B.L.E.V.E and the WTC 7

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.

Note that the size of a 12,000 gallon tank would be a little less than 12 feet by 12 feet by 12 feet (if built as a cube).

Source

Great theory but a little research would have saved your wasted time...

How many other 'theories' do you post here as fact without even researching them first? That seems to be a common problem with the de-bunkers.

Even if your theory held any water it still leaves the question of the symmetrical collapse at near free-fall into it's own footprint. That only happens when ALL columns fail at the same time, and that takes a controlled situation not asymmetrical damage from uncontrolled explosives or fire.

If you can show me a precedence where a building fell, as WTC 7 did, from asymmetrical damage and/or fire then you might have a case. Good luck searching, you'll need it...

[edit on 27/9/2007 by ANOK]

Have you ALL forgotten that the collapse of both towers began in the middle and not the first or seventh floor, in fact no where around there. How can you account for the fact that the collapse began in the upper middle part of the building. I am pretty sure there were no highly flammable diesel tanks that high up. And don't argue with me about the plane because it runs on kerosene and mostly all vaporized at the moment of impact and the rest of it in a short period thereafter.

I'm not knocking you but "how convenient". Diesel fuel in all 3 buldings now. The official lie just gets better and better IMO.

Whats the problem ? The fact that there was large amount of diesel
fuel stored onsite for the backup generators. That large scale plumbing
ran from the tanks through the building to the generators in the
mechanical rooms. That the debris shower from the North Tower
collapse smashed into the building and damaged some of the piping
feeding diesel fuel into the fires

reply to post by thedman



See Anok's post. All I have to say. Where did this "fuel" come from if it was found later?

reply to post by six


Plausibly, but not likly. Where is this explosion?




[edit on 27-9-2007 by Gorman91]

[edit on 27-9-2007 by Gorman91]

reply to post by Gorman91


Thanks for the link.

Originally posted by Damocles
for example, to cut a big box column with sheet explosives you need about 11lbs, well a comparable sized volume of diesel heated to bleve wont do jack to it....but, a very large diesel tank might.

They build those things with pressure relief valves, and there are legal codes that apply. I have a feeling you wouldn't be able to get a very efficient amount of energy out of a large diesel tank anyway. It's going to reach its maximum internal pressure as soon as the weakest part of it is ruptured.

Griff: if you reread my first post in this thread i said flat out it would essentially be a thermobaric and then went on to explain why i didnt think it was the cause. so my problem isnt with who or what would have caused the explosions but rather that the evidence doenst support either a bleve or a thermobaric. was it you or bsb i had the u2u discussion about the jet fuel causing a naturally occurring thermobaric effect and in the end agreed that you (whichever of you it was, or both of you?) that the evidence didnt really support it?

so the reason i say its worth discussing is purely educational. when something is discussed it gets dissected and in the process ideally people learn something. in this case ideally people will go out and find information that leads them away from any type of thermobaric cuz the evidence just doesnt support it. and if they dont come to that conclusion at least they'll have presented a theory that is specifically not supported by evidence. (bleve's in this case) every theory we can rule out, regardless of which side of the debate it was intended to support is one less we have floating out there keeping us all from coming to a consensus on what may have really happened.

it just so happens that in this case, it leaves the debunkers one less to clutter up the discussions with. (now if only we could get the holograms off hte table it would be a good day all around lol)

there were a couple other important points raised, that while theyve been raised in the past, they werent as important to a specific theory. anok pointing out how much of the diesel was recovered goes against a bleve pretty drastically. also if hte tanks were buried that pretty much rules those particular tanks out, dirts a great insulator. even if they had bleve'd they'd have popped pretty much blown straight up (well, in a cone anyway) vs in a more omnidirectional way.

Bsb: youre correct about popoff valves to a degree. it has to do with how fast the pressure builds and if the popoff can keep up. think teakettle. as the water in it starts to heat and steam, initially it all escapes out the little hole in the spout cap, as it gets hotter and the water goes to vapor more rapidly it starts to whistle. same thing, really. those 500gallon propane tanks have popoffs to vent small ammounts of gas but they are still subject to bleves as no popoff is designed to release ALL the pressure or to release it fast enough in case of fire. popoffs are more for keeping the pressure lower on say a hot day. if they would release all the pressure in a tank as fast as it built, no tank would ever bleve. obviously they do.

reply to post by ANOK

If they found 20,000 gallons of a max of 23500...There is still 3500 missing. The key word there is probably. They dont know how much was there. Thedman pointed out that there were serveral 275 gallon tanks elsewhere in the building. bsbray has a excellent thread elsewhere showing a top down CD. If enough damage was done to the upper truss system from one or more of these smaller tanks and the building started to collapse from there, whats to stop the ball from rolling? The lower floors were already damaged by debris.

