened, those 12,000 gallons of diesel fuel had to have gone somewhere. And at the same time, there was heavy black smoke pouring from the building.
#62. To: AGAviator (#60)
I really have never, ever, seen such a gross inability to place comments into their proper context as with the blithering idiots who assert that right after he expresses concern about a terrible loss of life, he would give a command to destroy a building and put even more lives at risk. It really takes a very special kind of stupid to make that allegation.
According to the FDNY first-person interviews, water was never an issue at WTC 7 since firefighting was never started in the building.
-- NIST NSTAR 1-8, page 110.At approximately 11:30 a.m., FDNY assigned a Chief Officer to take charge of operations at WTC 7. ... When the Chief Officer in charge of WTC 7 got to Barclay Street and West Broadway, numerous firefighters and officers were coming out of WTC 7.
-- NIST NSTAR 1-8, page 110.At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. The order terminated the ongoing rescue operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.
-- NIST NSTAR 1-8, page 111.
#68. To: nolu_chan (#62)
You dishonestly omit another important part of Silverstein's statement, which is the FD told him they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire.
#69. To: AGAviator (#68)
Building 7
Building 7 imploded late on 9/11/01. It was not hit by an aircraft.
WTC7 was obviously a controlled demolition.
Replies to Comment # 69.