Wtc 7 And Sandero, NIST v speculation Options

[elreb]

Don't you think the system had pressure sensors on it? It was a double wall pipe so my guess is it couldn't get breached and run constantly thinking the generators were asking for fuel. Would the pumps work at all if the generators weren't running? Why would they need to be if the power from Con-Ed was still on?

Ask CIT

[kawika]

I have personally installed over 50 industrial diesel generator systems and never saw any of them catch on fire.

They are generally hard piped in Sch. 40 black steel which is tuff stuff.

Only a running generator could catch itself on fire and if you watch the following video it shows the fire burning its own wires and shutting off the fuel system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHRYD2Wv6lY

Thanks for that visual.

They initially proposed that the fuel distribution system would remain pressurized, a fire would start on the floor(s) and the diesel fuel would be spraying from a broken pipe while the generators continued to run, keeping the system calling for fuel. This is a wild stretch for me.

NIST abandoned this idea saying even diesel would not provide the necessary temperatures.

The bottom line is all evidence points away from generators being running.

[SanderO]

Elreb is the ultimate expert on diesel generators.

Here's one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHRYD2Wv6lY

Your concept of what I proposed is so limited. I've posted vids about power transformers exploding and one or more exploded in the sub basement of bldg 1 in '92. I posted information about the flammable nature of the insulating / cooling oil and the fact that it releases explosive gas. I speculated that the sub station explosions which Jennings claimed were quite powerful could have cracked the floors and even the sched 40 piping and resulted in a stream of diesel being pumped onto the floor and ignited by the fires.

Kawika's video showed thick black smoke... a telltale of diesel fires.. and I posed a video showing this to be the case..

Why do you guys have such a hard time considering this scenario? Because Elreb installed 50 generators? Out of how many tensa of thousands?

Someone presents a coherent theory based on the observables and the structure and you simply dismiss it because you installed 50 generators?

I don't mind being wrong and I am often wrong. But the take downs are ad hom attacks and nit picking nonsenseand no one has proposed where the bombs were set, what columns etc.

It's hard to take that sort of "research" seriously... or those who think like this as serious researchers.

[elreb]

The bottom line is all evidence points away from generators being running.

I went back and changed my negative responses about OSS.

Sorry mate…he was right all along.

I’m a Mechanical Engineer, Mechanical designer, Master Plumber and a Master Mechanic.

I really do not need to listen to dribble from some woodchuck claiming I’m not qualified to comment on what I have done for a living for 45 years.

[onesliceshort]

I concede to OSS...he is correct

Hahaha!

You've just gone up in my estimates 10 fold.

He's also lecturing Kawika who's been buried in countless FOIA documentation on WTC7 and probably knows the place inside out by now.

(IMG:http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mm_iJD0OzQ0/SlSMFECHqNI/AAAAAAAAATQ/nDTIiI-U-_U/s400/cartoon_expert.jpg)

[elreb]

Hahaha!

Ask CIT

[KP50]

I don't mind being wrong and I am often wrong. But the take downs are ad hom attacks and nit picking nonsenseand no one has proposed where the bombs were set, what columns etc.

It's hard to take that sort of "research" seriously... or those who think like this as serious researchers.

I think it is time for you to state that you are definitely wrong in this case then. You have been humbled on this thread by people ripping your theory to shreds and posting evidence which refutes your theory and you pull out the "ad hom attacks" card? Shame on you although you do appear shameless in the way you post your copious rubbish (there's an ad hom for you) all over this forum.

So come on big man, admit that you've lost this one and don't embarrass yourself any further.

[SanderO]

KP50...

Not quite yet... Elreb posts some information about his experiences. The fact is we don't know how the generators were set up and if there was break or crack from a explosion... remember the one that Jennings referred to... of unknown origin... which could have caused the diesel to leak.

There is a statement by the Engineer of the building who believed that it was diesel fires which weakened the T trusses.

I am not the least bit embarrassed nor have I been shown to be wrong in the theory. You guys trash NIST on one hand and then use them to trash me on the other! You guys trash Gage his remarks /position about the pentagon and then claim he did brilliant work at the WTC. You guys are suffering from cognitive dissonance and group think....

My positions are consistent. NIST got the explanations for the destruction in all three towers incorrect. They got the observations wrong and they produced an office fire cause for all three collapses. Their FEA animation is laughable but they explained that by claiming it is a theoretical scenario of how a column 79 failure could result in global collapse. You didn't see them do that for a T truss failure because it would open up the can of worms about the diesel fuel fires. Same old from them... don't look for evidence and so they don't see it.

I've also stated that the T trusses could have been exploded... but I don't see any evidence of this... The visuals look like a rapid onset from progressive failures of the structure on floors 6&7... the 60 second swaying of the entire tower before the collapse of the East penthouse right though the building.

So what are you claiming is wrong? That there were no diesel fueled fires? What is your evidence of this? A NIST self serving statement? And a hearsay statement about recovery without any back up documentation for this. Wouldn't you expect busted fuel tsanks to leak into the earth no not be recovered? Have you see fuel recovered from leaking fuel tanks into the ground? Show us a 10,000 gallon recovery.. Show us the recovered tanks... everything was completely busted up and you're claim that some tanks survived? Are you serious? I ran out of bridges to sell.

Were there not explosions witnessed by Jennings and Hess below them when they were at level 6/7 in the stairs around 10 am?

The ones who can't seem to admit they are perhaps wrong are those who are pushing the controlled demolition theory of the collapse of B7... the easy black box...I don't have to explain anything explanation... 8 floors of structure destroyed by explosions.... 324 columns made to disappear in an instant... and the 100' FF drop of the towers ... ergo "inside job". Really guys... this is hardly credible. Great work Richard Gage and Chris Sarns et al.

Now some good work has been done debunking NIST by the truth movement. But exposing a lie or a falsehood or a cover up is not a theory or an explanation for what actually happened...

WHAT WAS THE MECHANISM(s) for a MIHOP CD? I have not read a single one from this forum or from AE911T and their band of engineers and experts.

I proposed a sequence which doesn't even rule out placed devices... but might not require them.... and I am called everything under the sun. and told to apologize and stop embarrassing myself. That... is hysterically funny.

What I explained is supported by the visual record, the witness testimony and knowledge of the structure and engineering design... and physics of course AND is the same explanation by the building's engineer... which is not the official story by a long shot and I am expected to.... admit I am wrong and you guys have proven this?

I think it's time for you guys to open your eyes to other possibilities... and other lies and deceptions and reasons for cover ups by the officials...

But perhaps the kool aid just tastes so good????

This post has been edited by SanderO: Apr 27 2012, 08:54 AM

[onesliceshort]

But perhaps the kool aid just tastes so good????

The the govt loyalist site juice is starting to leak there Sandy boy!

It's hard to take that sort of "research" seriously... or those who think like this as serious researchers.

http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication...m?pub_id=861610

Did the electrical substation next to WTC 7 play a role in the fires or collapse?

No. There is no evidence that the electric substation contributed to the fires in WTC 7. The electrical substation continued working until 4:33 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001. Alarms at the substation were monitored, and there were no signals except for one event early in the day. No smoke was observed emanating from the substation.
Special elements of the building's construction-namely trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs, which were used to transfer loads from the building superstructure to the columns of the electric substation (over which WTC 7 was constructed) and foundation below-also did not play a significant role in the collapse.

That was quoted in the OP. your first post was about your theory that transformers caused the explosions that witnesses heard (ignoring or not having the decency to read the OP). The official story, through NIST and Con-Ed rejects this. So, we're left with the original question. What caused those explosions?

Does it mean that I believe NIST? Of course it doesn't. It simply means that the source of the multiple explosions has never been explained. Those videos of explosions are contained in the OP and throughout the forum.

