TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
I got to know a guy who was a street sweeper. When I told him I had collected some WTC dust, and did he know of anywhere to find any, he mentioned the curbside next to the Deutsche Bank. In 2009, the guy told me that he had to clean this particular curb as a part of his normal route, and some of it would be impossible to clean. He said then he'd have to call his supervisor.
Yep. The Deutsche Bank was still fuming and stinking all these years later.
Read this article about how they had to shut down the deconstruction efforts (again) now due to the accumulation of "smoke". I guess that people who don't study this stuff closely might read this and say, "No problem here. Everything seems exactly how it should be."
I see several problems with this news article. 1)Why was smoke accumulating in a dead building, so much smoke, in fact, that they had to install smoke removal equipment? Someone tell me they, personally, know of a dead building, almost entirely gutted, no activity going on in this building, but so much "smoke" that you had to put in smoke removal equipment? This isn't normal. Smoke, or fumes of any kind, are evidence of an ongoing chemical reaction.
2) Why did the smoke removal equipment break? Is it perhaps that it was attempting to remove something that wasn't smoke? If, as I say, the WTC dust was made of a large proportion of iron, which a piece of smoke removal equipment might not be equipped to remove from the air? Smoke is generally carbonaceous, made of carbon. It isn't generally made of iron.
Maybe because the demolition contractor was trying to abate hazmat and decontstruct the building simultaneously.
ETA: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/n...l?ref=deutschebankbuilding130libertystreetnyc
Last edited: