|
Post by freedom12 on Jul 21, 2011 17:12:04 GMT -6
Well, if you can't stop posting about O' bama, at least spell his name as I do. It's disrepectful not to embrace Mr O' bama's Irish heritage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2011 17:43:59 GMT -6
Well, if you can't stop posting about O' bama, at least spell his name as I do. It's disrepectful not to embrace Mr O' bama's Irish heritage. You said your case was rested...so rest it.
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Jul 21, 2011 17:56:14 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by longarm on Jul 21, 2011 20:07:25 GMT -6
First, most all insurance companies have clauses that state the policies are void in the event of terrorism and or act of war. We live in a great country, so I believe the losses were paid by our insurance companies. I understand the coverage was bundled , except for WT #7 which was the 49 story building which collapsed and this sole insurance company more or less went out of business. Terrorism clauses are now sold.
High rise buildings have diesel engine powered generator sets that back up power. The diesel engines could be located below grade, in the 50th floor, or 100 th floor. It doesn't matter. Diesel fuel is piped from a storage tank to a day tank when the 480 volt generator/diesel sets are. Diesel fuel is commonly piped to the storage tanks. This piping could average 2 inch diameter and should have welded butt joints. But you may find piping with flanges and screwed coupling. If not welded, the piping can break easily. Usually, the system is set to start a pump to fill the day tank if the engine starts. Piping can be above ceilings, in pipe chases or elevator shafts.
For example if you have a 100,000 Gal. tank located in the basement or penthouse, you have diesel fuel to fuel the fire. It is believed that tower 7 collapsed because diesel fuel for the generator sets broke piping and the fuel burned . Steel strength weakens at 1,000 degrees F and can allow a collapse.
The Towers were not sprinklered.
We have learned that fire sprinklers are needed in all high rise buildings. Chicago is working on this now.
We also learned that an automatic interlock are needed to stop all diesel fuel in the event of a fire. If sprinklers flow, or a smoke detector activates, the automatic fire safe valve closes stopping the flow of all diesel fuel. Also all the piping has to be welded.
Normally, you can not design a building from a direct hit from a jet plane full of fuel traveling at full speed, like 500 mph.
I don't buy the idea of incendiary devices going off. The explosions I believe were from diesels fuel and don't rule out the jet fuel tanks that ruptured upon impact leaking fuel down the building.
Planned evacuation is a paramount practice to evacuate a building like this for life safety reasons.
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Jul 21, 2011 20:49:25 GMT -6
"The Towers were not sprinklered."-longarm Wow, where did you hear that? Yes , they had sprinkler systems in all the WTC buildings. "Both the NIST calculations and interviews with survivors and firefighters indicated that the aircraft impacts severed the water pipes that carried the water to the sprinkler systems. The sprinklers were not operating on the principal fire floors. However, there were ample sources of the water in the stairwells. The water pipes ran vertically within the stairwells. Moreover, there would have been copious water from the broken restroom supply lines and from the water tanks that supplied the initial water for the sprinklers. Thus, it is not surprising that evacuating occupants encountered a lot of water. "Even if the automatic sprinklers had been operational, the sprinkler systems—which were installed in accordance with the prevailing fire safety code—were designed to suppress a fire that covered as much as 1,500 square feet on a given floor. This amount of coverage is capable of controlling almost all fires that are likely to occur in an office building." -source NIST report "most all insurance companies have clauses that state the policies are void in the event of terrorism and or act of war"-longarm Also wrong. Mr Silverstein took out a policy shortly before 9/11 that did have a terrorism attack clause in there. Diesel exploding? LMAO Obviously you never played with gas and diesel as a kid. WTC 7 is classic demolition and dropped different from WTC 1 & 2. Watch the collapse again of WTC 7 and match sure you watch the video released earlier this year by NIST that shows the penthouse collasping first . "Normally, you can not design a building from a direct hit from a jet plane full of fuel traveling at full speed, like 500 mph"-longarm Well, maybe not other buildings, but the WTC was designed SPECIFICALLY to withstand MULTIPLE IMPACTS from airliners that were bigger than what hit the towers. Here's the construction manager for the WTC explaining how the buildings were designed to withstand a plane impact. www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVYcVBXHCgg&feature=player_embeddedLongarm-You need to do some basic research as almost everything in your post is factually wrong.
|
|
|
Post by FZ on Jul 22, 2011 7:03:35 GMT -6
"The Towers were not sprinklered."-longarm Wow, where did you hear that? Yes , they had sprinkler systems in all the WTC buildings. "Both the NIST calculations and interviews with survivors and firefighters indicated that the aircraft impacts severed the water pipes that carried the water to the sprinkler systems. The sprinklers were not operating on the principal fire floors. However, there were ample sources of the water in the stairwells. The water pipes ran vertically within the stairwells. Moreover, there would have been copious water from the broken restroom supply lines and from the water tanks that supplied the initial water for the sprinklers. Thus, it is not surprising that evacuating occupants encountered a lot of water. "Even if the automatic sprinklers had been operational, the sprinkler systems—which were installed in accordance with the prevailing fire safety code—were designed to suppress a fire that covered as much as 1,500 square feet on a given floor. This amount of coverage is capable of controlling almost all fires that are likely to occur in an office building." -source NIST report "most all insurance companies have clauses that state the policies are void in the event of terrorism and or act of war"-longarm Also wrong. Mr Silverstein took out a policy shortly before 9/11 that did have a terrorism attack clause in there.
