Court Rules Negligence Didn’t Cause World Trade Center 7 To Fall On 9/11

Mackdog

Senior Member.
Waiting for the WTC 7 conspiracies to heat up again... notice in there they explain how the fuel from generators may have caused the fire to burn hotter in the building.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/12...nt-cause-world-trade-center-7-to-fall-on-911/


Con Ed had claimed negligence resulted in part because Tower 7′s tenants were allowed to install diesel backup generators.

The fuel burned for hours in the building after hijacked planes struck the two nearby towers, flinging debris into the smaller skyscraper. Con Edison had maintained that fuel from the diesel tanks heightened the fire’s intensity.

The fire department decided to let Tower 7 burn because it was unable to reach adequate water supplies, there were no people in the building and 343 firefighters had already been killed that day, the appeals court noted.
Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Interesting, as I thought the NIST report said that the diesel fuel was not a factor in the collapse. I wonder if the text of the ruling is available.

(Thread title edited to reflect the CBS story)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Here it is (attached). Lots of interesting testimony.
 

Attachments

  • 11-4403_complete_opn.pdf
    55.1 KB · Views: 1,895

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And the diesel fuel aspect of the story is wrong, as Con Ed no longer claim that:

Con Ed filed a Second Amended Complaint on July 11, 2008. In November 2009, 7WTCo. moved for summary judgment, arguing that it had no duty to prevent the destruction of the Con Ed substation because the terrorist attack and its consequences were unforeseeable to 7WTCo. In the alternative, 7WTCo. argued that the events of September 11 were an intervening and superseding cause of Con Ed’s injury. Con Ed opposed summary judgment, arguing that there were material questions of fact as to whether 7WTCo. negligently designed and constructed 7WTC. In district court, Con Ed offered two alternate theories to support its argument: (1) the building was designed and constructed in such a way that it lacked structural integrity, particularly in the northeast corner of the building; and (2) diesel fuel used in emergency backup generators systems, and stored in tanks throughout 7WTC, fueled the fires in the building, which in turn heated the transfer trusses bearing much of the building’s weight. Aegis Ins., 865 F. Supp. 2d at 382-83. Con Ed theorized that the heated transfer trusses expanded and failed, causing 7WTC to collapse into its center. Id. On appeal, Con Ed abandons its diesel fuel theory, and now argues only that it should be permitted to present its claim that 7WTC was negligently designed and constructed to a jury.
Content from External Source
The diesel fuel theory was a very early theory of what caused the collapse, and the NIST report showed it was not the case. I guess the lawyers just kept pushing due to momentum.
 

Ron J

Active Member
And the diesel fuel aspect of the story is wrong, as Con Ed no longer claim that:

Con Ed filed a Second Amended Complaint on July 11, 2008. In November 2009, 7WTCo. moved for summary judgment, arguing that it had no duty to prevent the destruction of the Con Ed substation because the terrorist attack and its consequences were unforeseeable to 7WTCo. In the alternative, 7WTCo. argued that the events of September 11 were an intervening and superseding cause of Con Ed’s injury. Con Ed opposed summary judgment, arguing that there were material questions of fact as to whether 7WTCo. negligently designed and constructed 7WTC. In district court, Con Ed offered two alternate theories to support its argument: (1) the building was designed and constructed in such a way that it lacked structural integrity, particularly in the northeast corner of the building; and (2) diesel fuel used in emergency backup generators systems, and stored in tanks throughout 7WTC, fueled the fires in the building, which in turn heated the transfer trusses bearing much of the building’s weight. Aegis Ins., 865 F. Supp. 2d at 382-83. Con Ed theorized that the heated transfer trusses expanded and failed, causing 7WTC to collapse into its center. Id. On appeal, Con Ed abandons its diesel fuel theory, and now argues only that it should be permitted to present its claim that 7WTC was negligently designed and constructed to a jury.
Content from External Source
The diesel fuel theory was a very early theory of what caused the collapse, and the NIST report showed it was not the case. I guess the lawyers just kept pushing due to momentum.


