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.
My full deconstruction of this steaming pile of NIST dool is forthcoming.
Originally posted by esdad71
Where is it Slaps?
Originally posted by Samblack
No offense to anybody but this is what a controlled demolition of a Skyscraper sounds and look's like.
video.google.com...
Originally posted by jab712
Man Slap why are you soooo antagonistic and frankly...rude?
I have tried to search posts. Unless I am doing it wrong..
Originally posted by esdad71
So you cannot even draw up your own documents? Riding coattails again it would seem Slaps. C'mon, you can't even give us a taste of what you have, or are you hoping that by putting it off a few days people will forget about your claim? Do you have any original thoughts of your own?
Originally posted by esdad71
So, now we have the truth, that you are not writing anything, but you are waiting for the 911 truther's do it so you can ride the wave. This is not about Ph'd's or engineering at this point, because we have heard from both sides, and they have conflicting views on what happened.
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Her you go:
wtc.nist.gov...
Read into it what you will (and I know you will)
The only thing that I don’t see there, is an analysis of the diesel fuel systems in the building.
What happened to the diesel fuel in the Solomon Smith Barney underground storage tanks?
What is the possibility that the south face damage impacted the fuel distribution piping? Could this damage have resulted in a leak that was NOT detected by the built in leak detection system?
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.
It is worth emphasizing that 20,000 gallons (of a maximum of 23,200 gallons) where recovered intact from the two 12,000-gallon Silverstein tanks. So, it is probable that the 20,000 gallons recovered was all of the oil in the tanks at that time. Since the oil in the Silverstein tanks survived, we can surmise that there was no fire on the ground floor.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Here is a report on the diesel fuel.
www.wtc7.net...
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.
It is worth emphasizing that 20,000 gallons (of a maximum of 23,200 gallons) where recovered intact from the two 12,000-gallon Silverstein tanks. So, it is probable that the 20,000 gallons recovered was all of the oil in the tanks at that time. Since the oil in the Silverstein tanks survived, we can surmise that there was no fire on the ground floor.
The Salomon Brothers pressurized system is different. If the supply or return pipes were fractured along with the containment pipe and the generators started, the fuel pipes would be continuously pressurized, and any leak would continue until the storage tanks were empty as long as any one generator was running.
NIST reviewed the report of an environmental contractor (Langan 2002) hired in the months after the collapse of WTC 7 to recover remaining fuel and to mitigate any environmental damage from the Salomon Brothers tanks. The Salomon Brothers tanks were damaged and appeared to be empty, “ …
Neither the UST’s (underground storage tanks) nor their associated piping contained any residual petroleum product. No residual free product or sludge was observed in either UST.” The tanks were installed on a concrete slab over existing silty sand. A layer of bedding gravel on the slab provided a foundation for the tank. Examination of the gravel below the tanks and the sand below the slab showed some fuel contamination but none was observed in the organic marine silt/clay layer below. Also, the sand and soil below the slab was continuous below the adjacent base system tanks, which contained a total of 24,000 gal of fuel. Thus, it is likely that a fuel leak in any of the tanks would result in fuel contamination in this soil.
Originally posted by HowardRoark
The pressurized fuel pipe for this system ran in the vicinity of the observed damage to the south wall of the building.
Originally posted by Griff
Originally posted by HowardRoark
The pressurized fuel pipe for this system ran in the vicinity of the observed damage to the south wall of the building.
Which "observed" damage to the south face? Oh, you mean the SW corner? WCIP has proven that the South face damage is either a lie or exageration or both.
Originally posted by bsbray11
No, HowardRoark, I'd say it's pretty case-closed.
Your only defense has been "well maybe there was still a hole there and we just can't see it!"
Maybe, but as Griff said, it couldn't have been the size NIST suggests, or we most definitely would have seen at least part of it. The actual damage shown in the Spak image is the SW corner damage, which has been shown conclusively enough.
Not that it matters anyway, because buildings don't collapse at free fall speed unless resistance has been knocked out for them ahead of time.
[edit on 24-10-2006 by bsbray11]
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Not that it matters anyway, because buildings don't collapse at free fall speed unless resistance has been knocked out for them ahead of time.
So from the time thatthe first kink appears in the roof, the first penthouse collapses into the building and the remaining exterior collapses is "free fall time?"
Originally posted by bsbray11
It still collapsed at a speed that showed a total lack of resistance.
Originally posted by Griff
There needs to be some education on speed here. I'm not saying I'm an expert by any means.
There is a difference between time and speed.
Originally posted by timeless test
bsb,
You make the assertion that WTC7 collapsed at freefall speed with a degree of regularity but I do not recall that you have ever explained what that speed was or how you calculated it. If I have missed you posting this information then I apologise but could you run through it one more time or show me where it is.