BTW..I did do some research. But, you have to admit, there is alot of information out there. I dont just "throw" theories out. People are asking for answers. I gave what I thought might be a likely scenario. I put it out there for dicussion, right or wrong. I dont care. If it proves wrong, than so be it. Atleast it was discussed and proven wrong. Just because it does not fit into your "the evil, stupid, inept goverment guys pulled off the most brilliant, largest ever, black ops" scenario does not make it worth discussing.

Damocles,

We did have a discussion about thermobarics via U2U. Sorry if I took what you were saying the wrong way.

Six,

I agree with Damocles that this is worth discussing.

Originally posted by six
If enough damage was done to the upper truss system from one or more of these smaller tanks

In the video posted above, did they not say at the end that the tank was still leak-tight after the BLEVE? It's the last thing the narrator says in the clip above, somebody double-check me.

What are the overpressures here guys? If that tank was filled with RDX it wouldn't make a fireball that big but it would at least rupture the tank itself. That's the kind of damage you need. It comes from RDX's massive expansion velocity when it detonates.


Btw this is the kind of steel we're talking in the lower floors of WTC7:




The explosion in the clip posted above would be easy as hell to see coming out of WTC7, and that same explosion didn't even rupture the tank.

[edit on 28-9-2007 by bsbray11]

reply to post by Griff


Thanks. Like I said, I would throw it out for discussion. If it is wrong...then so be it. There are alot of very educated people on this site with many different backgrounds..To ignore them and not learn from them is pretty silly.
Hats off to Damocles for being the first to discuss this topic.. I guess I didnt look far enough back in the way back machine

Six,

Very much off topic (sorry), but I like your sig.

Something else to consider: If the bleve speculation had merit wouldn't the Fire fighters and police officers smelled the Vapor in the air ? And would not the inital explosions been Very visable just like the twin tower explosions?

Fuel Air bombs are HUGE. and smelly.

Too bad your theory is shot because there was no giant fireball like in all BLEVEs. Also there would have been a giant explosion outside of the building, with lots of black smoke from the fuel oil tanks.

WTC7 was rigged with steel cutting shaped charges, end of story.

Originally posted by six
Just b crazedecause it does not fit into your "the evil, stupid, inept goverment guys pulled off the most brilliant, largest ever, black ops" scenario does not make it worth discussing.

Not worth discussing cause there's nothing to discus. The diesel was recovered, an easy fact to check. I thought you had read all the government reports? If you haven't then how can you be so sure they're the truth? You're here arguing for something you haven't even researched.

You need to open your eyes and realise that your government is not as inept as you seem to think. You need to read and get a sense of history. Instead of wasting your time supporting these 'evil, stupid, inept government guys' you should look at the facts and open your eyes to their past.

Sry but your whole view of government is rather naive.
But as long as it fits your '19 crazed American hating Arabs with box cutters flew planes into buildings causing them to defy physics' then you'll except it with little research. Praise Allah!...

reply to post by ANOK


Ok since you want to get all confrontational we can go round and round if you want to. You will find that I will not be intimidated. I run into worse
than you everyday that I go to work.

Ther are several inacuracies in your post and I will point them out.

1. Other people here said that it was worth discussing. If you find it beneath you then move on. You do not have a open mind to other alternatives other than that the goverment did it. You are not willing to accept that it IS a strong possiblity that 19 hijackers DID pull off this attack.

2. I have never stated anywhere that I have read all the reports. Nor have you...All of them have not been released

3. Probably is not a absolute... anywhere. They said we probably got it all. They didnt say that they got it all. You hammer the reports telling me the goverment lied to me, but then tell me the goverment is telling the truth about how much deisel they recovered. Dont cherry pick from the reports.
If they were full...still missing 3200 gallons from the stated capacity. You have flip/flopped in this issue. Read your post.

4. I never said that the goverment was inept. Ct'ers claim this grand conspiracy, the biggest black op the world has ever seen, but then claim that WTC 7 was a big bungle that they had to take care of. Please. You cant have it both ways. You have brought little/no proof to what has been thrown around except misqoutes, people taken out of context, doctored videos ect... If your case is so strong, then why all the doctored videos, faked documents, phd's claiming expertise in fields that have NOTHING to do with their doctorate, that seem to be coming out of the CT side?

5. You dont even know my views on the goverment. So dont talk to me about reasearch. You have not even done yours before posting about me. I have stated what I thought. Look it up. I did research. It is there for all to pick apart. At least I though outside the box, and am not toting others thought and views. I am willing to have what I put out there pick it apart. Just as damocles stated above, it gets one more theory out of the way if it is proven wrong.

BTW...Just for the record. I am very well read. I hold several college degrees.

i think the important part for all of us is to stay open minded and think outside the box.

the OP brought up a theory in an attemtp to find "the rest of the story" and we discussed it. we discussed why the theory was unlikely, and ideally some of us learned a thing or two.

if everyone could show the same open mindedness with other theories we may actually move forward but sadly it doesnt seem to happen often.

