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 What about the 6000gal tank?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 09:06 AM
link   
There was a 6000 gallon tank of diesel fuel on the 23rd floor of WTC7.
This was 'Rudy's Bunker' where he had his own water tank, air tanks and yes 6000 gallons of diesel fuel. The fire marshal insisted to Rudy that this breaks many laws and can become a disaster itself if a fire occured.

The New York Times posted this article around 12/01. (I have the exact date at home if needed)

My question is; If this fuel was known about by the fire marshal, and was knowingly breaking laws, how is it that the owner's of 7 got the insurance money? Also, if this was the reason 7 fell, why doesn't the fire dept come forward? Had all who known about it die that day? When I read this last night, I was floored. Here is the book that I am reading.

9-11 Time line




posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 09:22 AM
link   
That's a good question. If the building wasn't to code, how DID he get the insurance money?



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Yes it is a good question, even though I remember reading most of that fuel was recovered anyway.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by shadow watcher
There was a 6000 gallon tank of diesel fuel on the 23rd floor of WTC7.

FYI. From this source there were several large diesel tanks but most were at ground level and most of the fuel was recovered. There was one 6,000 G tank above ground level, but it was between the 2nd and 3rd floor. There were day tanks higher up but were only 275 gallon.

About halfway down is a table with all the tanks.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

There is a suggestion that maybe the pipes were broke from debris from tower 1 and the pumps were still running. (if so why?)



My question is; If this fuel was known about by the fire marshal, and was knowingly breaking laws, how is it that the owner's of 7 got the insurance money?

Good question. And to add another, if the building did collapse all buy its self, then why wasn't anyone held accountable for such a poor building design?

[edit on 3/6/2007 by Hal9000]



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
There is a suggestion that maybe the pipes were broke from debris from tower 1 and the pumps were still running. (if so why?)


The NIST (preliminary or whatever) report on WTC7 says that no one smelled diesel in WTC7, or at least there were no reports of it, which would be odd if a large tank was leaking from the 23rd floor down.

Diesel fires also tend to produce thick, sooty smoke, no? Either that or massive flames, I guess, but I haven't seen either from WTC7. In general, I think it's safe to say that if there were any truly massive fires, we would have seen them. You don't have to have a lot of fire to produce a lot of smoke. When a fire is in bad condition it'll put off TONS of smoke, but smoke doesn't bring the same punch to massive columns as fire (and fire doesn't bring much to begin with).

Does anyone know of any legal ways to get around building codes on a case-by-case basis with the fire marshal?



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Does anyone know of any legal ways to get around building codes on a case-by-case basis with the fire marshal?


NO. Buildings are built to code. If this is true and the 6,000 G tank WAS illegal, the fire marshal is also to blame for not reporting it to OSHA.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Diesel fires also tend to produce thick, sooty smoke, no? Either that or massive flames, I guess, but I haven't seen either from WTC7. In general, I think it's safe to say that if there were any truly massive fires, we would have seen them.

I agree. I was just pointing out that it was suggested that the pumps were left on could have been the source of the fire, but I don't believe that. Most of the fuel was recovered and even if the fuel was burning you have the same issue as with the towers. The fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt the steel.

I was just offering some additional info, so lets get back to the OP's original question, which was with the violations of code how was Silverstein able to collect on the insurance?

I can't say myself, but being a businessman he will take whatever he can. I just think he is profiting on the deaths of people and should be ashamed.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 07:02 PM
link   
the first thing I thought was perhaps the fear of the tank blowing was the reason the pull it order came over. It may have been a huge danger that the firemen may not have known about. Letting it go seems more sensible than risking more lives unnecessarily. I suppose the owner HAD to know about the tanks. Can you imagine if 7 exploded? The death toll would have been much worse.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join