It seems funny that Con Ed says it had no duty to prevent destruction of the sub station as a result of terrorism, but wants to argue that WTC7 was negligently designed and constructed, such that it would not withstand the result of a terrorist attack.
 

slenderbeam

Member
It looks like Con Ed did a bit of check work on the tower.

Con Ed's analysis work should be released to ASCE so that engineers can put the various studies together so that a structure like this never gets designed / built again.

It is sad that work like this gets filed away and cannot be used to the benefit future designs.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
And the diesel fuel aspect of the story is wrong, as Con Ed no longer claim that:

Con Ed filed a Second Amended Complaint on July 11, 2008. In November 2009, 7WTCo. moved for summary judgment, arguing that it had no duty to prevent the destruction of the Con Ed substation because the terrorist attack and its consequences were unforeseeable to 7WTCo. In the alternative, 7WTCo. argued that the events of September 11 were an intervening and superseding cause of Con Ed’s injury. Con Ed opposed summary judgment, arguing that there were material questions of fact as to whether 7WTCo. negligently designed and constructed 7WTC. In district court, Con Ed offered two alternate theories to support its argument: (1) the building was designed and constructed in such a way that it lacked structural integrity, particularly in the northeast corner of the building; and (2) diesel fuel used in emergency backup generators systems, and stored in tanks throughout 7WTC, fueled the fires in the building, which in turn heated the transfer trusses bearing much of the building’s weight. Aegis Ins., 865 F. Supp. 2d at 382-83. Con Ed theorized that the heated transfer trusses expanded and failed, causing 7WTC to collapse into its center. Id. On appeal, Con Ed abandons its diesel fuel theory, and now argues only that it should be permitted to present its claim that 7WTC was negligently designed and constructed to a jury.
Content from External Source
The diesel fuel theory was a very early theory of what caused the collapse, and the NIST report showed it was not the case. I guess the lawyers just kept pushing due to momentum.


And how exactly did NIST show that? It seems to be a simple assertion along with the claim that something like 30,000 gallons of diesel fuel was recovered? How was that done? The in-building tanks survived the collapse of a 250,000 ton building such that the diesel was recovered? Oh really?

The lawyers presented it because it a very good argument... and was not shown to be invalid. Saying it wasn't is not showing it wasn't. The court was wrong to dismiss the suit and discovery.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Waiting for the WTC 7 conspiracies to heat up again... notice in there they explain how the fuel from generators may have caused the fire to burn hotter in the building.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/12...nt-cause-world-trade-center-7-to-fall-on-911/


Con Ed had claimed negligence resulted in part because Tower 7′s tenants were allowed to install diesel backup generators.

The fuel burned for hours in the building after hijacked planes struck the two nearby towers, flinging debris into the smaller skyscraper. Con Edison had maintained that fuel from the diesel tanks heightened the fire’s intensity.

The fire department decided to let Tower 7 burn because it was unable to reach adequate water supplies, there were no people in the building and 343 firefighters had already been killed that day, the appeals court noted.
Content from External Source

So did the building's engineer Irwin Cantor. What would he know?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And how exactly did NIST show that? It seems to be a simple assertion along with the claim that something like 30,000 gallons of diesel fuel was recovered? How was that done? The in-building tanks survived the collapse of a 250,000 ton building such that the diesel was recovered? Oh really?

The lawyers presented it because it a very good argument... and was not shown to be invalid. Saying it wasn't is not showing it wasn't. The court was wrong to dismiss the suit and discovery.

The underground tanks survived, and 20,000 gallons were recovered. The in-building tanks were much smaller. I think the question was more if the pumps kept pumping and feeding the fire.

[Edit to add:]
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

19. Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse?

No. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines—or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors—could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which were not observed.

As background information, the three systems contained two 12,000-gallon fuel tanks, and two 6,000-gallon tanks beneath the building's loading docks, and a single 6,000-gallon tank on the 1st floor. In addition, one system used a 275-gallon tank on the 5th floor, a 275-gallon tank on the 8th floor, and a 50-gallon tank on the 9th floor. Another system used a 275-gallon day tank on the 7th floor.

