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.
Originally posted by Disclosed
The quotes I provided by Chief Hayden and Chief Nigro actually both confirm Silversteins quote....
"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." –Larry Silverstein
Originally posted by Disclosed
Lets examine what SIlverstein actually said:
"They" made that decision to pull.
Originally posted by Disclosed
I'm curious why the fire dept, which stated the were unable to contain the fire, and feared more deaths, would send in people with explosives. Too dangerous for firemen in protective suits, but safe for people to go in with explosives and plant charges?
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by Disclosed
I'm curious why the fire dept, which stated the were unable to contain the fire, and feared more deaths, would send in people with explosives. Too dangerous for firemen in protective suits, but safe for people to go in with explosives and plant charges?
The fire commander (who is no longer a fire chief but in charge of all units there) and the incident command (please study emergency incident command) decided to bring down the building.
From the statemnt from the EPA, that since they recovered all the fuel from the Silverstein tanks there must not have been any fire on the ground floor.
Also fire rescue have the equipment and knowledge to cut beams for the rescue of people. It would not have taken much to bring down a building that was already damaged.
We also ahve the video of the hard hat workers coming out of the evacuated zone stating the buidling is coming down, the police are also telling people to get back.
Then there are the reports of first responders hearing the countdown over thier radios.
[edit on 27-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]
Originally posted by Pilgrum
We have the accounts of firefighters on the scene who reported the 20 story gash in the WTC7 building, uncontrolled fires on several floors and the building 'creaking', bulging & leaning with small pieces of the structure falling inside that gash.
There is still no evidence of explosives doing their thing (exploding) to cause that collapse and what kind of explosive causes a building to bulge and lean for hours before it falls?
It's good to see that the current NIST study of the WTC7 collapse has an outside team studying hypotheses involving thermite as part of the report yet to be finalised so perhaps that issue will finallly be sorted out (not to everyone's satisfaction no doubt).
On the subject of fuel: Salomon Brothers had the bulk of generation in WTC7 (9 MG sets) and their fuel tanks were found damaged and empty after the collapse.
According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the southwest corner. According to firefighters' eyewitness accounts from outside of the building, approximately floors 8-18 were damaged to some degree. Other eyewitness accounts relate that there was additional damage to the south elevation.
Because NIST recovered no steel from WTC 7, it is not possible to make any statements about its quality. The recommended values for the stress-strain behavior were estimated using the same methodology that was used for the WTC 1 and WTC 2 steels (NIST NCSTAR 1-3D). The static yield strengths were estimated from historical averages and corrected for testing rate effects.
Because, prior to collapse, WTC 7 did not suffer any high-strain rate events, NIST made no effort to estimate high-strain-rate or impact properties of the steel.
No metallography could be carried out because no steel was recovered from WTC 7.
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.
Salomon Brothers had a contract with a fuel delivery service who always
maintained the tanks full. Therefore, both tanks likely contained 6,000 gal of fuel on September 11, 2001.
Originally posted by Pilgrum
what kind of explosive causes a building to bulge and lean for hours before it falls?
In fact there's really no evidence of any structure destroying type explosions in any of the buildings.
The only evidence of a controlled demolition is it looked a bit like one which isn't much at all.
It's good to see that the current NIST study of the WTC7 collapse has an outside team studying hypotheses involving thermite as part of the report yet to be finalised so perhaps that issue will finallly be sorted out (not to everyone's satisfaction no doubt).
Seed accused the engineering society and the Army Corps of collusion, writing an Oct. 20 letter alleging that the two organizations worked together "to promulgate misleading studies and statements, to subvert appropriate independent investigations ... to literally attempt to change some of the critical apparent answers regarding lessons to be learned."
[...]
In 2002, the society's report on the World Trade Center praised the buildings for remaining standing long enough to allow tens thousands of people to flee.
But, the report said, skyscrapers are not typically designed to withstand airplane impacts. Instead of hardening buildings against such impacts, it recommended improving aviation security and fire protection.
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, a structural engineer and forensics expert, contends his computer simulations disprove the society's findings that skyscrapers could not be designed to withstand the impact of a jetliner.
[...]
Corley said the society's study was peer-reviewed and its credibility was upheld by follow-up studies, including one by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
"I hope someone looks into the people making the accusations," Corley said. "That's a sordid tale."
Originally posted by Pilgrum
FEMA recovered steel from WTC7 and produced that report on their findings of high temperature corrosion being evident.
Findings reported in Appendix C of FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study seem to fit the thermite theory remarkably well.
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.
The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." 2 WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon.
A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.
FEMA's investigators inferred that a "liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur" formed during a "hot corrosion attack on the steel." The eutectic mixture (having the elements in such proportion as to have the lowest possible melting point) penetrated the steel down grain boundaries, making it "susceptible to erosion." Following are excerpts from Appendix C, Limited Metallurgical Examination.
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
The only evidence of a controlled demolition is it looked a bit like one which isn't much at all.
Originally posted by talisman
Completely disagree with your assertion.
But most important, no steel buidling has ever collapsed due to fire.
Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Because all buildings designed the same and have had the exact same damage.
In 2002, the society's report on the World Trade Center praised the buildings for remaining standing long enough to allow tens thousands of people to flee.
But, the report said, skyscrapers are not typically designed to withstand airplane impacts. Instead of hardening buildings against such impacts, it recommended improving aviation security and fire protection.
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, a structural engineer and forensics expert, contends his computer simulations disprove the society's findings that skyscrapers could not be designed to withstand the impact of a jetliner.
Astaneh-Asl, who received money from the National Science Foundation to investigate the collapse, insisted most New York skyscrapers built with traditional designs would survive such an impact and prevent the kind of fires that brought down the twin towers.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
1. According to the FEMA reprot, firemen in building 7 reported damge to 10 floors (floors 8-18 on the south side of the buidling.
Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years
Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
Originally posted by Disclosed
Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.
According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the southwest corner. According to firefighters' eyewitness accounts from outside of the building, approximately floors 8-18 were damaged to some degree.