Fire, steel, and 911.

Dazed said:
As in fire and debris took them out. I meant similar in the sense that the failure of the transfer was what caused collapse.
Click to expand...


Just had to make sure...;) What floor was the transer on again? I believe the big fuel tank was on 5???

-Gumboot
 
This is a text-book case of an invisible fire causing the entire steel infrastructure of a skyscraper to give out all at once.
Click to expand...

Edited by Darat: 
Content in breach of Membership Agreement removed.
, a fire obscured by brick and mortar and windows isn't actually invisible. Are you saying that if I hid behind a tree in the woods so that someone standing on the opposite side of the tree couldn't see me I'm suddenly invisible? I've always wanted super-hero powers! Thanks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gumboot said:
Just had to make sure...;) What floor was the transer on again? I believe the big fuel tank was on 5???

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

*follows the breadcrumbs*

Transfer on 5 and 6. Big fuel tank on five. Raging fire everywhere. Big hole in side.
 
I know there were some small fires in the building...but, nothing RAGING....I certainly don't see an inferno, or exterior damage, that is so crippling as to cause the building to collapse like that. What if ONE side had SOME damage...this entire side of the building had no visible damage, and it just collapsed perfectly straight down right with the other side. A building can collapse in so many ways...it didn't tilt over or anything...the whole thing just went whoosh. And, look at the top that caves in first...yet the fires were well below that...and look at the holes that suddenly appear in the building, right as it's about to fall down.

And, for people who want to hear the explosions...well I've seen a real life demolition in Las Vegas and from that distance, it just sounds like a loud roar and rumble, just like you hear on that video. It feels sort of like an earthquake.
 
gumboot said:
Just had to make sure...;) What floor was the transer on again? I believe the big fuel tank was on 5???

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

The transfers happened across floors 5 and 6 if I have it correctly.

Here's what was on the floors:

[SIZE=-1]9 1 generator (1 tank) for (tenant) U. S. Secret Service[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]8 1 generator (1 tank) for (tenant) American Express[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]7 3 generators (1 tank) for the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]6 switchgear, storage[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]5 11 generators (1 tank), switchgear, transformers.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]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.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]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)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]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.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]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.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The fuel supplier was contracted to keep the tanks full, and they were full that day.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]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.[/SIZE]
Click to expand...
[SIZE=-1]
And an explanation of how loads of fuel probably got pumped into floor 5:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]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.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]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)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
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)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]By contrast, 20,000 gallons of oil was recovered from the two 12,000 gallon tanks of Silverstein Properties. (10)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]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.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]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)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]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.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]The diesel fuel spill spread out along Floor 5, which had been partly shielded from damage by the sturdiness of Floor 7, in addition to its own robustness. The fuel spilled down elevator shafts and breaks near the center of the south face. Floor 4 has a great deal of open space along its eastern two thirds near the south face. Fuel spilling from above would find an easy route to the eastern side of the middle of the building down to Floor 3.[/SIZE]
Click to expand...

[SIZE=-1]both quotes from http://www.counterpunch.org/darkfire11282006.htm [/SIZE]
 
Last edited:
Dazed said:
Beachnut and anti-sophist, please refrain from posting in my thread if you can't help but be patronizing and rude.

If I'm wrong about something go ahead and correct me, but I don't need your insults and smug superiority.
Click to expand...

I was telling you what I would say about WTC7.

I said if it had not burned longer than the 2-4 hours steel fire proofing, I would wonder what was up. But since the building burned for 8 hours it was going to fall.

If there had not be big holes in the building and lots of windows blown out by the 1 kilo ton damage done next door, the fire may not have brought down the building.

I told you about gravity, I would expect the building to fall down.

I also said, but I hid it in my poor writing, about not being able to see the whole building.

But how was the building suppose to fall, it looks like it fell like a fire would do. I also told you I have seen photos of WTC 5 or 6, or both, that have massive missing floors due to fire, they collapsed down.

No big deal, but I keep it simple, it there was some third order non-linear equations to equation to explain it I would share it with you.

But I just said after seeing everything about WTC7 to date (5 years of stuff), I think it fell how a building burning all day would fall. And with the other inputs made I have even more ideas on why it looked as it did.
 
28th Kingdom said:
I know there were some small fires in the building...but, nothing RAGING....I certainly don't see an inferno, or exterior damage, that is so crippling as to cause the building to collapse like that. What if ONE side had SOME damage...this entire side of the building had no visible damage, and it just collapsed perfectly straight down right with the other side. A building can collapse in so many ways...it didn't tilt over or anything...the whole thing just went whoosh. And, look at the top that caves in first...yet the fires were well below that...and look at the holes that suddenly appear in the building, right as it's about to fall down.