Several months after the WTC 7 collapse, a contractor recovered an estimated 23,000 gallons of fuel from these tanks. NIST estimated that the unaccounted fuel totaled 1,000 ± 1,000 gallons of fuel (in other words, somewhere between 0 and 2,000 gallons, with approximately 1,000 gallons as the most likely figure).

The fate of the fuel in the day tanks and the two 6,000-gallon tanks was unknown, so NIST assumed they were full on Sept. 11, 2001.
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
I don't see why the emergency system would shut down. It would appear that it was self sufficient and created it own power to drive the pumps from burning the diesel. If there was breach in the piping and leaking at some place there is no reason (that I know of) why the fuel could not have been burning for 7 hrs.

No I don't have any evidence.

Can you cite the report on the recovery of the fuel?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I don't see why the emergency system would shut down. It would appear that it was self sufficient and created it own power to drive the pumps from burning the diesel. If there was breach in the piping and leaking at some place there is no reason (that I know of) why the fuel could not have been burning for 7 hrs.

No I don't have any evidence.

Can you cite the report on the recovery of the fuel?

Chapter 5 of the FEMA WTC7 report (attached) cites: Summary of diesel oil recovery and spillage (Rommel 2002): => Rommel, Jennifer (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2002. Oral communication regarding a November 12, 2001, letter about diesel oil recovery and spillage. April.

And says:

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.
Content from External Source
 

Attachments

  • 403_ch5.pdf
    3.5 MB · Views: 703

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Thank you for the reference. I've seen it before. I don't find that much more than a declarative and self serving statement (as it does lend support to their col. 79 theory. I do find it hard to believe that office fires would cause what NIST claims happened, ie without any additional accelerants. How many hrs and how hot can office contents in that area get? But what do I know?

On the other hand they don't account for a maximum loss of 12,000 gallons. This is rather troubling.. What if it was 12,000 gallons... did it burn up or seep into the ground and burn at some other time? Is there evidence of that?

I don't find the NIST claim that diesel played no role convincing at all. And I don't find that statement much of a report of the recovery.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There's numerous references to the diesel fuel in NCSTAR 1-9 (unlocked version linked, for cut-and-paste)
https://www.metabunk.org/files/NCSTAR_1-9_WTC7_unlocked.pdf

The summary in "The Probably Collapse Sequence" is:

15. Role of Diesel Fuel Fires. The hypothetical fuel oil fires on the 5th and 6th floors did not contribute to the collapse of WTC 7. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by the ruptured fuel lines could not be sustained long enough, or could not have generated sufficient heat, to raise the temperature of a critical column (i.e., Column 79) to the point of significant loss of strength or stiffness. Column 79 was critical because observations and analysis indicated clearly that the failure of this column initiated collapse. Additionally, such fires would have
produced large amounts of visible smoke that would have emanated from the exhaust louvers; however, no such smoke discharge was observed.

  • The 5th Floor was the only floor with a pressurized fuel line supplying nine of the emergency power generators on that floor. Two 6,000 gallon underground tanks supplied these nine generators, were always kept full for emergencies, and were full on September 11, 2001.

  • Both 6,000 gallon tanks were found to be damaged and empty in the rubble pile several months after the collapse. This raised the possibility that the fuel may have contributed to a fire on Floor 5, a possibility that could not be distinguished from the fuel being consumed or dissipated in the burning rubble fire subsequent to the collapse of WTC 7.

  • The gas temperatures from a pool fire on the 5th floor would have exceeded the boiling point of the coolant for the diesel generators in not much more than an hour, leading to engine failure. With all nine generators out of commission, there would have been no power to operate the fuel pumps for more than an hour or two, and the fires would have burned out well before columns in the region of the fire, including Column 79, experienced significant loss of strength.

  • The day tanks on Floors 5 (supplying the remaining two emergency generators), 7, 8, and 9 that supplied fuel to the emergency generators on those floors did not contain enough fuel to be a significant contributor to the combustible load on the floors where fires were observed; it is unlikely that the tanks would have been re-supplied because of multiple safeguards in the fuel delivery system. In addition, none of the day tanks was located near the location of critical Column 79.

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

Content from External Source
And there's quite a bit of analysis in chapter 9.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
There's numerous references to the diesel fuel in NCSTAR 1-9 (unlocked version linked, for cut-and-paste)
https://www.metabunk.org/files/NCSTAR_1-9_WTC7_unlocked.pdf

The summary in "The Probably Collapse Sequence" is:

15. Role of Diesel Fuel Fires. The hypothetical fuel oil fires on the 5th and 6th floors did not contribute to the collapse of WTC 7. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by the ruptured fuel lines could not be sustained long enough, or could not have generated sufficient heat, to raise the temperature of a critical column (i.e., Column 79) to the point of significant loss of strength or stiffness. Column 79 was critical because observations and analysis indicated clearly that the failure of this column initiated collapse. Additionally, such fires would have
produced large amounts of visible smoke that would have emanated from the exhaust louvers; however, no such smoke discharge was observed.

  • The 5th Floor was the only floor with a pressurized fuel line supplying nine of the emergency power generators on that floor. Two 6,000 gallon underground tanks supplied these nine generators, were always kept full for emergencies, and were full on September 11, 2001.

  • Both 6,000 gallon tanks were found to be damaged and empty in the rubble pile several months after the collapse. This raised the possibility that the fuel may have contributed to a fire on Floor 5, a possibility that could not be distinguished from the fuel being consumed or dissipated in the burning rubble fire subsequent to the collapse of WTC 7.

  • The gas temperatures from a pool fire on the 5th floor would have exceeded the boiling point of the coolant for the diesel generators in not much more than an hour, leading to engine failure. With all nine generators out of commission, there would have been no power to operate the fuel pumps for more than an hour or two, and the fires would have burned out well before columns in the region of the fire, including Column 79, experienced significant loss of strength.

  • The day tanks on Floors 5 (supplying the remaining two emergency generators), 7, 8, and 9 that supplied fuel to the emergency generators on those floors did not contain enough fuel to be a significant contributor to the combustible load on the floors where fires were observed; it is unlikely that the tanks would have been re-supplied because of multiple safeguards in the fuel delivery system. In addition, none of the day tanks was located near the location of critical Column 79.

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

Content from External Source
And there's quite a bit of analysis in chapter 9.

Perhaps, but maybe it weakened a CONNECTION in a transfer truss that then failed and pulled column 79 and a whole lot more with it? Did NIST rule that out? It takes much less energy to fail a connection (bolts or welds) of a truss then a very thick web or flange or plate. N'est pas?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Perhaps, but maybe it weakened a CONNECTION in a transfer truss that then failed and pulled column 79 and a whole lot more with it? Did NIST rule that out? It takes much less energy to fail a connection (bolts or welds) of a truss then a very thick web or flange or plate. N'est pas?

Sure, but unfortunately there's an infinite number of scenarios of combinations of events. NIST claim they demonstrated that office contents alone could have caused sufficient damage, and they have a lot of analysis to back it up. With the diesel, it's possible it contributed, however:

  1. There's no evidence of burning diesel in the places it existed (smoke, fireman reports)
  2. There's no need to add the diesel to the models to make the building collapse, so it's irrelevant.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Sure, but unfortunately there's an infinite number of scenarios of combinations of events. NIST claim they demonstrated that office contents alone could have caused sufficient damage, and they have a lot of analysis to back it up. With the diesel, it's possible it contributed, however:

  1. There's no evidence of burning diesel in the places it existed (smoke, fireman reports)
  2. There's no need to add the diesel to the models to make the building collapse, so it's irrelevant.

No evidence that we know of! That does not mean no evidence. There's lots things which happen at the WTC on 9/11 we have no direct evidence of. That does not mean they didn't happen.

I don't think, but I don't know, that office fires would burn for 7 hrs and get hot enough to do what NIST claims. I think that could easily be tested in a FULL scale model. Did they? I think office workers would be interested in such a test. Don't you?

No there are not an infinite number of scenarios... there are probably only a few which match the observables.

Perhaps you care to outline a few aside from TTF?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The important point is that the collapse was explicable without the diesel, so it's irrelevant in the absence of additional information. I'm sure you could come up with a scenario in which it contributed.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
The important point is that the collapse was explicable without the diesel, so it's irrelevant in the absence of additional information. I'm sure you could come up with a scenario in which it contributed.

Explicable? I am not sure I agree with that. As I don't buy column 79 and there are no other office fires explanation/locations.. I think this is not something I would take to the bank.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
But the structural engineers do. I like paying attention to the folks that understand how buildings are built and how they can fail.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
But the structural engineers do. I like paying attention to the folks that understand how buildings are built and how they can fail.

You should note that the designer of the building suggested (quoted) as saying that diesel fueled fires could fail his massive trusses and that the ASCE testified before congress in 2002 that they believed the collapses were likely the result of connection failures from heat stress and that FEMA engineers back in 2002 before NIST received its mandate to explain what happened, suggested that 7wtc most likely collapsed because of destruction of load capacity of the transfer structures. All these people suggested NIST look into this.

We don't know how NIST looked into this but they came up with some rather bizarre explanations/models. And they dismissed with little to no discussion (to my knowledge) the concerns raised in 2002 before congress by Cantor, ASCE and FEMA.

Why?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
You should note that the designer of the building suggested (quoted) as saying that diesel fueled fires could fail his massive trusses and that the ASCE testified before congress in 2002 that they believed the collapses were likely the result of connection failures from heat stress and that FEMA engineers back in 2002 before NIST received its mandate to explain what happened, suggested that 7wtc most likely collapsed because of destruction of load capacity of the transfer structures. All these people suggested NIST look into this.

We don't know how NIST looked into this but they came up with some rather bizarre explanations/models. And they dismissed with little to no discussion (to my knowledge) the concerns raised in 2002 before congress by Cantor, ASCE and FEMA.

Why?
Why? Jeffrey, do you have any speculations on Why?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You should note that the designer of the building suggested (quoted) as saying that diesel fueled fires could fail his massive trusses and that the ASCE testified before congress in 2002 that they believed the collapses were likely the result of connection failures from heat stress and that FEMA engineers back in 2002 before NIST received its mandate to explain what happened, suggested that 7wtc most likely collapsed because of destruction of load capacity of the transfer structures. All these people suggested NIST look into this.

We don't know how NIST looked into this but they came up with some rather bizarre explanations/models. And they dismissed with little to no discussion (to my knowledge) the concerns raised in 2002 before congress by Cantor, ASCE and FEMA.

Why?

Because they did the math? Because the theory did not match more detailed observation?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Because they did the math? Because the theory did not match more detailed observation?
Seems we are getting down to the foot fits several different shoes . . . whether to wear hiking boots, tennis shoes or dress shoes is based on who is making the choice . . . maybe this is ultimately more of an exercise in catastrophe theory than anything else. . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Seems we are getting down to the foot fits several different shoes . . . whether to wear hiking boots, tennis shoes or dress shoes is based on who is making the choice . . . maybe this is ultimately more of an exercise in catastrophe theory than anything else. . . .

There are always going to be unknowns, however you can eliminate some scenarios. The diesel fuels damaging columns, for example. The diesel fuels in some locations can be eliminated due to lack of smoke. The possible locations of diesel fires can also be limited, based on where the tanks and pipes were.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
There are always going to be unknowns, however you can eliminate some scenarios. The diesel fuels damaging columns, for example. The diesel fuels in some locations can be eliminated due to lack of smoke. The possible locations of diesel fires can also be limited, based on where the tanks and pipes were.
The issue to most people still interested in what happened on 911 and specifically WTC7 is: was there incompetence, negligence, criminality, espionage, or simply dumb luck . . .?
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Why? Jeffrey, do you have any speculations on Why?

I don't know and I suspect neither does Mick West.

No the diesel fires cannot be eliminated due to lack of smoke. I am not a fire scientist, but not all combustion produce copious smoke... some produces none whatsoever. Were there any LNG or propane risers in the region? Those gas burn without smoke. My Volvo diesel produces very little smoke but lots of heat and burns little fuel.

The fact is that there were very few observations of what was going in in that building especially after the twins collapsed. And they were none after the order was issued to removed all personnel from the area around 3 pm I believe.

I don't think any maths were done.

Why must there be massive amounts of smoke? Or raging fires? How rigorously was the area documented for fires or smoke? I suspect the tanks were not checked. If there is direct testimony to this I am unaware of it. The absence of observations of fires or smoke in this case is not evidence that there were none.

My own position is that the girder walk off is a greater leap of faith with scare evidence than that there was a failure in the load transfer region.

We know Con Ed lost something like 13 feeds after 11 hit 1wtc. That's a fact. Why was the explanation for that? Shorts? transformers exploding? Where? in the sub station? Exploding transformers cause fires... all the time... such as after Sandy at the Con Ed facility on 14th street from... water! These were powerful explosions.. and captured on video. But of course the 7wtc sub station was well buried inside the base of the tower. What were the explosions which caused the building to be immediately evacuated right after AA11 hit 1wtc? I don't think they were bombs. I think they were the sub station cooling radiators going bonkers, releasing combustible GASES which can perhaps burn with little to no smoke.

The fact is we don't know because there IS no reports what happened to the electrical equipment in the base of 7 wtc where the load transfer structures are located.

Maths are not evidence in this case.
 
Last edited:

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
The issue to most people still interested in what happened on 911 and specifically WTC7 is: was there incompetence, negligence, criminality, espionage, or simply dumb luck . . .?

My hunch... and it's just pure speculation is that the collapse was a series of unexpected calamities related to the design... the engineering design, the planning design... and the electrical and emergency power design. The design did not cause the collapse... it facilitated it perhaps.

Was these design decisions incompetence? Or stupidity? or both? Was in misfeasance or malfeasance?

For example, I would like to understand how 7wtc came to be built over a huge substation (one of 23 serving NYC). At the time there was vacant and buildable property diagonally across from the WTC site north of AmEx tower and West of Verizon (NyNex at the time).

Why would the "developer" acquire air rights over a sub station to build a structure which would require very complex (expensive) engineer and erection? Doesn't that seem like an odd set of decisions there?

I understand Cantor accepting the commission. Work is work. And he probably made a fortune on the work too.

I understand Con Ed selling their air rights... Why not make some money for "nothing".

I understand all the lawyers who worked on the deal... work is work...

I understand the architect accepting the commission... work is work...

I don't understand why Guiliani insisted on siting his EMC on the 23rd floor of 7 wtc and having 20,000 gallons of fuel stored on site... under and within the building. He was advised to select a different site.

My hunch is that the collapse was not JUST a column failure from a girder taking a hike, but a progressive collapse when the Rube Goldberg transfer structure holding up MOST of the tower built over the sub station... collapsed like a cheap card table.

Maybe.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
There are always going to be unknowns, however you can eliminate some scenarios. The diesel fuels damaging columns, for example. The diesel fuels in some locations can be eliminated due to lack of smoke. The possible locations of diesel fires can also be limited, based on where the tanks and pipes were.

Donald said:

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld


Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/d/donaldrums148142.html#OHmW8BulPwP1JzB3.99
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
My hunch... and it's just pure speculation is that the collapse was a series of unexpected calamities related to the design... the engineering design, the planning design... and the electrical and emergency power design. The design did not cause the collapse... it facilitated it perhaps.

Was these design decisions incompetence? Or stupidity? or both? Was in misfeasance or malfeasance?

For example, I would like to understand how 7wtc came to be built over a huge substation (one of 23 serving NYC). At the time there was vacant and buildable property diagonally across from the WTC site north of AmEx tower and West of Verizon (NyNex at the time).

Why would the "developer" acquire air rights over a sub station to build a structure which would require very complex (expensive) engineer and erection? Doesn't that seem like an odd set of decisions there?

I understand Cantor accepting the commission. Work is work. And he probably made a fortune on the work too.

I understand Con Ed selling their air rights... Why not make some money for "nothing".

I understand all the lawyers who worked on the deal... work is work...

I understand the architect accepting the commission... work is work...

I don't understand why Guiliani insisted on siting his EMC on the 23rd floor of 7 wtc and having 20,000 gallons of fuel stored on site... under and within the building. He was advised to select a different site.

My hunch is that the collapse was not JUST a column failure from a girder taking a hike, but a progressive collapse when the Rube Goldberg transfer structure holding up MOST of the tower built over the sub station... collapsed like a cheap card table.

Maybe.
If Guiliani made a poor decision many years before 2001 . . . unless he was either clairvoyant or a time traveler, the only thing that can be said is that it was a poor decision using 20/20 hindsight . . .
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
If Guiliani made a poor decision many years before 2001 . . . unless he was either clairvoyant or a time traveler, the only thing that can be said is that it was a poor decision using 20/20 hindsight . . .

True... but he was advised at the time that this was ill advised. I don't have the laundry list of why that was so. I do remember that at the time they were hunting around for the site the selection was very controversial. But the reasons may have nothing to do with diesel for generators.

But the EMC sure went down pretty quickly.. eh?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
True... but he was advised at the time that this was ill advised. I don't have the laundry list of why that was so. I do remember that at the time they were hunting around for the site the selection was very controversial. But the reasons may have nothing to do with diesel for generators.

But the EMC sure went down pretty quickly.. eh?
Yes, the EMC proved to be vulnerable in the case of 911 . . . one thing that I have wondered about is the decision to stop fire mitigation at WTC7 early in the day . . . based on the lack of water I believe . . . this situation could be the single most salient reason WTC7 collapsed . . . would you agree?
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Yes, the EMC proved to be vulnerable in the case of 911 . . . one thing that I have wondered about is the decision to stop fire mitigation at WTC7 early in the day . . . based on the lack of water I believe . . . this situation could be the single most salient reason WTC7 collapsed . . . would you agree?

George,

I do believe that fire and heat from fires was one of the straws that broke the camel's back and led to the collapse of the building. It is telling that the fire fighting system had no redundancy... apparently leaving the FDNY little to no option to stop the fires. That's something which is troubling and now we learn critical to saving steel structures... so critical that without fire suppression... supposedly office fires below a girder framed into a single column can bring down a 250,000 ton structure... if we are to accept NIST's explanation (I don't)
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
George,

I do believe that fire and heat from fires was one of the straws that broke the camel's back and led to the collapse of the building. It is telling that the fire fighting system had no redundancy... apparently leaving the FDNY little to no option to stop the fires. That's something which is troubling and now we learn critical to saving steel structures... so critical that without fire suppression... supposedly office fires below a girder framed into a single column can bring down a 250,000 ton structure... if we are to accept NIST's explanation (I don't)
So are we talking about design flaws so significant as to be considered negligent? Meaning the court may have been in error for its decision ?
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
There's numerous references to the diesel fuel in NCSTAR 1-9 (unlocked version linked, for cut-and-paste)
https://www.metabunk.org/files/NCSTAR_1-9_WTC7_unlocked.pdf

The summary in "The Probably Collapse Sequence" is:

15. Role of Diesel Fuel Fires. The hypothetical fuel oil fires on the 5th and 6th floors did not contribute to the collapse of WTC 7. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by the ruptured fuel lines could not be sustained long enough, or could not have generated sufficient heat, to raise the temperature of a critical column (i.e., Column 79) to the point of significant loss of strength or stiffness. Column 79 was critical because observations and analysis indicated clearly that the failure of this column initiated collapse. Additionally, such fires would have
produced large amounts of visible smoke that would have emanated from the exhaust louvers; however, no such smoke discharge was observed.

  • The 5th Floor was the only floor with a pressurized fuel line supplying nine of the emergency power generators on that floor. Two 6,000 gallon underground tanks supplied these nine generators, were always kept full for emergencies, and were full on September 11, 2001.

  • Both 6,000 gallon tanks were found to be damaged and empty in the rubble pile several months after the collapse. This raised the possibility that the fuel may have contributed to a fire on Floor 5, a possibility that could not be distinguished from the fuel being consumed or dissipated in the burning rubble fire subsequent to the collapse of WTC 7.