Diesel exploding? LMAO Obviously you never played with gas and diesel as a kid. WTC 7 is classic demolition and dropped different from WTC 1 & 2. Watch the collapse again of WTC 7 and match sure you watch the video released earlier this year by NIST that shows the penthouse collasping first ."Normally, you can not design a building from a direct hit from a jet plane full of fuel traveling at full speed, like 500 mph"-longarm Well, maybe not other buildings, but the WTC was designed SPECIFICALLY to withstand MULTIPLE IMPACTS from airliners that were bigger than what hit the towers. Here's the construction manager for the WTC explaining how the buildings were designed to withstand a plane impact. www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVYcVBXHCgg&feature=player_embeddedLongarm-You need to do some basic research as almost everything in your post is factually wrong. Just for fun and having a good thoughtful debate, I'm gonna grab two things and go with them for a minute: Both in BOLD1) Insurance thing. first off why wouldn't there be insurance for terrorism? the wtc had already had an attempt. Insurance paid out $510 million for the first one in 93' www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34211,00.html So it seemed it was already covered, either as part of coverage or additional coverage. F12, Maybe a source, or documents, on a "terrorism clause" being put in place just before 911? 2) WTC 7 is not considered a "classic demolition" by many sources. That building was compromised with major damage, and fire/rescue personnel pulled out letting fires burn out of control before the collapse, for just that reason. Lets dig into this a little. To start, maybe you could provide some documents or evidence on why it is, or looks like, a controlled demolition. (youtube video of some person on the street saying they thought it looked like "______" don't count. )
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Jul 22, 2011 10:38:21 GMT -6
FZ- Sure it would make sense to have it insured for terrorism because of the 93 bombing. I was addressing longarm's comments. BTW, the FBI provided the explosives used in the 93 bombing.
As for your "fires" bringing down Building 7, that's a flat-out joke.
Paint chip testing was done on some beams from WTC 7 and showed temperatures no where near 1000 degrees F. The building collasped symetrically into it's own footprint. No steel structured building HAD EVER collasped due to fire, but on 9/11, three buildings somehow managed to fall from fires? Sure.
Now, for some experts on demo:
Danny Jowenko-owner demo company Tom Sullivan-worked for Controll Demo Inc. Torin Wolf Dennis A. Thompson-commercial blaster, almost 50 years expert explosives John Suffoletta And over 1500 Architects and Engineers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2011 14:22:08 GMT -6
An offering by Ben Cohen in the Huffington Post:
1. Any alternative to the official account of what happened is so absurd it simply cannot be true.
2. No reputable scientific journal has ever taken any of the 'science' of the conspiracy seriously.
3. The evidence supporting the official story is overwhelming, whereas the 9/11 Truthers have yet to produce a shred of concrete evidence that members of the U.S. government planned the attacks in New York and Washington.
And herein lies the ultimate weapon the 9/11 Truthers wield over your average 'Myth Busters' viewer: They don't have to prove a d**n thing. They just have to raise enough doubt, pick enough holes, and use enough 'science' to make you think twice about the official theory.
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Jul 22, 2011 17:57:36 GMT -6
These must be those huge fires that brought down WTC 7?? This fire appears to be a little more severe and guess what? It didn't collaspe. But freedom12, those fires were hot. Then this woman must be a super being? To be standing where the plane crashed in the hot fire and even leans against the super-hot steel. There are pictures of others in the impact area also.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2011 18:03:30 GMT -6
These must be those huge fires that brought down WTC 7?? This fire appears to be a little more severe and guess what? It didn't collaspe. But freedom12, those fires were hot. Then this woman must be a super being? To be standing where the plane crashed in the hot fire and even leans against the super-hot steel. There are pictures of others in the impact area also. And herein lies the ultimate weapon the 9/11 Truthers wield over your average 'Myth Busters' viewer: They don't have to prove a d**n thing. They just have to raise enough doubt, pick enough holes, and use enough 'science' to make you think twice about the official theory.
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Jul 22, 2011 18:21:35 GMT -6
Peer reviewed, scientific research papers that were published in main-stream journals:
Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction-(The Open Civil Engineering Journal)
Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials-(The Environmentalist)
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe-(The Open Chemical Physics Journal)
Since you asked for "science" butters, but you'll never even glance at these peer reviewed studies.
|
|
|
Post by longarm on Jul 22, 2011 18:27:02 GMT -6
1. My aplogies. This complex apparently was sprinklered. The 1,500 sq. ft. design would have been for a fire on one floor and not more than on floor at a time. Similar buildings of this design and era were built without sprinklers. I believe this was a retrofit for the towers.