Barry Jennings actually witnessed the physical damage in WTC7 before the collapses. The OCT never explained this. Your attempt at an explanation fails on two fronts. NIST/Con-Ed and presenting precedent (your videos show impressive explosions sans damage).

Your claims about diesel fires are not only rejected by the OCT, but by somebody on this very thread who explained the major flaws in your claims based on his eons of experience with diesel generators.

So, we're left with the original OCT claim. That "office fires" brought down WTC7.

As for your claim that nobody here is being realistic or has provided evidence of CD, bar the anomalies listed above, you even said yourself...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10804022

I agree with the critics of the NIST explanation that the cause was column 79 on the 12th floor. My suspicion is that the cause was on the 6th and 7th floors where the mech floors were located.. Several of the core columns of the 70 stores above from 7 were supported on transfer trusses. The Con Ed sub station was below on the lower 5 floors.

If there was a CD it was likely on floors 6 and 7

If you claim that high heat contributed to the collapse through diesel fires, why dismiss the use of exotic explosives? Cutter charges throughout this vulnerable area?

We've been shafted on the physical evidence so we're left with witness evidence, observation and physics.

1. Witnesses, both aural and visual, described explosions within and without WTC7.

2. Steel structures cannot fall due to "office fires"

3. The building fell for 2.5 seconds at freefall speed.

4. There was prior knowledge of the collapse broadcast on MSM (with one journalist actually reporting that Silverstein had enquired about bringing the building down to fire chiefs - bullshit or not he'd be one of the first witnesses called by me)

Your theories are irrelevant.

[kawika]

Most diesel engines have the fuel injection pump mounted on the engine itself.

The fuel tank itself does not necessarily pump fuel to the engine.

Normal fuel feed lines average around 1" IPS.

Sch. 40 Black Steel pipe can easily handle 150 PSI and can withstand 2600 degree F.

If it is screw pipe, fittings can crack, however the pipe itself does not.

Line pressure to a fuel tank is generally less than 10 PSI.

In multiple applications, a Main tank would supply several Day tanks.

Day tanks generally have a float switch pump that sucks fuel based upon its drawn down level.

This application actually places the pump at the day tank and not at the main tank. This design allows one main tank to supply multiple day tanks.

Mario Andretti only had 19 victories…so what does he know about driving?

(IMG:http://www.dieselinjectionpump.net/images/diagrame-big.jpg)

At WTC7 the fuel pumps were above the tanks on the first floor, well below the generators.

[SanderO]

So gas (or any type of) explosions say on floor 6 or 7 above them might not damage the pumps... . And if there was damage to the pipes on 6&7 it's conceivable that the pumps could flood the floor with diesel from the tanks down below. It was a pressurized system... no?


OSS you are too much:


1. Witnesses, both aural and visual, described explosions within and without WTC7.

I agree there were explosions.. but not bombs... I assert the witness can't identify what the explosions were..not that they didn't hear them.

2. Steel structures cannot fall due to "office fires"

No they don't... we agree. Not hot enough. Office fires did not cause the steel to weaken, FUEL fires contributed.

3. The building fell for 2.5 seconds at freefall speed.

The observable part fell for 2.25 secs at FF acceleration. No dispute there. There was no resistance from flr 8 to the ground after floors 6&7 collapsed.

4. There was prior knowledge of the collapse broadcast on MSM (with one journalist actually reporting that Silverstein had enquired about bringing the building down to fire chiefs - bullshit or not he'd be one of the first witnesses called by me)

It doesn't surprise me in the least that the FDNY and the DOB were worrried that the building would collapse if there were extensive unfought diesel fueled fires burning in the mech floors where the T trusses were located. If they called Cantor he likely told them that the tower could collapse if the trusses went and to clear the area. That was the right call. And what would that have been? A PR release that the area was evacuated because they were expecting or concerned that the building would collapse. What happened? Asshole news producers went on air with a story to try to beat the competition.... sort of have it ready to roll when it happened. That's a guess... but a plausible explanation. Silverstein's remark may... I said MAY need context. Maybe he was concerned about losing a lot of money if the building was a goner... Who wouldn't be? He allegedly called his insurance co to see what would be covered... Would they cover him for the full amount if the fire was un fought? Maybe they said yes and his comment was to pull the FDNY from the building. He's a despicable person, but I don't see how he sent a team in a 5pm to demo the building. Maybe... Doesn't seem plausible to me.

