Was WTC-7 a Fire Hazard?

[Pardalis]

How exactly does this fit in with your controlled demolition hallucinations?

He's trying to give it a new spin. Since the CD theory really doesn't work no matter how you distort reality, now LC is going after the fire safety conspiracy.

I bet he's trying to cast blame on the evil owners of the building. So there is a conspiracy to destroy the building by bad design.

I call it the LIHOP Collapse Theory.

In short, they knew the building was unsound, and they knew that this would be the perfect cover to let it destroy itself by natural causes. Nobody would know they really wanted for it to collapse by letting it collapse anyway.

Geniuses, I tell you.

 

[LastChild]

Just Asking Questions, huh? Do you think people buy your innocent act?

Go ahead and read something. I'm not going to do your "homework" for you. Seriously, do something original for once.

You or any so-called debunker having a correct answer for any of my questions would be the originality.

Debunking something, anything, would be an originality here.

 

[The Big Dog]

You or any so-called debunker having a correct answer for any of my questions would be the originality.

Debunking something, anything, would be an originality here.

Wait, you want me to read to you the draft of the NIST report, and the various updates, because you don't want to do it?

I'll have to respectfully decline. Thanks though!

 

[leftysergeant]

The diesel only had to be adequate to start a few Class A fires. The damage to the building allowed the propogation of class A fires through the building of its south face.

Even if the tanks were protected, prior to the impact of the north tower, does not mean that the heat of the fires would not have eventually reached them and boiled out some of the contents. It is, further, likely that the supposedly fire-resistant walls were displaced as floors settled and sagged after parts of the walls and columns supporting them were mis-alligned.

Relaxing the codes doomed the buildings from the very start. The fires in all three aggravated the damage done to the structures by the impact of the aircraft and falling parts of the other buildings.

The commission probably did not want to dwell on the structural safety issue because so many of them, being still involved in the construction industry, would have been opening the door to further regulatory burdens on their own industry, and they shared the Republican view that over-regulation is what is keeping millions of Americans from realizing their ecconomic potential.

A bit like appointing a Wahabi to a commission on religious freedom, I think.

 

[LastChild]

The diesel only had to be adequate to start a few Class A fires. The damage to the building allowed the propogation of class A fires through the building of its south face.

Even if the tanks were protected, prior to the impact of the north tower, does not mean that the heat of the fires would not have eventually reached them and boiled out some of the contents. It is, further, likely that the supposedly fire-resistant walls were displaced as floors settled and sagged after parts of the walls and columns supporting them were mis-alligned.

Relaxing the codes doomed the buildings from the very start. The fires in all three aggravated the damage done to the structures by the impact of the aircraft and falling parts of the other buildings.

The commission probably did not want to dwell on the structural safety issue because so many of them, being still involved in the construction industry, would have been opening the door to further regulatory burdens on their own industry, and they shared the Republican view that over-regulation is what is keeping millions of Americans from realizing their ecconomic potential.

A bit like appointing a Wahabi to a commission on religious freedom, I think.

That and every litigation to some Republicans is a frivolous litigation. Especially if it could come back around to bite the very republican who evaded all the frivolous building codes.

 

[applecorped]

LastChild,

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited to remove inappropriate remark.

Do not use insults or personal attacks to argue your point.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[Dr Adequate]

How exactly does this fit in with your controlled demolition hallucinations?

The same way that his stuff about how heavily armed the hijackers were fits in with the there-weren't-any-hijackers-and-if-there-were-they-couldn't-have-hijacked-the-planes-with-boxcutters tripe.

This is Truth, not truth. It doesn't have to be internally consistent.

 

[peteweaver]

Lastchild, will your efforts bring back those who were killed that day ?

No.

No offence, but may I suggest you direct your efforts towards something more positive, such as campaigning against Guantanamo bay & Extroadinary rendition flights? I've taken part in protests against G'tmo & renditions.

 

[Brainster]

The commission probably did not want to dwell on the structural safety issue because so many of them, being still involved in the construction industry, would have been opening the door to further regulatory burdens on their own industry, and they shared the Republican view that over-regulation is what is keeping millions of Americans from realizing their ecconomic potential.

Eh? As far as I know, the only 9-11 Commission member with any significant ties to the real estate business was James R. Thompson, who was a member of the board of directors of a REIT. Most of them were lawyers and politicians.

 

[gumboot]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the PANYNJ exemption from NYC building codes would apply only to PANYNJ buildings would it not?

WTC7 was owned by Silverstein, not the PANYNJ, and therefore would not be exempt from building codes.

 

[leftysergeant]

Rudy's modifications to the building didn't improve the safety of the building a bit.

 

[Magenta]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the PANYNJ exemption from NYC building codes would apply only to PANYNJ buildings would it not?

WTC7 was owned by Silverstein, not the PANYNJ, and therefore would not be exempt from building codes.