2. The reference was made because the video referenced that explosions were set to cause this collapse and not the jet airliners.
3. I worked 32 years for an insurance company that insured buildings like these buildings. It may or may not be true, but my employer did not insure the Port Authority but did insure many tenants. My employer lost I believe 3 employees who were inside a tower and died.
4. My employer added terrorism clauses after this incident. If the Port Authority had this clause I do not know. I do know their insurance was bundled. I will say I know no more.
5. As the result of this incident, many fire protection changes are now in place.
6. I have seen videos of diesel fires that were never even close to being extinguished by water. The diesel fuel fires need a foam water sprinkler system.
7. Ignitable liquids with a flash point less than 200 degrees F are treated as a potential that liquid fire will not be controlled by fire sprinklers.
8. I am a Professional Member of the Society of fire Protection Engineers and said too much already.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2011 19:38:03 GMT -6
Peer reviewed, scientific research papers that were published in main-stream journals: Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction-(The Open Civil Engineering Journal) Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials-(The Environmentalist) Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe-(The Open Chemical Physics Journal) Since you asked for "science" butters, but you'll never even glance at these peer reviewed studies. Your "peer-reviewed journals" are online journals that service academics afraid to put their papers through a review with a more rigorous and stricter set of standards. They are part of an Arab Emirate "publish or perish" factory for third tier and controversial academics. One of the authors of the first article you mention was a professor at BYU who was asked to resign/retire over the article and the editor of the publication above resigned in protest over it's online publication, citing that she hadn't even read it. I actually could have provied much more info, but what the heck...it's just more of the same by you truthers...outlandish claims and spurious science. Oh, well...I won't go to this trouble again.
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Jul 22, 2011 20:03:09 GMT -6
"8. I am a Professional Member of the Society of fire Protection Engineers and said too much already."-longarm
Ed Munyak-FPE Scott Grainger-FPE
These guys are Fire Protection Engineers longarm and they vehemently disagree with you.
Paint chip testing was done on some beams from the towers. This is a highly accurate method used to determine what temps the metal reached. Testing showed temps reached in beams was not even hot enough to weaken the beams.
Secondly, we have FLIR images taken after the towers were hit showing the EXACT temps of the fires.
Firemen had reached the impact area and reported only small fires able to be knocked out by 2 lines. We have the radio transmission of the fireman saying it.
Molten steel was found in the debri piles weeks after the collapse with is impossible without some kind of explosive material to generate high enough heat to cause steel to become molten.(espicially in the oxygen deprived rubble)
|
|
|
Post by FZ on Jul 23, 2011 7:52:15 GMT -6
FZ- Sure it would make sense to have it insured for terrorism because of the 93 bombing. I was addressing longarm's comments. BTW, the FBI provided the explosives used in the 93 bombing.
As for your "fires" bringing down Building 7, that's a flat-out joke.
Paint chip testing was done on some beams from WTC 7 and showed temperatures no where near 1000 degrees F. The building collasped symetrically into it's own footprint. No steel structured building HAD EVER collasped due to fire, but on 9/11, three buildings somehow managed to fall from fires? Sure.
Now, for some experts on demo:
Danny Jowenko-owner demo company Tom Sullivan-worked for Controll Demo Inc. Torin Wolf Dennis A. Thompson-commercial blaster, almost 50 years expert explosives John Suffoletta And over 1500 Architects and Engineers.
Ok cool. Because it is a Truther issue that I've seen brought up before I went with it. So we'll just throw out that whole insurance thing you brought up baseless or untrue...or at the least, not an issue you support that some Truthers use. (I use the term Truther loosely, as there's a lot out there) Now that that is cleared up, on to WTC 7. First off, I didn't say anything about "fires bringing down WTC 7" you made that leap yourself, so I'll include it first in order of your statements. 1) Source/doc for your paint-chip testing? Assuming you have a source, with the devastation there, I wonder how accurate the testing would be. How could it guarantee the fires did not reach 1000F somewhere in the building. All fair questions. Note: Steel will lose about 50% of its strength at just over 1000F. Seems that would be an important fact to remember, especially with a massive building like WTC 7. 2) I don't believe the building collasped symetrically into it's own footprint, as there's evidence of an internal collapse first. parts of the heavily damaged south of the building fell backwards over Barclay street, and the rest fell in over itself towards the already collapsed south face, as I understand. 3) It seems the major problems was not (only) unchecked fires, but primarily the damage from the falling tower 1. The fact that they pulled personnel out because of the compromised structure, go hand in hand. I numbered so it would be easy to reference in another post. Figured we could zero in on WTC 7 since you conceded the insurance thing. WTC 7 theory is interesting, but I think those 3 things are some pretty good questions.
|
|