Again... CD is a speculation and based on very slim evidence and no mechanism is offered from what what blasted or where and when this was done. The Jennings' explosion did NOT take down the tower.. did not even distort it. But it might have begun a process of weakening and destruction of the FOS until it had dropped below 1 and the tower collapsed.

My explanation uses the exact same observables as yours does.... don't you see that? But I offer a mechanism and shown possible chain of events.

Why are you so threatened by this?

I'd like to know about those who are *arguing* with me.... what is your occupation and technical background... I know Elreb installs gen sets. I am sure he understands that that the fuel delivery system to the generators was pressurized with "lift pumps" which pumped the fuel to day tanks on floor 6&7. The lift pumps cycled on when the pressure dropped or there was a float switch in the day tanks. There are several scenarios wherein the lift pump could flood the floors 6&7 with diesel from the tanks down below and next to the sub station... and pump thousands of gallons onto the floor where it could be ignited and burn all day. This is not rocket science.

If you want to claim that this didn't happen... where is the unused diesel? And how was it recovered? If it seeped into the ground and there were extremely hot temps... wouldn't it then burn up?... some of it? Most of it? Come guys.. let's make sense.

Who wouldn't want the collapse to be caused by leaking and burning diesel fuel:

a) Guiliani
b) Larry Silverstein
c) PANYNJ
d) Con Ed
e) engineering firm which designed the emergency generator and fuel system
f) CIA
g) DOD
h) SEC
i) NIST
j) ASCE
k) NYC DOB, Planning Commission, BSA (permitted the uses)
l) 911 truth movement

This post has been edited by SanderO: Apr 27 2012, 12:05 PM

[elreb]

At WTC7 the fuel pumps were above the tanks on the first floor, well below the generators.

Ask CIT

[SanderO]

Elreb...

Sound reasoning... no one said the generators were the fault here. I suggested that the explosions ruptured the fuel delivery system to the generators. I stand by that and your comment does nothing to debunk what I suggested.

No one set explosions as diversions.. there were pressurized fluids in various tanks which exploded from the heat and fires...

[kawika]

This would totally remove the generator from the equation because there would be positive pressure only to the day tank. I would have to see the "As-builds" and not the pre-construction drawings.

Better yet, actually pictures taken by the Mechanical Contractor.

Most injector pumps are mechanically driven and why you do not want to run out of fuel. They go into air lock.

I have always wondered if someone set off explosives at the generators as a diversion!

Actually, one engineer in the building said he looked up from floor four to the 5th (mechanical room) and saw weird smoke. There was testimony about generators burning, from dust being sucked into their systems. I don't buy this though, they would have air filters on them and they would shut down.

The system, the way I understand it, was a pressurized loop, day tanks being only a small part. Day tanks would fill to capacity and shut themselves off.

There is much still to be learned and sorted out about this diesel fuel system.

The questions remain:

1. Were generators running when the building was damaged after 10:28 am?

2. Did fuel leak or get pumped out of the SSB tanks during or after the office furnishing fires? The FDNY said they did not see smoke indicative of diesel fires.

3. Did the SSB tanks get drained after the collapse? Maybe the pump was not damaged, being in the core and on first floor, perhaps it ran continuously and fuel was cleaned up when the debris was hauled away. (concrete dust soaked it up)

[SanderO]

Who in the FDNY said there was no evidence of diesel fires. I will go ask him to view the video Kawika posted and say the same thing.

I don't believe all the grillage to the mech floor had filers or dampers. And if there was an explosion... which there was... the ducts would likely break allowing the air normally confined inside the ducts to mingle with the air on the mech floors.

Why did NIST take so long for their explanation?

I suspect is because they were running FEA sims which has office fire inputs to produce a collapse and one that began below the east penthouse somewhere. There sim does not gibe with the 2.25 secs of FF so they started the clock early to hide this FACT. They didn't expect and problems with their explanation from the usual including most of those on the list I provided above. Office fires can[t be blamed on engineering mistakes or incompetent bone headed decisions to site the fuel tanks and t trusses over the sub station.

I suspect that the bldg shot structural engineers knew exactly what happened are not ratting out their colleagues... just making sure they don't duplicate the same set of boneheaded decisions again.

Interesting that they did the new 7 on top of the sub station. Probably for several reasons:

1. No other sites for it... community boards would not approve it.
2. site location was a grandfathered use and they could keep it as of right.
3. No one wanted to bring up the original boneheaded decision to build B7 over the sub station and the the DOB decision to allow the diesel tanks to be placed there. Let sleeping dogs lie and let's do it again (lightning doesn't strike twice) so the original decisions would not be reexamined in light of the collapse of B7
4. Greed.. Larry owned air rights over the sub station and he paid for them or the PANY did and having the office use denied would recind the air rights. Taking from the rich!
5. The new towers were / are being WAY over built with concrete cores and masonry enclosed stair egress and no massive fuel tanks or EMC center. Problem solved.

Maybe.

[kawika]

Who in the FDNY said there was no evidence of diesel fires.

"FDNY personnel reported that they did not see any indication of burning liquid fuels before the building collapsed."

There is no source given for this statement.

Link: http://investigate911.info/index.php?special=wtc7 (about 7/8's the way down)


"Finally, the FDNY personnel that we spoke to did not see any indication of burning liquid fuels before the building collapsed."

http://911speakout.org/NIST_Tech_Briefing_Transcript.pdf (see PDF page 18)

The source is probably buried in NIST's records somewhere. Ask Sunder. He said it not me.


This post has been edited by kawika: Apr 27 2012, 02:44 PM

[elreb]

There is much still to be learned and sorted out about this diesel fuel system.

Ask CIT

[kawika]

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05155.pdf

Go straight to chapter 12 [page 175]

I will take me a while to sift thru it all…What a Rube Goldberg…16 generators, 5 storage tanks and 4 day tanks…

Like I said to you elsewhere, there is something strange going on here.

Silverstein had twice the gallon capacity of SSB, (24K vs 12K underground) but his system could only deliver 4.4 GPM vs 75 GPM for SSB. SSB had nine 1725KW generators, or 15,525KW. All the rest at WTC7 added up to just 3300KW.

But here is the kicker: SSB had 2-1/2 times the capacity of the entire WTC complex--15,525KW vs 6,000KW. OUCH!

This post has been edited by kawika: Apr 27 2012, 04:40 PM

[elreb]

Like I said to you elsewhere, there is something strange going on here.

Ash CIT

[kawika]

I know most of the information is on this forum, however if we could put it all in one paragraph.

1. On what floors were the fires
2. On what floors were the generators
3. On what floor were the government agencies

Did/did not "Con-Ed" have their own generators?

Why the need for so much power?

If anything…WTC7 was over protected.

1. Fires were all over the place at different times throughout the day. The point is, the place where they claim the collapse started, floor 12, had burnt out over an hour before collapse.

2. Generators:

• Floor 5--5 in the SW; 6 in the North
• Floor 7-- 3 in the south
• Floor 8
• Floor 9

Link: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf (pdf page 14)

3. Government agencies:

• See PDF page 2

Con-Ed did not have any generators that I am aware of.

Why so much power, INDEED!

This post has been edited by kawika: Apr 27 2012, 06:01 PM