From Kryptos's Wikipedia article:

Both buildings were developed by Larry Silverstein who holds a ground lease for the site from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

Not sure how that complicates things.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Regardless of who held the lease, or what building codes did or did not have to be followed, the insurance companies that insured the building would adjust their rates upward or downward to match the risk base on the available fire protection systems, type of construction, fire protection water supplies available and their reliability, occupancy, fire department rating, fire walls and their rating,etc.

If the building was not up to standards, the insured would pay a higher premium until improvements were made.

I'm really kinda at a loss as to what the OP is trying to say. Even if the building was far below current standards of every standards setting organization and state code, the insurance companies would have charged far higher rates.

What, ultimately, would have been LS's financial advantage? Sure he may have saved initial costs on fire protection issues, but he would have paid out the you-know-what in insurance premiums.

 

[LashL]

WHO GIVES AND PAYS OUT INSURANCE ON FIRE HAZARD BUILDINGS?

All buildings are at risk from fire. That is why fire insurance exists and why fire insurers make billions of dollars of profit every year. It's all about risk management and setting premiums at sufficient levels to offset the level of risk assumed.

But if you are asking who insured and paid out on the policy extended on WTC7, the answer is Industrial Risk Insurers, a unit of General Electric's Employers Reinsurance division.

If you are asking who insured and paid out on the policies extended on WTC1, WTC2, WTC4 and WTC5, there have been threads about that in the past. Take a look here and here if you actually want to educate yourself instead of just JAQing off.

If that was insurance fraud, it was the single stupidest insurance fraud in the history of ever.

I love that jonnyfive quote in your sig!

Lloyds of London apparently, though it's hard to determine because it's lost in the middle of about 5,000 CT sites

Seems Llyods were underwriters for the Willis Group....

See links above.

 

[Apollo20]

The Port Authority owned the land on which WTC 7 was built. Because of this ownership WTC 7 was not subject to the requirements of the NYC Building Code.

The NYC Fire Batallion Commander William Blaich toured the WTC 7 building in 1999 and issued a report on March 14th entitled "Dangerous Conditions at WTC 7". He listed three significant code violations, (which would have applied under the NYC Code), concerning the fuel tanks in the building. Because of this report The Port Authority initially refused to grant a letter of completion, but eventually did so in 2001.

 

[LastChild]

Regardless of who held the lease, or what building codes did or did not have to be followed, the insurance companies that insured the building would adjust their rates upward or downward to match the risk base on the available fire protection systems, type of construction, fire protection water supplies available and their reliability, occupancy, fire department rating, fire walls and their rating,etc.

If the building was not up to standards, the insured would pay a higher premium until improvements were made.

I'm really kinda at a loss as to what the OP is trying to say. Even if the building was far below current standards of every standards setting organization and state code, the insurance companies would have charged far higher rates.

What, ultimately, would have been LS's financial advantage? Sure he may have saved initial costs on fire protection issues, but he would have paid out the you-know-what in insurance premiums.

Really? For how long did Larry have to pay those premiums?

 

[applecorped]

Not as much as he lost.

 

[pomeroo]

Gee, I really should have asked Arthur Scheuerman if building 7 was unsafe.

Oh, wait--I did ask him. We talked about the subject in our 'Hardfire' interview. I hope I didn't disturb the Child's slumber.

 

[AZCat]

The Port Authority owned the land on which WTC 7 was built. Because of this ownership WTC 7 was not subject to the requirements of the NYC Building Code.

The NYC Fire Batallion Commander William Blaich toured the WTC 7 building in 1999 and issued a report on March 14th entitled "Dangerous Conditions at WTC 7". He listed three significant code violations, (which would have applied under the NYC Code), concerning the fuel tanks in the building. Because of this report The Port Authority initially refused to grant a letter of completion, but eventually did so in 2001.

I've seen the same thing in the jurisdiction where I do most of my work. We're supposed to get everything okayed by the Building Services Department because the City A/E Department is trying to play nice with them, but occasionally things just don't move quickly enough through the red tape (like when you're spending money for equipment that is on site but can't be installed yet).

 

[LashL]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the PANYNJ exemption from NYC building codes would apply only to PANYNJ buildings would it not?

WTC7 was owned by Silverstein, not the PANYNJ, and therefore would not be exempt from building codes.

As I understand it, the exemption applies not only to buildings and structures that the PANYNJ owns, but also to buildings and structures that it manages.

It it possible that it also applies to buildings and structures owned and managed by others but situated upon lands owned by the PANYNJ. Without reading the statute(s) that confer exemption from certain codes (including fire codes) upon the PANYNJ, it is impossible to give a properly informed and iron-clad answer to your questions.

In other words, the answer depends upon whether the exemption applies only to buildings and structures owned and/or managed by the PANYNJ or whether the exemption applies to any and all buildings and structures situated on lands owned by the PANYNJ, even if the PANYNJ leases the land to others and even if others own and manage the buildings and structures erected upon those lands.

If you happen to have links to primary sources of the PANYNJ's exempt status, I will be happy to take a look at them, though, in order to try to provide a properly informed answer.