• 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.

Was WTC-7 a Fire Hazard?

LastChild

Banned
L
Joined
Oct 25, 2007
Messages
2,062
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02EEDD103EF933A15751C1A9679C8B63

A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRADE CENTER; City Had Been Warned of Fuel Tank at 7 World Trade Center

Fire Department officials warned the city and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1998 and 1999 that a giant diesel fuel tank for the mayor's $13 million command bunker in 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high-rise that burned and collapsed on Sept. 11, posed a hazard and was not consistent with city fire codes.

How did they get that insured?
 
LastChild said:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02EEDD103EF933A15751C1A9679C8B63

A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRADE CENTER; City Had Been Warned of Fuel Tank at 7 World Trade Center

Fire Department officials warned the city and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1998 and 1999 that a giant diesel fuel tank for the mayor's $13 million command bunker in 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high-rise that burned and collapsed on Sept. 11, posed a hazard and was not consistent with city fire codes.

How did they get that insured?
Click to expand...

the NYNJPA didn't have to abide by the City Building and likely the Fire Codes.
 
PhantomWolf said:
the NYNJPA didn't have to abide by the City Building and likely the Fire Codes.
Click to expand...

I haven't read any early drafts of NIST on WTC-7. Is the diesel fuel tank still considered a possible contributor to the collapse? Does anyone know if there any indication this will be part of the NIST theory when the report is released?
 
LastChild said:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02EEDD103EF933A15751C1A9679C8B63

A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRADE CENTER; City Had Been Warned of Fuel Tank at 7 World Trade Center

Fire Department officials warned the city and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1998 and 1999 that a giant diesel fuel tank for the mayor's $13 million command bunker in 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high-rise that burned and collapsed on Sept. 11, posed a hazard and was not consistent with city fire codes.

How did they get that insured?
Click to expand...
How many times do truthers JAQ off to that question and refuse to listen to answers? This time try to retain the information. I know it will be hard with all that wooish nonsense filling your head but try...WTC was not subject to NYC codes.
 
Walter Ego said:
He/she/it never gives up does he/she/it?

(Back to ignoring he/she/it.)
Click to expand...

If that was aimed at me, go and read the dozens of threads where it has been pointed out that the WTC weren't up to the NY Building Codes standards because the NYNJPA didn't have to abide by them but had it's own set of Building Codes. It won't be that hard to find. Why do we have to reference a point that has been referenced and pointed out 500 time previously?
 
LastChild said:
I haven't read any early drafts of NIST on WTC-7. Is the diesel fuel tank still considered a possible contributor to the collapse? Does anyone know if there any indication this will be part of the NIST theory when the report is released?
Click to expand...

Form what I've heard of late, they consider it a factor in the fires, but not in the collapse itself.
 
PhantomWolf said:
If that was aimed at me, go and read the dozens of threads where it has been pointed out that the WTC weren't up to the NY Building Codes standards because the NYNJPA didn't have to abide by them but had it's own set of Building Codes. It won't be that hard to find. Why do we have to reference a point that has been referenced and pointed out 500 time previously?
Click to expand...


No, that was for LC, aka known to me only through quotes.

(Walter is a little cranky today.)
 
~enigma~ said:
How many times do truthers JAQ off to that question and refuse to listen to answers? This time try to retain the information. I know it will be hard with all that wooish nonsense filling your head but try...WTC was not subject to NYC codes.
Click to expand...

WHO GIVES AND PAYS OUT INSURANCE ON FIRE HAZARD BUILDINGS?

And how does Giuliani the 9/11 hero get away with this?


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...93BA25755C0A96E958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
In America; Sci-Fi In the Sky
By BOB HERBERT
Published: June 18, 1998
Because the bunker was cleverly and successfully concealed as it made its way through the budget process, the potential problems, large and small, were not adequately examined. The full range of possible alternatives was never explored.
 
Last edited:
LastChild said:
WHO GIVES AND PAYS OUT INSURANCE ON FIRE HAZARD BUILDINGS?

And how does Giuliani the 9/11 hero get away with this?


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...93BA25755C0A96E958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
In America; Sci-Fi In the Sky
By BOB HERBERT
Published: June 18, 1998
Because the bunker was cleverly and successfully concealed as it made its way through the budget process, the potential problems, large and small, were not adequately examined. The full range of possible alternatives was never explored.
Click to expand...

[edited] You are on ignore.

Uncivil, nasty, altogether unacceptable.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady
 
Last edited by a moderator:
LastChild said:
WHO GIVES AND PAYS OUT INSURANCE ON FIRE HAZARD BUILDINGS?

And how does Giuliani the 9/11 hero get away with this?


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...93BA25755C0A96E958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
In America; Sci-Fi In the Sky
By BOB HERBERT
Published: June 18, 1998
Because the bunker was cleverly and successfully concealed as it made its way through the budget process, the potential problems, large and small, were not adequately examined. The full range of possible alternatives was never explored.
Click to expand...

Silverstein had insured the complex through 22 companies, including SR International Business Insurance, a unit of Swiss Re (otc: SWCEY - news - people ), the giant Zurich-based insurer.
Click to expand...

http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html
 
Last edited:
~enigma~ said:
You mean the idiot nazi wannabes in the truth movement accuse Silverstein of profiting from the insurance and taking part in a government plot to kill 3000 people yet they don't know who the insurer was? Someone want to explain slowly so I can understand the truther mindset that avoids the glaring contradiction.
Click to expand...


Their conclusion comes first. Evidence to support it is optional. Evidence that doesn't support the conclusion is evidence of a cover-up. Or something like that.
 
I would observe that expressing a concern is not the same as citing the building owner for a violation. The FDNY would be concerned, as in "unsafe", with ANY significant source of fuel (and 6,000 gallons would be a lot of potential fuel) being anywhere except in, perhaps, an underground tank. I am reasonably sure that having day tanks on generators would be a concern though because of the limited (I think 550 gallon limit per floor) amount it would be considered manageable.

It might also be noted that even a large fuel tank, if properly protected from expected threats, would not render a building uninsurable because, if you recall, the amount of destruction wrought by debris on 7 WTC was probably pretty unprecedented under any normal set of circumstances. IOW, while probably not as safe as the FDNY would like, the insurance company certainly felt that the precautions taken were adequate for what they expected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom