• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Some simple Tower 7 questions

Here is one example of what happens to people in highly technical fields who are not covering up for the guvmint.

Quote:
Churchill has resigned as chairman of the university’s ethnic studies department. Gov. Bill Owens has called for Churchill to be fired, and the university’s Board of Regents is investigating whether the tenured professor can be removed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6937239/

Ward Churchill has a BA and MA in Communications from Sangamon State
    • Professor of Ethnic Studies at University of Colorado, Boulder
    • Regards the victims of 9/11 as "Little Eichmanns"
    • Regards America as a genocidal nation
    • Falsified his Indian background to qualify for an affirmative action position in Ethnic Studies
    • Accused of plagiarism
    • Lamented that the terrorism of 9/11 proved "insufficient to accomplish its purpose" of destroying the United States. Commented: "What the hell? It was worth a try."
Ward; the want to be an Indian Guy! He is not a technical field guy!


You need some practice doing better research.
 
Notice anything about fuel fires that are not present at GZ on 9-14-01?

World Trade Centre still burns because of major oil spills
05-12-01 More than 130,000 gallons of oil from transformers and high-voltage lines -- most of it containing low levels of hazardous PCBs -- were lost at the World Trade Centre on Sept. 11 when two downtown Con Edison substations were destroyed. In addition to the Con Ed release, confirmed by company spokesman Mike Clendenin, the Port Authority is unable to account for 50,000 of 70,000 gallons of diesel and fuel oil stored in belowground tanks at the Trade Centre complex to power emergency generators.
As much as 180,000 gallons of flammable oil -- roughly equivalent to 10 times the amount of jet fuel in the two airliners that crashed into the twin towers -- may be feeding the fires that have been burning for more than two months at the site. Con Ed and Port Authority officials say they don't know whether the contaminants seeped into the soil, burned or drained off into the Hudson River. Environmental Protection Agency officials confirmed they are searching for the oil and pumping it out when they find it.

A private environmental data firm hired by the city to report on known hazardous materials at the Trade Centre warned in a letter to federal and state environmental officials that the oil "could be fuelling the onsite fires", a letter from Walter Hang, president of Ithaca, NY-based Toxics Targeting, said. "That's exactly what's burning," said a Fire Department source. "All that fuel, all those cars that were in parking lots down there, all kinds of stuff."
Carl Johnson, deputy commissioner for air and waste management for the state Department of Environmental Conservation, told an Assembly hearing on downtown air quality, "I don't believe that we saw anything that involved a large quantity of PCBs."
After the hearing, when informed that both Con Ed and the Port Authority said they notified the DEC about a half-dozen incidents involving oil or natural gas releases, Johnson replied: "I'm not aware of that." DEC officials have not released any information on Trade Centre environmental contamination since Sept. 11.

According to Clendenin, Con Ed lost 30,000 gallons of dielectric fluid -- essentially mineral oil -- from several high-voltage lines when 7 World Trade Centre collapsed. The building's fall late in the afternoon of Sept. 11 may have resulted from a raging fire fed by fuel from the storage tanks beneath the building, according to some familiar with the Trade Centre complex.
In addition, 100,000 gallons of insulating oil containing PCBs spilled from large transformers and capacitors when the substations behind 7 WTC were destroyed. "To the best of our knowledge, those transformer oils contained 1 to 10 ppm of PCBs," Clendenin said -- considerably below the state danger level of 50 ppm.
Production of PCBs -- polychlorinated biphenyls -- has been banned in the US since 1977, when the federal government declared them dangerous to human health. But many PCBs are still found in old transformers, industrial equipment and fluorescent lighting fixtures.

