Was WTC-7 a Fire Hazard?

Since the insurance business is a matter of managing risk from the insurer's point of view, it should be no surprise to find that if a risk (i.e. fire) is sufficiently mitigated a property can be insured. The insurance premium may be greater than for a property that doesn't have that feature, but that is a far cry from being uninsurable.
 
last child is a little 'Tardy" with that article

date of article
By JAMES GLANZ AND ERIC LIPTON
Published: December 20, 2001


some excerpts
The Port Authority, which owns the land on which the building stood and issued the building permit for the tank and its fireproof enclosure, said yesterday that it believed the structure had in fact met the terms of the city's fire code. Though the tank was on a tall fireproof pedestal, it was still effectively on the lowest floor of the building, as the code requires, said Frank Lombardi, the Port Authority's chief engineer.
Click to expand...

A spokesman for the city's office of emergency management, Francis E. McCarton, said the city accepted the Port Authority's determination that the tank and its placement were properly safe. He said it was essential that the mayor's command center have a backup energy source and placing it on ground floor was unacceptable because the area was deemed to be susceptible to floods.
''We put it in the area where we needed to put it,'' Mr. McCarton said. Any suggestion that the tank's position was a factor in the collapse of the building was ''pure speculation,'' he said.
He added that the tank had fire extinguishers and was surrounded by the thick, fire-resistant containment system, and that the fiery collapse of the towers could never have been anticipated in the city's planning.
Click to expand...


At least two firefighters who were at the scene, Deputy Chief James Jackson and Battalion Chief Blaich, said that the southwest corner of the building near the fuel tank was severely damaged, possibly by falling debris, and that the tank might have been breached.
Mr. Jackson said that about an hour before the building's collapse, heavy black smoke, consistent with a fuel fire of some sort, was coming from that part of the building.
The Port Authority said it was unlikely the heavy masonry surrounding the tank could have been breached, and its officials have raised the possibility that the two diesel tanks buried just below the ground floor of the building might have contributed to the fire. They have also asserted that structural damage from falling debris is a more likely culprit in the collapse.
Click to expand...


How many people died in building seven last child?
 
Last edited:
Clearly they tue building insured because the insurer was satisfied that the premiums would be enough to cover the risk of paying out on an insurance claim.

Either the insurance company was satisfied that building was safe enough or the issues were rectified or the building paid higher premiums than other buildings without fuel tanks (or some combination of the above).

Whether the insurance company set a premium that was consistent with the risks that were known at the time (or should have been known) is a question for its shareholders, underwriters and the government regulators.

I am moderately curious to know where you think this fits into the big picture.
 
If anything, this issue points to one of the reasons the commission may not have wanted to do too good a job. A few of the members have a vested interest in keeping the regulatory burden on the construction industry as minimal as they can. I'm sure that people with ties to large-scale construction businesses are fine with the exemption from city fire codes.

Like they would really like the word to get out that we are talking about three faulty towers here.
 
If that was insurance fraud, it was the single stupidest insurance fraud in the history of ever.
 
The NIST working hypothesis for WTC 7 is not dependent on diesel fuel tanks as a contributor to the collapse.

This does not mean that the diesel fuel tanks did not contribute to the collapse.
 
Duh. Of course WTC-7 was a fire hazard. With the exception of the occasional unused concrete bunker, all buildings are fire hazards. There are about half a million building fires per year in the U.S. alone.

That's why buildings have fire-safety systems such as sprinklers, ventilated staircases, fire alarm systems, fireproofing of structural members, etc.

And it's also why almost all building owners carry fire insurance. If they weren't fire hazards, they wouldn't have to be insured against damage from fire. Again, duh.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Last Child wrote this on:

16th February 2008, 08:28 AM #14
LastChild

“Now did I miss the release of the final WTC7 report? I read here somewhere that it should be coming out soon but it's been ages hasn't it? I also heard there might be a possibility that when it does come out a certain recently departed JREF debunker might have to make a major overhaul to his precious google pages. LOL that’s not why he bailed is it?”

This referred to Gravy’s WTC7 page which referenced diesel as a possible source of the fires at WTC7, and the recent NIST update suggesting that diesel had been rejected.

Yesterday, LastChild does a little JAQ’ing off:

“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?”

Disingenuous? Yes. In fact a fraudster, liar, and a complete waste of time. YES, YES, and YES.

Sad really.
 
My idea for "fire proof" buildings never came true due to the fact that the buildings were to be constructed entirely out of asbestos.

C'mon what worries you more? Lung cancer or being burned alive by searing hot, painful flames?
 
16.5 said:
Last Child wrote this on:

16th February 2008, 08:28 AM #14
LastChild

“Now did I miss the release of the final WTC7 report? I read here somewhere that it should be coming out soon but it's been ages hasn't it? I also heard there might be a possibility that when it does come out a certain recently departed JREF debunker might have to make a major overhaul to his precious google pages. LOL that’s not why he bailed is it?”

This referred to Gravy’s WTC7 page which referenced diesel as a possible source of the fires at WTC7, and the recent NIST update suggesting that diesel had been rejected.

Yesterday, LastChild does a little JAQ’ing off:

“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?”

Disingenuous? Yes. In fact a fraudster, liar, and a complete waste of time. YES, YES, and YES.

Sad really.
Click to expand...

And? How about answering it? I haven't read any drafts of the WTC-7 report. I did read here somewhere that Gravey might have to update his Google page which I also haven’t read. Is the diesel fuel tank the reason?
 
Myriad said:
Duh. Of course WTC-7 was a fire hazard. With the exception of the occasional unused concrete bunker, all buildings are fire hazards. There are about half a million building fires per year in the U.S. alone.

That's why buildings have fire-safety systems such as sprinklers, ventilated staircases, fire alarm systems, fireproofing of structural members, etc.

And it's also why almost all building owners carry fire insurance. If they weren't fire hazards, they wouldn't have to be insured against damage from fire. Again, duh.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Really? All buildings are not consistent with city fire codes?
 
LastChild said:
Really? All buildings are not consistent with city fire codes?
Click to expand...


Show me proof that any building, anywhere, is consistent with city fire codes.

And before you attempt to offer some fire safety inspector's report as evidence, prove that fire safety inspectors can never be bribed.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
LastChild said:
And? How about answering it? I haven't read any drafts of the WTC-7 report. I did read here somewhere that Gravey might have to update his Google page which I also haven’t read. Is the diesel fuel tank the reason?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Myriad said:
Show me proof that any building, anywhere, is consistent with city fire codes.
Click to expand...

Why bother even asking for it? LastChild's question is a non sequitur. Buildings that are consistent with city fire codes still present a fire hazard; the purpose of the fire codes is to manage the hazard, not to eliminate it.

Dave
 
WTC 7 was built in mid 1980's (about 15 years after remainder of WTC site) - by that
time the 1968 fire codes were in effect. WTC 7 was not built by Port Authority, but by
Silverstein and would have to obey 1968 code. The 1968 code weakened much of the
older 1938 code. The 1938 code required steel members be encased in concrete or terra
cotta masonary several inches thick to be up to standard. By 1968 was changed to a
performance based standard where if material could stand being heated in furnace for
several hours and resist deformation when subject to heavy weight. Fire proofing
material consisted of mineral (asbestos was banned in 1970) with cement binders sprayed
on to steel - unlike solid masonary was weak and easily damaged or peeled off. Impact
damage striped fire proofing and left steel exposed like in WTC towers. Diesel fuel for
backup generators, both for OEM "bunker", Salomon Brothers and others was housed in
large tanks outside of building connected by pipes to small "day" tanks of 275 gal (size
of tank used in many residental heating oil fuel tanks) inside building. Conjecture is
broken fuel lines feed fires,

Contrast WTC 7 with 90 West St (built in 1907, 80 years before) - it suffered similar
damage to WTC 7 and severe fires which burned out several floors yet steel survived
with only few columns showing any damage and floors (built of terra cotta flat arches)
were not breached by fires or impact. Difference in construction standards - old and
solid vs cheap and nasty (and dangerous!)

Read CITY IN THE SKY by Lipton and Glanz of NY Times for further info on construction
standards.
 
How exactly does this fit in with your controlled demolition hallucinations?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom