posted on Feb, 9 2004 @ 11:43 AM
Please search earlier threads for conversation relating to this building as it has been covered numerous times.
Since I realize no one will do this because it's not as much fun as saying the government blew up buildings in New York i'll just add my comments on
this article here.
Debris from the collapsing North Tower breached a fuel oil pipe in a room in the north side of the building. (This means the debris had to
travel across WTC 6 and Vesey Street, -- a distance of at least 355 feet -- penetrate the outer wall of WTC 6, and smash through about 50 feet of the
building, including a concrete masonry wall.)
Let's see. Firstly, the report of a gas leak was rather prominently mentioned on at least 4 different agencies' radio frequencies. Secondly, I
personally saw a plane engine quite a few blocks from the towers. Do I know which tower it hit? Nope. Do I know precisely how far it flew? Nope.
Is it possible for a part of a plane that impacted many hundreds of feet in the air at a high rate of speed to go "355 feet"? I'd say so.
The author uses a very sarcastic tone in describing some of the events such as debris "making the journey" across the street which i find very out
of line for someone who did not witness any part of the event. It is a rather well known fact that a scientist should not make a hypothesis based on
something has not had any experience with. Establishing credibility is imperative to making a hypothesis - why should anyone believe you - and I fail
to see how these authors everyone posts do that.
My FAVORITE part of this "article" is the following statement.
The extant fires raised the temperature of the spilled fuel oil to the 140 degrees F required for it to ignite.
The sprinkler system malfunctioned and failed to extinguish the fire.
First, is it such a shock that a fire was able to get fuel to ignite? Haven't you ever seen the signs "Don't smoke near the gas pump"? Why would
that be? And the clincher here is his idiotic statement about the sprinkler system malfunctioning. Yes we all know how effective water is when
putting out an oil based fire. This is hysterical. The expectation was that the water sprinkler system was going to put out fuel fires such as the
ones that might have spread into OEM's generators? Nice blunder.
Could the collapse of this building have been prevented? Maybe. I couldn't tell you for sure, as I'm not an architect, a fire expert, or anything
else of that sort. What I can tell you is that I 1) saw fires raging in that building for a few hours and 2) saw an engine quite a distance away from
the towers. I'd suggest the author rethinking his tone of voice when calling eyewitnessed events "unlikely".