Exposure to high levels of PCBs for brief periods can result in acne like skin conditions in adults and neurobehavioral and immunological problems in children. Long-term exposure can cause cancer, according to the federal Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry. But even low levels of PCBs could signal environmental problems in the presence of an uncontrolled fire, say both Hang and environment officials.
"The incomplete combustion of PCBs could be a source" of dioxins, Hang wrote in his Nov. 25 letter, and that "could pose a grave threat to the health of those working on or near the site, as well as those living nearby." EPA monitoring reports have shown levels of dioxin around the WTC site exceed safety levels for what the agency calls a "30-year exposure period." A handful of readings have been above safety levels for a one-year exposure -- meaning constant exposure over a year could result in serious health problems.

EPA spokeswoman Mary Helen Cervantes said the agency expected to see increased dioxin levels at a major fire like the one at the Trade Centre. "We're definitely concerned about any possible toxic substances that are being released down there," she said. So far, Con Ed's estimate of the low PCB content in its lost oil has not been verified by the DEC or any other independent agency.
In September 1998, the utility reported there were no PCBs in any of the oil released from a transformer fire at its Arthur Kill power station. Only later was it learned that the oil contained 306,000 ppm of PCBs. Con Ed paid a $ 500,000 fine this year and signed a new consent decree with the state on environmental monitoring.



Source: New York Daily News

All debunked from a single aerial photo. Those siwwy siwwy stupid, yet cunning conspirators....sheesh. Your a pretty smart fella, sub.
 
Did the article from 11/24/01 say how much fuel was buring on the 14th?
 
Did the article from 11/24/01 say how much fuel was buring on the 14th?

Obviously, all the fuel should've funneled into a big pool and burned off immediately.....its common sense. :boggled:


Submerible, please tell me you were just joking about being a fire-fighter. Lie to me if you have to.
 
I would have to say A, because we didn't sit and watch buildings burn, we put them out.

I guess you guys are just a lot braver than the guys in NYC, who are too cowardly to go into buildings that are clearly about to collapse. Where's your calculation about how much water it would take to extinguish the fires in WTC7 and how many 5 inch hose lines would have been required to transport the water?

I assume that you haven't had a chance to look up "advection", "conduction", and "convection" yet.
 
All debunked from a single aerial photo. Those siwwy siwwy stupid, yet cunning conspirators....sheesh. Your a pretty smart fella, sub.


Here are a few more, do you see any indication of a fuel oil fire in any of them? Better yet, can you find any images of GZ that show signs of a massive underground fuel fire??

g-ground-zero.jpg


ground-zero.jpg


WTCdestruction1.jpg


Are you really this research impaired? Or are you coping this junk from a CT site?

BTW, transformers, there were many in the WTC, do burn. You know electric transformers. You have to have them to run the WTC.

Yes, they do burn, and just like fuel oil there are certain characteristics that would typically be found at any and all transformer fires.

case1.jpg


power_station_transformer_fire_close-up.jpeg


fig2.bmp


Here are a few pictures of car fires just incase one of you would like to explain what else could have been burning underneath the towers that DIDN'T produce any visible flames or dark smoke.

car%20fire.jpg


DSCF1913.sized.jpg


Errors, you have small, large, giant, and glaring errors in all your hearsay evidence. Do you make this up? What do you do that has led to your inability to find real facts to back up your ideas on 9/11?

Sorry, but you have not posted a fact based idea yet. Do you have some facts to back up your posts?

I believe the images I've been posting provide enough fact based evidence to show that a massive fuel oil fire was not burning beneath any of the 3 towers that miraculously fell on 9/11.

best_004.jpg


No airpacks. No flames. No toxic black smoke plumes. No fuel oil fires.

Now, since most of you obtain your evidence from the people who destroyed all of the evidence from the scene, how would you explain the CLAIMS made by the "experts" concerning the massive fuel oil fires burning underneath GZ?
Because they clearly do not exist.

Back to my first question.
What would you find in or underneath an office building to generate that kind of heat necessary to make the majority of the steel support beams in tower 7 fail simultaneously, and make other steel beams glow red hot underneath tower 1 2 & 7 ??

Where is the fuel to run the generators in this building; you know there was 20,000 gallons or more fuel in WTC7, and there were reports of the same kind of fire, too bad it was not night to make you a pretty red fire picture of the WTC.

Too bad there are only a handful of images that show ANY flames in tower 7.
 
That's a great post !




Photo taken on Sept.14.
No fuel oil fires there !

What's the smoke from, then?

And if air could have reached the fire, according to the amount of water that was reported to be poured on the pile... the water would have reached the fire as well.


So it is your opinion that anywhere air can go, water can go too? Hmmm....


Does it look like the fire in those images are going out?

Yes. I can tell just by looking at one image, just like you. Prove me wrong.

The fires in WTC7 were modest compared to other building fires that have occured.

The damage in other buildings prior to the fires was modest (nonexistent) compared to WTC7.
 
It's quite sad that the most valuable source of information you have to offer comes from the same source that destroyed all of the evidence from GZ.
I'm just not that gullible Gravy.. and it surprises me how many of you are.
Show me one firefighter who destroyed evidence, or STFU.

Psst! Submersible! Your ignorance is showing! All over the place!
 
Using photos of the Buncefield fire for comparison is quite ridiculous.

The first and largest explosion occurred at 06:01 UTC near container 912. From all accounts, it seems to have been an unconfined vapour cloud explosion. An inversion layer permitted people to hear it from a hundred miles (160 km) away; there are reports it was heard as far away as France and the Netherlands[1]. The British Geological Survey monitored the event, which measured 2.4 on the Richter scale[2]. People were woken in their beds even in South London. Subsequent explosions occurred at 06:27 and 06:28. Witnesses observed flames hundreds of feet high from many miles away, with the smoke cloud visible from space, and as far north as Lincolnshire.

A further announcement was made on 9 May 2006 about the sequence of events which enabled the explosion to occur. Starting at 19:00 on the evening of 10 December Tank 912, towards the north west of the main depot, was filled with unleaded petrol. At midnight the terminal closed, and a check was made of the contents of tanks which found everything normal. From approximately 03:00 the level gauge for Tank 912 began indicating an unchanging level reading, despite filling continuing at 550 cubic metres per hour. Calculations show that the tank would have begun to overflow at about 05:20. 40 minutes later, an estimated 300 tonnes of petrol would have spilled down the side of the tank onto the ground inside bund A, a semi-enclosed compound surrounding several tanks. There is evidence suggesting that a high level switch, which should have detected that the tank was full and shut off the supply, failed to operate. CCTV footage shows a cloud of vapour from 1-2 metres deep flowing away from the tank. By 06:01, when the first explosion occurred, the cloud had spread beyond the boundaries of the site.

The Hertfordshire Oil Storage Terminal (HOSL - Hertfordshire Oil Storage Ltd), generally known as the Buncefield complex, was the fifth largest oil-products storage depot in the UK, with a capacity of approximately 60 million Imperial gallons (273 million litres) of fuel, although it was not always filled. This was approximately 5% of UK oil storage capacity. It was a major hub on the UK's oil pipeline network (UKOP) with pipelines to Humberside and Merseyside and is an important fuel source to the British aviation industry, providing aircraft fuel for local airports including London Gatwick, London Heathrow and Luton airports. Approximately half of the complex is dedicated to the storage of aviation fuel. The remainder of the complex stores petrol and diesel fuel for petrol stations across much of the South-East of England. The terminal is owned by TOTAL UK Limited (60%) and Texaco 40%.

All quotes from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Hertfordshire_Oil_Storage_Terminal_fire
 
The damage in other buildings prior to the fires was modest (nonexistent) compared to WTC7.

FEMA said the collapse was caused primarily by fire. The damage occured in the South West of the bulding yet the initial failure was in the South East under the penthouse.
 
Now that I took a closer look, I think I know why Judy Wood is so attracted to building 6. the hole looks like a cavity that needs a filling so it is a job for super dentist :)
Was it really a coincidence that NORAD was running Operation Amalgam Filling that week?
 
Port Authority is unable to account for 50,000 of 70,000 gallons of diesel and fuel oil stored in belowground tanks at the Trade Centre complex to power emergency generators.
As much as 180,000 gallons of flammable oil -- roughly equivalent to 10 times the amount of jet fuel in the two airliners that crashed into the twin towers -- may be feeding the fires that have been burning for more than two months at the site. Con Ed and Port Authority officials say they don't know whether the contaminants seeped into the soil, burned or drained off into the Hudson River. Environmental Protection Agency officials confirmed they are searching for the oil and pumping it out when they find it.

It seems they dont even know what happened to the 130,000 gallons apart from the underground tanks - it may have burned....the official story isnt maintaining that this fuel fed the fires for months.

Have you any pictures of underground fuel-oil fires, Submersible?
 
FEMA said the collapse was caused primarily by fire. The damage occured in the South West of the bulding yet the initial failure was in the South East under the penthouse.
There was heavy damage on the south center also. NIST is much more thorough than FEMA.
 
Here is one example of what happens to people in highly technical fields who are not covering up for the guvmint.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6937239/

Here are a few more, do you see any indication of a fuel oil fire in any of them? Better yet, can you find any images of GZ that show signs of a massive underground fuel fire??









Yes, they do burn, and just like fuel oil there are certain characteristics that would typically be found at any and all transformer fires.







Here are a few pictures of car fires just incase one of you would like to explain what else could have been burning underneath the towers that DIDN'T produce any visible flames or dark smoke.







I believe the images I've been posting provide enough fact based evidence to show that a massive fuel oil fire was not burning beneath any of the 3 towers that miraculously fell on 9/11.

No airpacks. No flames. No toxic black smoke plumes. No fuel oil fires.

Now, since most of you obtain your evidence from the people who destroyed all of the evidence from the scene, how would you explain the CLAIMS made by the "experts" concerning the massive fuel oil fires burning underneath GZ?
Because they clearly do not exist.

Back to my first question.
What would you find in or underneath an office building to generate that kind of heat necessary to make the majority of the steel support beams in tower 7 fail simultaneously, and make other steel beams glow red hot underneath tower 1 2 & 7 ??

Too bad there are only a handful of images that show ANY flames in tower 7.

Just tons of smoke you have now proved were really fires in WTC7, from the electric stations and fuel from the generators.

Wow you have now proved the fires in the WTC burned, and burned cause there were miles of smoke, more than any you have shown.

Good job, your research has proved there were raging fires in the WTC; not oxygen starve cause there were big holes and broken window all over!

Yes sir, give any CT guy the incentive and he will show you proof he is wrong in a round about way.

So you are arguing about the days after, and you prove fire destroyed the WTC, because the vast amount of smoke prove the fires rage.

All I have to do is collect your junk pile of research and we have why the fires were raging in WTC1, 2 and 7. Not sure what you point was collecting the information but you have gathered more evidence to show how bad the fires were in the WTC complex.

Good work, you thought you had something after 9/11.

Recap:
Thermite only burns for minutes.
RDX burns very fast, less than a second.
Therefore, there is no planted thermite reactions during 9/11 or after. (except where thermite rods may have been used to cut things)
There was no RDX used on 9/11 or responsible for the hot stuff in the WTC.

One thing the CTers miss is the heat created when the WTC fell. But since they ignore science, they would not be able to calcualte it anyway.

I have to admit, you have debunked all the too much smoke no fires CT nuts.

Good job. (but then I know where there is smoke, there is fire)

When will you say what ever you are trying to say?
 
There was heavy damage on the south center also. NIST is much more thorough than FEMA.

There was heavy, well photographed and indisputable, damage right down the centre of Bankers Trust yet that building didnt even catch fire in one location, let alone the several locations that caught fire in WTC7
 
There was heavy, well photographed and indisputable, damage right down the centre of Bankers Trust yet that building didnt even catch fire in one location, let alone the several locations that caught fire in WTC7
False. There were fires on the lower levels that were fought and extinguished.

ETA: Also, the damage to 130 Liberty was in the center of the north face, but did not come anywhere near the center of the building.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom