In article <46C24716.C4A13FA5@treason.gov>,
Henry <bushcheney@treason.gov> wrote:
>Peter wrote:
>
>> Nah. The jets everyone thinks they saw were perfectly timed holographic
>> images projected from the top of the Chrysler building. Real jets would've
>> just bounced off
>
> You magic fire conspiracy kooks sure do get crazy stupid when you're
>challenged to think rahter than mindellsly parrot the lies of your
>ruling masters. No jet hit WTC7, kooker, and if one had, it wouldn't
>have bounced off - not even on your planet...
>
> http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/0...-of-wtc-7.html
>
>The Destruction of WTC 7
>Important updates:
>9/06: NIST postpones its report until the end of 2007, will consider if
>explosions occurred
>9/06: a demolition expert and two structural design professors: WTC 7
>was a controlled demolition
>12/06: Heikki Kurttila (DEng): WTC 7 fell as fast as an object falling
>the same distance through air
>1/07: Frank Legge (Ph.D.): The rate of descent of WTC 7 almost equals
>gravitational free fall
>2/07: Several witnesses to controlled demolition come forward
>7/07: Over 100 architects and engineers challenge the official
>explanations of WTC destruction
>
>World Trade Center 7 was the third skyscraper destroyed on September 11
>2001. It was not hit by a plane. The picture on the left shows WTC 7
>after the collapse of the Twin Towers.
>
>The final investigation report on its collapse has been postponed many
>times. As of this writing (almost 6 years after the destruction), it
>still has not been published.
>
Engineering takes time. Unlike the Twqoofers, they can't just make shit up.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?
res=9C02EEDD103EF933A15751C1A9679C8B63
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2uo95x
New York Times
December 20, 2001
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRADE CENTER;
City Had Been Warned of Fuel Tank at 7 World Trade Center
By JAMES GLANZ AND ERIC LIPTON
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.
The 6,000-gallon tank was positioned about 15 feet above the ground
floor and near several lobby elevators and was meant to fuel
generators that would supply electricity to the 23rd-floor bunker in
the event of a power failure. Although the city made some design
changes to address the concerns -- moving a fuel pipe that would have
run from the tank up an elevator shaft, for example -- it left the
tank in place.
But the Fire Department repeatedly warned that a tank in that position
could spread fumes throughout the building if it leaked, or, if it
caught fire, could produce what one Fire Department memorandum called
''disaster.''
Putting a tank underground typically protects it from falling debris,
and impedes leaks or tank fires from spreading throughout the
building.
Engineering experts have spent three months trying to determine why 7
World Trade Center, part of the downtown complex that included the
110-story towers, collapsed about seven hours after being damaged and
set on fire by debris from the damaged landmark buildings.
Some of the experts, who said that no major skyscraper had ever
collapsed simply because of fire damage, have recently been examining
whether the diesel tanks -- there were others beneath ground level --
played an important role in the building's stunning demise.
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.
The authority also worked with Fire Department officials to eliminate
the department's original objections, Mr. Lombardi said.
''We made sure that it was in agreement with the code,'' Mr. Lombardi
said, adding that the tank was placed in an eight-inch-thick masonry
enclosure.
A spokesman for the Fire Department said yesterday that he could not
authoritatively say whether all the concerns of its officials had been
addressed by the Port Authority. But when reached yesterday, the
department official who wrote several of the warning memorandums said
he regarded the Port Authority's interpretation of the code to be ''a
stretch.'' The official, Battalion Chief William P. Blaich, said he
still considered the tank's placement to have been unsafe.
The Port Authority has long held that, as a matter of law, it does not
have to abide by city fire codes. But after the 1993 bombing of the
towers, the Port Authority signed a memorandum of understanding with
the city pledging to not only meet the city's fire codes, but also to
often take additional precautions.
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.
No one is believed to have died in the collapse of 7 World Trade
Center. But its collapse did further complicate the rescue and
recovery efforts under way at the scene.
The engineering and fire experts who have been examining the collapse
of 7 World Trade Center have not settled on the final cause of the
disaster. But they have seen evidence of very high temperatures
typical of fuel fires in the debris from the building and have raised
questions about whether the diesel accounted for those conditions.
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.
Several fire experts said that, whatever the questions surrounding the
city's code, installing giant fuel tanks above the occupied spaces of
a building posed serious risks.
----------------------------------------------------
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001
Re: WTC Towers: The case for controlled demolition 
Linear Mode
