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.

 

Electricity Company Lawsuit Claims Fuel Tanks below 7 World Trade Center Added to 9/11 Destruction

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by NightGypsy
 


It will be hilarious when all those OS supporters who want to claim fire brought down building seven start supporting the claims in a lawsuit which directly contradict NIST. LOLOL.

'NIST explained how the Towers came down'

But what about building seven?

'There were fuel tanks in the basement, idiot. They fuelled the fire which lead to the collapse!'

Not according to NIST. They specifically said that was NOT the case. So are NIST wrong about building seven, or wrong about the towers, and if they are wrong about some of it, how can we accept any of it as authoritative?

What fun.
edit on 29-6-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by watchedbyskulls
Reply to post by ANOK
 


you are correct. Diesel fuel is not flammable, it is combustable. This is the reason diesel engines have no spark plugs. The fuel combusts under extreme pressure.


Yes thank you.

It also has to be vaporized to be efficient.

It's the same as jet fuel, it burns under pressure, once ignited it needs no more spark to keep it ignited. Off topic but this debunks the nonsense that jet fuel could pour down elevator shafts and then ignite in the lobbies of the towers.

It would actually be interesting to see how this law suit plays out. When they lose then wouldn't they have to admit fire could not be the cause? It would have to come out that the diesel was recovered, and there were no fires on the lower floors? If there were no fires on the lower floors then how do they explain the collapse not being arrested before it was complete, and the outer walls being allowed to collapse inwards on top of the rest of the collapsed building (as in a classic implosion demolition)?



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


9/11 is a tough nut to crack with so many stories and counter stories around. With perseverance and common sense it is possible to sort out the facts from the fiction. I have heard of fuel tanks within the building before, but discounted as the reason for collapse. This is the first I have heard of fuel below the building though.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by NightGypsy
 



How were fuel tanks underneath the building responsible for accelerating a fire on upper floors?


Because while the main fuel tanks were outside the building, there was a "day tank" located in the mechanical
room with the generators. This tank was 275 gal in size, about what find in basement of average home.

Further the fuel pumps which moved diesel from the main storage tanks to the day tank had a backup
power supply so even if the main power supply to WTC 7 was cut off the fuel would still be pumped to the
generators

CON ED is claiming that diesel fuel fed the fires and lead to collapse of WTC 7

Backup generators were there to provide emergency power to NYC OEM office and other tenants



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 





It will be hilarious when all those OS supporters who want to claim fire brought down building seven start supporting the claims in a lawsuit which directly contradict NIST. LOLOL. 'NIST explained how the Towers came down' But what about building seven? 'There were fuel tanks in the basement, idiot. They fuelled the fire which lead to the collapse!' Not according to NIST. They specifically said that was NOT the case. So are NIST wrong about building seven, or wrong about the towers, and if they are wrong about some of it, how can we accept any of it as authoritative? What fun.


LMAO,,,,,,And if you'll notice, a couple of them jumped on the bandwagon at the onset of the thread....obviously before they looked any further into the details of the lawsuit......LOL



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 





Because while the main fuel tanks were outside the building, there was a "day tank" located in the mechanical room with the generators. This tank was 275 gal in size, about what find in basement of average home. Further the fuel pumps which moved diesel from the main storage tanks to the day tank had a backup power supply so even if the main power supply to WTC 7 was cut off the fuel would still be pumped to the generators CON ED is claiming that diesel fuel fed the fires and lead to collapse of WTC 7 Backup generators were there to provide emergency power to NYC OEM office and other tenants


Uh, yeah......

Except for it appears this fuel tank issue has been debunked.

Nice commentary, though.




top topics
 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join