And, for people who want to hear the explosions...well I've seen a real life demolition in Las Vegas and from that distance, it just sounds like a loud roar and rumble, just like you hear on that video. It feels sort of like an earthquake.
Click to expand...

I have been over 8 miles from RDX going off and it has a very distinctive sound; there were no RDX sounds on 9/11.

Raging fires were seen in WTC7.

I think you are wrong on both parts of your argument.
 
Last edited:
maccy said:
The transfers happened across floors 5 and 6 if I have it correctly.

Here's what was on the floors:
Click to expand...


Thanks for that. I thought that was it. So basically we had a fuel tank AND a constant supply of fuel from below all pouring into the area of the building where the structural weak point was - a floor which an earlier inspection had found was virtually absent of fire-proofing.

I think it's a good bet that the building failed at the 5th floor or there abouts. Thus the top of the structure (which is all that's visible in videos) fell over relatively intact onto Fiterman Hall.

-Gumboot
 
28th Kingdom said:
I know there were some small fires in the building...but, nothing RAGING....I certainly don't see an inferno, or exterior damage, that is so crippling as to cause the building to collapse like that. What if ONE side had SOME damage...this entire side of the building had no visible damage, and it just collapsed perfectly straight down right with the other side. A building can collapse in so many ways...it didn't tilt over or anything...the whole thing just went whoosh. And, look at the top that caves in first...yet the fires were well below that...and look at the holes that suddenly appear in the building, right as it's about to fall down.

And, for people who want to hear the explosions...well I've seen a real life demolition in Las Vegas and from that distance, it just sounds like a loud roar and rumble, just like you hear on that video. It feels sort of like an earthquake.
Click to expand...

I count 11 false statements in your above post. There are only 6 sentences.

-Gumboot
 
28th Kingdom said:
And now, the owner of the WTC 7, saying on tape, that the reason they wanted to, "pull," WTC 7 is because they didn't think they could contain the fire:.
Click to expand...

I never saw or heard him say "pull WTC7", where are you getting this from?
 
P D'oh the 28th said:
And now, the owner of the WTC 7, saying on tape, that the reason they wanted to, "pull," WTC 7 is because they didn't think they could contain the fire:
Click to expand...

Where does Silverstein says they wanted to pull WTC7 exactly? Not that I expect an asnwer from you, so thanks for nothing.
 
Retail and Bell,

In this video, Silverstein, says that they decided to pull it because, the fire commander SUPPOSEDLY told Larry, that he (the fire commander) didn't think they could contain the fires in WTC 7. Honestly, do you think a fire commander would ever say...they couldn't contain a fire...especially one that is so small you can't even see it from three sides of the building?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0scE7bQWdk

And, some of you shouldn't be so mean with the name calling...come on guys.
 
28th Kingdom said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

And now, the owner of the WTC 7, saying on tape, that the reason they wanted to, "pull," WTC 7 is because they didn't think they could contain the fire:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0scE7bQWdk
Click to expand...

The "pull it" statement is a classical CT nut case line. It appears your parents did a "pull it" on your college funding. ("pull it" means the fire support, there was not time to get a big jeep and a cable to pull the building over)

You should try to get more education so you do not fall for the false flag statements of the CT truth movement.

When you use "pull it" to support your CT ideas, then most know you have no facts or idea what happen on 9/11. (just a hint, never use "pull it")
 
28th Kingdom said:
Retail and Bell,

In this video, Silverstein, says that they decided to pull it because, the fire commander SUPPOSEDLY told Larry, that he (the fire commander) didn't think they could contain the fires in WTC 7. Honestly, do you think a fire commander would ever say...they couldn't contain a fire...especially one that is so small you can't even see it from three sides of the building?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0scE7bQWdk

And, some of you shouldn't be so mean with the name calling...come on guys.
Click to expand...

Oh I see where you were confused, when he sais "it" he was refering to the operation to save the building. Also he said the cheif said "we're not sure we can contain the fire". Why do you change his words?
 
28th Kingdom said:
Retail and Bell,

In this video, Silverstein, says that they decided to pull it because, the fire commander SUPPOSEDLY told Larry, that he (the fire commander) didn't think they could contain the fires in WTC 7. Honestly, do you think a fire commander would ever say...they couldn't contain a fire...especially one that is so small you can't even see it from three sides of the building?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0scE7bQWdk

And, some of you shouldn't be so mean with the name calling...come on guys.
Click to expand...

Are you accussing the fire chief of lying ?

What do you mean SUPPOSEDLY ?
 
So, Silverstein accidentally admitted to this horrible crime, TWICE, on NATIONAL TV. For some reason, nobody notices except for the CTers.

How can we all be so stupid? You really have to feel for the "Truth Movement", they must have their work cut out for them! Although, they might have a better time of it if they didn't disguise themselves as angsty teenage boys and hairy old men who don't bathe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom