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

Although I'm not versed in all the aspects of 9/11 conspiracy, I've never before seen reference to fuel tanks installed below building 7. How does this affect the official story or the other theories on what happened that day?

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

A federal appeals court has given Con Edison, the electricity provider for most of lower Manhattan, permission to move forward with its lawsuit against the Port Authority of New York for allowing diesel fuel tanks to sit beneath one of the World Trade Center buildings that collapsed after the September 11, 2001, attacks.

In its $315 million civil action, Con Edison’s insurer, Aegis Insurance, claims that the existence of the tanks below the 7 World Trade Center fueled the fire that destroyed an electrical substation and, ultimately, the building itself.

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

GOOD..AND EXTRA GOOD !
Now THAT the building seven conspiracies IS over with, we can NOW move on from the rhetoric that our trusty government had NOTHING to do with it. THE END.
I DON’T GIVE OUT THE CHEESY STAR AND FLAG BIT.
Here is a fat juicy star for you.
A star for denying ignorance.

wait, it was a controlled demolition !!! I saw a youtube video where some guy put a red circle over a "puff" that proved it !!!!

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

Aegis Insurance, claims that the existence of the tanks below the 7 World Trade Center fueled the fire that destroyed an electrical substation and, ultimately, the building itself.

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

Originally posted by NightGypsy
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

 

Aegis Insurance, claims that the existence of the tanks below the 7 World Trade Center fueled the fire that destroyed an electrical substation and, ultimately, the building itself.

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

They're saying that they fueled a fire that took out an electrical substation that lead to the building fire. How does this fit with either the OS or the other theories?

Rig the building to implode, blame the fuel tanks. This isn't rocket surgery.

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

They're saying that they fueled a fire that took out an electrical substation that lead to the building fire. How does this fit with either the OS or the other theories?

That clears it up a bit. They are saying these fuel tanks started the initial fire that broke out in the building. I wasn't reading it right. Thanks, OP.

reply to post by Cryptonomicon

Rig the building to implode, blame the fuel tanks. This isn't rocket surgery.

Well, apparently it IS "rocket surgery" for you because you didn't understand my question, but the OP did and cleared it up. I'm not debating whether or not the fuel tanks are being blamed for the collapse, I was trying to understand how fuel tanks under a building could have accelerated a fire when the fire was on upper floors.

Most of the diesel fuel was recovered...

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.

www.wtc7.net...

But regardless diesel does not burn that easily, and could not cause a building to fall into its own footprint, even if it did.

There is only one way that can happen.

reply to post by ANOK


If this is true (about the recovered fuel) and provable then the lawsuit should fall apart in pretty short order.

There were diesel fuel tanks in WTC 7 for the generators. The NIST report on WTC 7 explicitly states that those tanks and the fuel from those tanks had no impact on the demise of WTC 7. The NIST report states that regular office fires were to blame for WTC 7's demise.

From the NIST report Executive Summary #3:

"Within the building were emergency electric power generators, whose fuel supply tanks lay in and under the building. However, fuel oil fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7".

But, too bad the information in the NIST report can't be used in a court of law:

"No part of any report resulting from a NIST investigation into a structural failure from an investigation under the National Construction Safety Team Act may be used in any suit or action for damages arising out of any matter mentioned in such report."

NIST Report on WTC 7

So, there ya go.

Originally posted by NightGypsy
I was trying to understand how fuel tanks under a building could have accelerated a fire when the fire was on upper floors.

The NIST report on WTC 7 explains exactly that. That none of the fires were anywhere near any of the fuel tanks and thus none of the fires were from any of the fuel in the tanks.

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


This isn't a new revelation.

Here's ablog post from some OS favoring engineers. It's from 2007 and I'm sure it was known about before then.

It's also covered in this Wikipedia article which reflects the "OS".

Frankly I'm unsure how to evaluate how this is factored into the conspiracy version, because there are many such versions.

Anyway, good information that should be considered by all sides.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by NightGypsy
I was trying to understand how fuel tanks under a building could have accelerated a fire when the fire was on upper floors.

The NIST report on WTC 7 explains exactly that. That none of the fires were anywhere near any of the fuel tanks and thus none of the fires were from any of the fuel in the tanks.

Apparently the company bringing suit is disputing that the fires weren't caused by the fuel tanks.

the existence of the tanks below the 7 World Trade Center fueled the fire that destroyed an electrical substation and, ultimately, the building itself.

reply to post by ANOK

But regardless diesel does not burn that easily, and could not cause a building to fall into its own footprint, even if it did.

Hey, thanks, ANOK for that link and info.......

reply to post by _BoneZ_

The NIST report on WTC 7 explains exactly that. That none of the fires were anywhere near any of the fuel tanks and thus none of the fires were from any of the fuel in the tanks.

Thanks, Bonez.....

reply to post by NightGypsy

The answer to your question: The fuel tanks in the basement couldn't have accelerated the fires on the upper floors.

The whole lawsuit is designed to solidify the Official Conspiracy Theory that WTC7 collapsed due to damage from the falling twin towers.

In other words, this lawsuit is part of the cover up. Or.....

....or maybe this lawsuit is will expose the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT)as a fraud?

Because OCT requires that the tanks are what caused the structure to be compromised. So by creating this lawsuit, the defendants will HAVE TO PROVE that the OTC of WTC7 is a HOAX.

I'm starting to like this lawsuit upon further examination...

reply to post by _BoneZ_


"No part of any report resulting from a NIST investigation into a structural failure from an investigation under the National Construction Safety Team Act may be used in any suit or action for damages arising out of any matter mentioned in such report."

Wow. Amazing how the entire world is sopposed to accept the report as factual and definitive, yet it can't even be used in court?

Thanks for the info.

reply to post by Immortalgemini527

GOOD..AND EXTRA GOOD ! Now THAT the building seven conspiracies IS over with, we can NOW move on from the rhetoric that our trusty government had NOTHING to do with it. THE END. I DON’T GIVE OUT THE CHEESY STAR AND FLAG BIT. Here is a fat juicy star for you. A star for denying ignorance.

What a piece of work you are........


Per Bonez:

The NIST report on WTC 7 explains exactly that. That none of the fires were anywhere near any of the fuel tanks and thus none of the fires were from any of the fuel in the tanks.

What was that you were saying about "denying ignorance," Immortalgemini527?

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.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com