official FEMA WTC 7 report, page 1

8bitagent wrote:
Not to rain on anything, but I had never seen this WTC7 photo before

I don't think you've rained on anything at all. It's a well-known fact that there were diesel fuel tanks underneath the loading dock in WTC7 that had pipes and day-tanks on various floors.

* Two tanks, maximum capacity 11,600 gallons each. Found intact after the collapse. 20,000 gallons total was recovered from these by the EPA.
* Two tanks, maximum capacity 6.000 gallons each. Found ruptured, but not exploded, after the collapse. At the time of the FEMA report, the tanks had yet to be extracted and examined.

If fire did reach any of the two 6,000 gallon tanks, or they were still pumping fuel up into the building through the generator feed pipes, this would create a huge amount of smoke. Diesel makes lots of very dark, very thick smoke when it burns. The volume and thickness of smoke is not indicative of a raging inferno, as the lack of any awe-inspiring WTC7 fire pictures and the lack of any smoke coming out of the side of the building in that picture will attest to.

The pic and video of the smoke coming out of WTC7 proves nothing, and is actually pathetic when compared to other buildings that have been absolutely gutted by fire until they are virtual skeletons and yet not even partially collapsed. But the smoke will be enough to convince the masses, and that is all FEMA/NIST need/want.

Also diesel doesn't explode unless it's a vapour and hot - that's why diesel engines have a "preheat" plug to get the cylinder warm enough to run, and that's exactly why diesel is used in tanks such as those in WTC7 and other buildings. So any claims of exploding diesel tanks is bogus, further supported by the fact that FEMA never mentioned any exploded tanks in their report. 24,000 gallons of petroleum on the other hand would be a disaster waiting to happen.

It should also be noted that the "we're oh so impartial" 9-11 Myths website altered the levels and contrast on that image to make the smoke appear thicker and darker.

Here is the original:

Be forewarned, NIST is going to do lots of arm-flapping, and probably pull a couple of new photos of damage to the southeast corner, fires, and smoke out of the bag when their WTC7 report comes out. They will also likely spin something about sulphur in the diesel fuel (only 15 parts per million, folks) causing iron sulphide formation and thus lowering the temperature at which the steel melted. But no facade damage, and no fire, whether fuelled by diesel fuel or Dilithium, is ever going to cause a steel framed building to collapse in a completely symmetrical, flawless imitation of a controlled demolition the way WTC7 did. If it could, demolition companies would be out of a job, diesel fuel wouldn't be allowed within 100 meters of any building basements, and fire-fighters would never enter burning buildings for fear that they are about to collapse.

We've seen the smoke, now wait for winter when NIST pulls out the mirrors.

[edit on 2005-10-25 by wecomeinpeace]