WTC CHEMICAL FACTORY

STORY HERE

The gases of toxic metals, acids and organics could penetrate deeply into the lungs of workers at Ground Zero, said the study by scientists at the University of California at Davis and released at a meeting of the American Chemical Society in New York.

And so many people believed the govt when they said it was safe. HA! Just like it was not known before hand that the attack would happen.

I hope this opens a few eyes.

Another article on the same subject:

The burning ruins of the World Trade Center released toxic gases "like a chemical factory" for at least six weeks after the 9/11 attacks, despite government assurances the air was safe, said University of California scientists at a meeting of the American Chemical Society in New York

www.wired.com...

I'm confused about this story.

For weeks, we (here in NYC) had warnings not to go to ground zero because of the air quality. I volunteered at a facility moving supplies from inbound containers, to delivery trucks destined for ground zero... duing my shifts, we had three containers full of resperators (high quality types -forget the name- designed for a wide variety of chemical fumes). Then, on the news, saw how ground zero workers weren't using the masks because it made it hard to talk.

This is odd, I'm seeing long after-the-fact references to claims the air was safe... but experienced first-hand, the warnings about air quality, and the effort to get protection to the workers.

"For weeks, we (here in NYC) had warnings not to go to ground zero because of the air quality."

Could you have ignored the warnings, or was the visiting ban enforced?

The ban was enforced. People were evacuated from their apartments and business were closed for a few weeks.

After the ban was lifted (at least 4 weeks), there were lots of stories about people returning to find their apartments in chaos... broken windows, thick layer of noxious dust, and debate over who pays the massive environmental cleanup inside these buildings.

It's very odd. I think there were assurances at some point by the feds (weeks after 9/11) that were disputed by the city... but not to the level of these stories.

This made me remember a story that came out just after 9/11 that was buried almost instantly.

"NY TIMES
City Had Been Warned of Fuel Tank at 7 World Trade Center
December 20, 2001

"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." "

I can't wait until a comprehensive study of 9/11 comes out, but I suspect it will be many many years before the real news can be distinguished from the conspiracy theories.

As for the air quality, the Bush Administration LIED to New Yorkers about air quality. Here's the thread from our very own ATS.

www.abovetopsecret.com...