It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WTC 7: Why Does NIST Ignore Floors 1-7, Basement and Sub-Basements?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by HowardRoark
There were a large number of generators on the upper floors.

False. The report you link shows a SINGLE generator above floor 8 and it is on 9.



What about the ones on 5, and 7?





Originally posted by HowardRoark
Each generator set would have had a 100 gallon “Day Tank” associated with it.


False... some did, others had 275. gal and some had none.

Read your own source.



So they were bigger, right?

The ones with the built in day tanks would have been 100 gallons maybe 150, depends on the mfg. of the set.




Originally posted by HowardRoark
These day tanks were fed by pressurized lines from the main storage tanks in the basement.




Only if the pumps were running and since they had fire protection systems the lines would NOT have been pressurized if the fire shutdown system had activated. SINCE, RAGING INFERNOS (invisible) were raviging the building (sarcasm) why would the lines be pressurized? Even if they were, it is ridiculous to assume a small diameter diesle line will neatly drop a 47 story steel building.


Given the loss of power to the building and the shock and damage to the systems from the collapse of WTC 1, it is impossible to know if the systems were operating as designed.

Furthermore, the there were plenty of other materials to burn in the building. The issue of the fuel oil tanks is primarily a question of weather they contributed to the fires, not if they were the only source of flammable materials.




Originally posted by HowardRoark
Many of the generators, tanks and lines were located along the south face of the building.


Point?

[edit on 15-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]


Well since the south face was damaged by debris from WTC 1, then it is possible that these systems were affected, is it not?




[edit on 15-8-2006 by HowardRoark]




posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
So? (BTW, take your meds or something, There is no need to shout.)


You claim "there were a large number of generators on the UPPER floors". AA little misleading howardroark? I would not consider floor 8 to be an "upper floor" of a 47 floor building.

Nice, cheap shot! Getting angry HowardRoark?


Originally posted by HowardRoark
Again, So? What is your point?


See Above.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
Not necessarily. If the generators kicked on when the power was cut, the pumps would have been running and the return lines would have been sending the excess fuel back to the main tank.


The report YOU CITED says thaey are assumed to be empty.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
The pumps and the generators would have kicked on when the substations were shut down by Comed.


And ran until the day tanks were dry and then shut down.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
No, but the lines were.


Only if the pump was currently running fuel through the double walled concrete encased pipes.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
So far, you are the only one that I have seen that has suggested that a diesel tank exploded.


The NIST implication is obvious. Maybe they will bot say exploded and will say the fuel burned... FUNNY sounds familiar... fuel oil taking down stell buildings... where have I headr that one before?


Originally posted by HowardRoark
Same thing, you are the only one who seems to think that the tanks exploded. There is a difference between exploding and leaking.


So a couple of hunder of gallons of burning diesel can collapse a building now? Nice Howardroark.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Do you have a source for that claim?


Summary of diesel oil recovery and spillage (Rommel 2002) Rommel, Jennifer (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2002. Oral communication regarding a November 12, 2001, letter about diesel oil recovery and spillage. April.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
How was the demolition done again? More magical thermite, I suppose?


More likely than burning diesle dropping a 47 story building neat, fast and fairly cleanly.





[edit on 15-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
What about the ones on 5, and 7?


5-8 would not be considered "upper floors" of a 47 story building.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
So they were bigger, right?


Some were, some had none... you are the king of pointing out bad info... your info was false.

IT SEEMS YOU ARE RELUCTANT TO ADMIT YOUR MISTAKE?


Originally posted by HowardRoark
The ones with the built in day tanks would have been 100 gallons maybe 150, depends on the mfg. of the set.


The document YOU LINKED tells the sizes of all of them... did you read it?


Originally posted by HowardRoark
Given the loss of power to the building and the shock and damage to the systems from the collapse of WTC 1, it is impossible to know if the systems were operating as designed.

Furthermore, the there were plenty of other materials to burn in the building. The issue of the fuel oil tanks is primarily a question of weather they contributed to the fires, not if they were the only source of flammable materials.


As usual... all of the coincidences combine to perfection... protection fails, magic fuel oil INFERNOS, odd solicitations, predrawn conclusions...


Originally posted by HowardRoark
Well since the south face was damaged by debris from WTC 1, then it is possible that these systems were affected, is it not?


Again, you are being misleading. No damage has ever been shown to the souther face of WTC 7.. EVER.

[edit on 15-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   
There were 275 gallon day tanks located on 5, 7, and 8, a 50 gallon day tank on 9,

The Solomon brothers used a pressurized piping design.

Anyway, if these floors were on fire, would the fuel in the tanks have contributed to the fires?

The answer is yes, it is quite possible.

That is the only issue related to the fuel oil tanks.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
There were 275 gallon day tanks located on 5, 7, and 8, a 50 gallon day tank on 9,


So your earlier statments were not factual?


Originally posted by HowardRoark
The Solomon brothers used a pressurized piping design.


True but this is only relevant to 9/11 if the fire saftey features of the pumps failed and the double walled concrete encased pipes were breached and if the diesel was not recovered.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
Anyway, if these floors were on fire, would the fuel in the tanks have contributed to the fires?


Sure, but I do not see how this is relevant to the discussion of why the NIST does not want a contrator to look at the floors that contained these systems.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
That is the only issue related to the fuel oil tanks.


Except for the topic of the thread... why does the NIST insist they investigate the floors with these systems and give the rest of the contract to another group?



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   

True but this is only relevant to 9/11 if the fire saftey features of the pumps failed and the double walled concrete encased pipes were breached and if the diesel was not recovered.


The risers would have been in a masonry shaft, the horizontal runs were double walled.

If the building was damaged by falling debris, then the pipes could have been breached.

At any rate, the sprinklers were down, so that any fire on the floors would have eventually affected the system.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The risers would have been in a masonry shaft, the horizontal runs were double walled.


A single horozontal run on the 5th floor.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
If the building was damaged by falling debris...


Now it is if? You were SO certain a post or two ago.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
At any rate, the sprinklers were down, so that any fire on the floors would have eventually affected the system.


IF there were fires in the area, AND they were hot enough AND if the sprinklers were down than it COULD HAVE affected a small portion of the system which had safety features to shut it down in an event like this.

[edit on 15-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Howard


So? (BTW, take your meds or something, There is no need to shout.)


That's no way to discuss the issues.

We want people to discuss the issues, not each other. Throwing little jabs like that does nothing to help make your point, it just leads to more bad feelings, and drags down the level of the discussion.

Please and thank you.



Edit: Right thread.


[edit on 15-8-2006 by WyrdeOne]

[edit on 15-8-2006 by WyrdeOne]



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
There were 275 gallon day tanks located on 5, 7, and 8, a 50 gallon day tank on 9,

The Solomon brothers used a pressurized piping design.

Anyway, if these floors were on fire, would the fuel in the tanks have contributed to the fires?

The answer is yes, it is quite possible.

That is the only issue related to the fuel oil tanks.


Too bad the great majority of the fuel in WTC7 was recovered in the clean-up.

I cite section 5.4 of the FEMA Report:


To date, the NY State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEC have recovered approximately 20,000 gallons from the other two intact 11,600-gallon underground fuel oil storage tanks at WTC 7.
[...]
If the Silverstein pump had started pumping at 10 a.m., when Con Ed shut down power to the building immediately following the collapse of WTC 2, and continued pumping until the collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 p.m., less than 2,000 gallons would have been used.


So for the Silverstein pumps, there was virtually no missing fuel, considering it would have started pumping in the emergency situation.

For the SSB tanks:


Similarly, the SSB pump, which had a pumping rate of 75 gpm, would have drained the two 6,000 gallon tanks serving that system in less than 3 hours.


So,

Where is your evidence that these tanks fueled any fires?



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 07:22 AM
link   
On a side not which pretty much SEALS THE DEAL for me... ARA has a gov't contract to build UAVs...

Source: www.uavforum.com...

This is a CLEAR conflict of interest and their results can be preconsidered slanted at best or bogus at worst.



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Are we talking about the same sort of Diesel thats available at the pump for public use? have you tried fueling a fire with it? I've thrown a bucket on a well burning fire before and its extinguished the fire, its really not a very good fuel for fire, Diesel engines dont rely on burning the fuel, they rely on compression, its hardly a volitile substance, even less so judging buy the actual quantities that leaked that day



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ernold Same
Are we talking about the same sort of Diesel thats available at the pump for public use? have you tried fueling a fire with it? I've thrown a bucket on a well burning fire before and its extinguished the fire, its really not a very good fuel for fire, Diesel engines dont rely on burning the fuel, they rely on compression, its hardly a volitile substance, even less so judging buy the actual quantities that leaked that day


If it spilled and soaked into building materials, it would burn through wick action just like candle wax does.



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
If it spilled and soaked into building materials, it would burn through wick action just like candle wax does.


Maybe you missed my last post on this thread, or the FEMA Report, where it is stated that virtually all of the diesel was recovered. The little that was missing could easily be accounted for by the use of the generators in the emergency situation that was 9/11, in the hours before WTC7's collapse. Again, all from the FEMA Report, section 5.4.

It's hard for diesel to knock out massive steel columns when it's not even on fire, don't you think, HowardRoark?



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 12:51 AM
link   
There are some discrepancies in various reports on just how much deisel was recovered.

IIRC, At least one of the USTs was substantially empty.



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 01:00 AM
link   
So you're suggesting that large amounts of fuel were not recovered, and yet FEMA went ahead and said that there had been, for no good reason, in an official report?



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   
What report are you reading?

From this report



The pumps located at the ground floor could supply 75 gallons per minute (gpm). A 3-gpm fuel supply rate was needed for each of the nine 1,725-kilowatt (kW) generators located on the 5th floor. One gallon would be consumed and the other 2 gallons would continue to circulate through the system. The SSB fuel oil pumps were provided with UPS power supported by both base building emergency power and SSB standby power.


If we assume that all 9 generators ran from 10:00 when the power was cut, until 5:00 when the building collapsed, that is 420 minutes, or 3780 gallons of fuel that would have been consumed.


Engineers from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation investigated oil contamination in the debris of WTC 7. Their principal interest was directed to the various oils involved in the Con Ed equipment. However, they reported the following findings on fuel oil: “In addition to Con Ed’s oil, there was a maximum loss of 12,000 gallons of diesel from two underground storage tanks registered as 7WTC.” To date, the NY State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEC have recovered approximately 20,000 gallons from the other two intact 11,600-gallon underground fuel oil storage tanks at WTC 7.


As I read that, the SSB tanks were empty. Since their maximum volume was 12,000 gallons, that leaves 8,000 gallons unaccounted for.


There is also the 6,000 gallon OEM tank that was on the second floor, not underground.



[edit on 21-8-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
What report are you reading?

If we assume.......



Ahh assumption, the mother of all f*ck ups



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ernold Same

Originally posted by HowardRoark
What report are you reading?

If we assume.......



Ahh assumption, the mother of all f*ck ups




So you want to assume that even more fuel oil is unaccounted for?

All of the generator sets would have turned on when the power was cut to the building.

I assumed that they all ran for the full length of time. It is possible, even probable that they ran less then that as the air intakes became clogged with dust from the collapse of building 1.

If this is the case, then even more fuel is unaccounted for.

What do you think a reasonable assumption would be?



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
If we assume that all 9 generators ran from 10:00 when the power was cut, until 5:00 when the building collapsed, that is 420 minutes, or 3780 gallons of fuel that would have been consumed.


How can you assume this when they had shutdown sensors incase of a line breach or a fire in the building? This is a HORRIBLE assumption. You are assuming ALL ran at peak capacity the WHOLE time (7hrs.), that all safety features faild (that would have shut them down) and above you point out the system was prbably damaged because of it's location in the building Howardroark. You math here is junk base on a "best caase scenario" in assitsting your position.

IT is also an ASSUMPTION that the tanks were FULL. Show me where anyone ANYONE gives evidence of the tanks being full. The NIST admits that they do NOT know how full the tanks would havebeen, they just assume they were absolutely full.

The amount of fuel recovered has conveniently gotten lower and lower over the years... Gee, I wonder why.

I notice you stopped addressing my posts and just started lookingagain for random info, could you respond instead of distract?



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   

SSB had supply and return piping to the emergency generators made from a 2-1/2-inch double-wall steel pipe with a 4-inch outside diameter. The SSB fuel oil riser was single-wall pipe with a masonry shaft. Only the horizontal piping on the 5th floor was a double-wall pipe within a pipe. The pumps located at the ground floor could supply 75 gallons per minute (gpm). A 3-gpm fuel supply rate was needed for each of the nine 1,725-kilowatt (kW) generators located on the 5th floor. One gallon would be consumed and the other 2 gallons would continue to circulate through the system. The SSB fuel oil pumps were provided with UPS power supported by both base building emergency power and SSB standby power. The volume between the inner and outer pipes was designed to contain a leak from the inner pressurized pipe and direct that fuel oil to a containment vessel. Upon detection of fuel oil in the containment vessel, the fuel oil pumps automatically de-energized. The SSB fuel oil pumps and distribution piping were dedicated to the SSB generator plant. The base building life safety generators and OEM generators had their own dedicated fuel oil pumps and piping. The Silverstein generators consisted of two 900-kW units, which were also located on the 5th floor, and supplied by a 275-gallon day



talk about assumptions. The designers of that system assumed that a leak would only occur within the inner pipe. They also assumed that any leaked fuel oil would drain back to the containment vessel. They assumed that he pipe would not be damaged from exterior forces.


The SSB system involved three separate generator locations on the 5th floor: three generator sets in the southwest corner of the building, two in the northwest section, and four in the northeast section. The distribution pipe was double-wall welded black iron with leak detection between the pipes. The outer pipe was at least 4 inches in diameter and the inner pipe at least 2-1/2 inches. The pipe traversed most of the length of the 5th floor immediately north of a concrete masonry wall running most of the length of the floor in an east-west direction. At the east end of the 5th floor and to the south of the wall was a 1- to 2-story mechanical equipment room. Transfer Trusses 1 and 2 were located in this room. The east end of Truss 1 was supported by a truss element that ran perpendicular (i.e., north-south) to the main east-west portions of the truss. There was a set of double doors opening from the mechanical room to the area containing the four generator sets previously mentioned. The fuel oil distribution pipe ran above this door several feet to the north of the masonry wall. The type, quality, and hardware on the door set are unknown. The position of the door (i.e., open or closed) at the time of the incident is also unknown. Also, no information was available in regard to the size of the undercut on the door.


Reading that, I think it is entirely within the realm of possibility that the physical damage to the building from the collapse of WTC 1, also damaged this pipe where is traversed the floor. Furthermore, if the pipe was bent or moved it would be entirely possible for that leaked fuel to not flow back to the containment vessel. Thus a breach in the line from exterior forces on the pipe might not have triggered the automatic shut off.

As for the tanks being full, I seem to recall that somewhere in one of these reports it states that the fuel delivery companies were responsible for keeping the tanks topped off at all times.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join