Originally posted by Damocles
i think the important part for all of us is to stay open minded and think outside the box.

the OP brought up a theory in an attemtp to find "the rest of the story" and we discussed it. we discussed why the theory was unlikely, and ideally some of us learned a thing or two.

if everyone could show the same open mindedness with other theories we may actually move forward but sadly it doesnt seem to happen often.

Again Damocles,

You earn my respect. Let's not chastize someone because they "may" have a different view than yourself. Let's all get along, if we are really looking for "truth". Might make life a little easier to get along together? Just maybe?

Originally posted by six--
1. Other people here said that it was worth discussing...

Well at least they did until they were informed that most of the diesel was recovered making your opening post, and theory, rather mute...

2. I have never stated anywhere that I have read all the reports. Nor have you...All of them have not been released.

Hmmmm I may not have read all the reports but at least if I post a thread I would be sure to research what it is I am posting about. If you are going to make a claim in public then you should know, with all your degrees, that research should be your first step. Also the report of the diesel being recovered was in the FEMA report, one document that any 9-11 researchers should be somewhat familiar with, no?

3. …They said we probably got it all. They didnt say that they got it all. You hammer the reports telling me the goverment lied to me, but then tell me the goverment is telling the truth about how much deisel they recovered. Dont cherry pick from the reports.
If they were full...still missing 3200 gallons from the stated capacity. You have flip/flopped in this issue. Read your post.

I haven't flip-flopped on anything. Reporting the diesel being recovered, if it wasn't, would be an illogical lie. Yes the government lies, but not just for the sake of it. There were NO reports of the diesel containers being damaged from fire or explosions. The tanks themselves, as Bsbray pointed out would have had pressure release valves. With all your degrees I'm surprised how little you thought this through before posting...

If the tanks were full (unlikely), as you point out that only leaves 3,200 gallons unaccounted for. Obviously if only one tank ‘exploded’, or caught fire, enough to cause the building to globally collapse, there would have been far more loss than 3,200 gallons. Also the tanks would have been ruptured leaving NO diesel recoverable. So realising the diesel had nothing to do with the fires or collapse is not a difficult logical conclusion to come to.

4. I never said that the goverment was inept. Ct'ers claim this grand conspiracy, the biggest black op the world has ever seen, but then claim that WTC 7 was a big bungle that they had to take care of. Please. You cant have it both ways. You have brought little/no proof to what has been thrown around except misqoutes, people taken out of context, doctored videos ect... If your case is so strong, then why all the doctored videos, faked documents, phd's claiming expertise in fields that have NOTHING to do with their doctorate, that seem to be coming out of the CT side?

Hmmm putting words in my mouth, stereotyping me as a CTer, OK. Very intellectual way of looking at things…
Sry I have nothing to do with doctored videos, and have afaik never used one for ‘evidence’. All the evidence I need is the fact that the building fell in near free-fall speed, into its own footprint from asymmetrical damage and sporadic fires. If you can’t see the physical problems associated with that then you need more degrees or something.
I have NO theories as to how or why, I only have the facts that do not add up to natural collapses caused by asymmetrical damage and sporadic fires.
Biggest black opp the world has ever seen? Well in that case I stand corrected, no way could the government pull off the biggest black op the world has ever seen..
Sry but you’re are ignoring facts based on your naive opinion as to what your government is capable of and willing to do.

5. You dont even know my views on the goverment. So dont talk to me about reasearch. At least I though outside the box, and am not toting others thought and views. I am willing to have what I put out there pick it apart. Just as damocles stated above, it gets one more theory out of the way if it is proven wrong.

BTW...Just for the record. I am very well read. I hold several college degrees.

Great so when one of the so called ‘CTers’ posts about holograms you give them the same treatment you’re expecting from me…
Again what research have you done if you haven’t even read the FEMA report? Your views on government, as far as this topic is concerned, are pretty obvious. You’re not thinking outside any box; in fact you are trying to make any theory stick as long as it doesn’t implicate the government as being responsible. If you were really thinking outside the box you wouldn’t be dismissing everything that pointed towards an inside job.
The fact that you feel the need to defend yourself by stating you hold ‘several college degrees’ is rather telling. Not impressed at all mate.

Does it get one more theory out of the way? Does the fact that your theory doesn’t hold up move you any where towards considering WTC7 could have been collapsed, as the evidence seems to show, with planted explosives? Or will you just stubbornly move on, ignoring the mounting evidence, and vainly trying to find stuff that seems to support the official story? As long as none of those pesky ‘CTers’ comes along and spoils it with logic and facts that is?

(btw I’m guessing English isn’t one of your several degrees?)

[edit on 30/9/2007 by ANOK]