  • The gas temperatures from a pool fire on the 5th floor would have exceeded the boiling point of the coolant for the diesel generators in not much more than an hour, leading to engine failure. With all nine generators out of commission, there would have been no power to operate the fuel pumps for more than an hour or two, and the fires would have burned out well before columns in the region of the fire, including Column 79, experienced significant loss of strength.

  • The day tanks on Floors 5 (supplying the remaining two emergency generators), 7, 8, and 9 that supplied fuel to the emergency generators on those floors did not contain enough fuel to be a significant contributor to the combustible load on the floors where fires were observed; it is unlikely that the tanks would have been re-supplied because of multiple safeguards in the fuel delivery system. In addition, none of the day tanks was located near the location of critical Column 79.

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

Content from External Source
And there's quite a bit of analysis in chapter 9.

This is odd to say the least. Both 6,000 gallon tanks were damaged and empty... and the other ones were ... undamaged and full?

What was the damage? the top from falling debris?

Full pick ups are on the bottom obviously and so an empty tank means a breach at the bottom or it was pumped out via the fuel pick up... or both!

We can't know where the fuel may have spread from a leak and where it ignited and burned if it did.

And why are they so hopped up about it HAD to be at column 79 where the collapse initiated? TTF shows the collapse could have initiated at many locations in the load transfer structures including columns E3 and E4 any of which would have led to column 79's collapse (among several others) under the EPH such as cols 73, 74, 74, 77, 78, 80, 81 and E3 and E4.

Have a look see. Do you agree or disagree?

Placing the failure on column 79 well above the load transfer structure region was an interesting choice. In one fell swoop it let off the engineers, the developers, Con Ed and placed on common office files and furnishings. Very interesting Watson...
 

Attachments

  • WTC 7 sk TTF.pdf
    13.3 KB · Views: 564

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
I think the damaged tanks were above ground, and the "undamaged" tanks were below ground.

Above ground? Where were they?

By the way the recently revealed scam of FDNY and NYCP 9/11 responders claiming disability will put all the testimony of FDNY and NYPD into question about 9/11. How can their words be trusted?
 

Alienentity

Active Member
George,

I do believe that fire and heat from fires was one of the straws that broke the camel's back and led to the collapse of the building. It is telling that the fire fighting system had no redundancy... apparently leaving the FDNY little to no option to stop the fires. That's something which is troubling and now we learn critical to saving steel structures... so critical that without fire suppression... supposedly office fires below a girder framed into a single column can bring down a 250,000 ton structure... if we are to accept NIST's explanation (I don't)
I see your point. No doubt Mr Silverstein had good reasons for building on that site - perhaps it was just so it could be included in the WTC complex, which was prestigious. Perhaps the land was much cheaper because of the inconvenience than similar lots nearby.

NYC is remarkable for its density; my observations when visiting is that many things which might be improbable elsewhere are normal there. The city seems to pride itself in overcoming complex engineering challenges!

btw (slightly OT) speaking of concerns at the time of construction: I recall while digging into the aircraft impact study done on the WTC towers that there was a major public controversy that the towers would be vulnerable to collision with aircraft trying to land in fog. The obvious precedent was just such an incident with the Empire State Building. While apparently engineer Leslie Robertson oversaw the study and was satisfied that the towers could withstand that scenario, nobody envisioned an aircraft travelling at 400+ knots impacting the towers.
My understanding is that while that type of collision is now part of design considerations for very tall buildings around the world there is still no guarantee that it could not happen again. Measures are being taken to minimize the chance that such collapse could happen and more importantly to increase the safety of the occupants and facilitate their escape.
The current 7 WTC reflects those lessons learned as well.

But it is notable that the ConEd lawsuit failed.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Above ground? Where were they?

By the way the recently revealed scam of FDNY and NYCP 9/11 responders claiming disability will put all the testimony of FDNY and NYPD into question about 9/11. How can their words be trusted?
I am not aware of the scam . . . do you have any links??
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
btw (slightly OT) speaking of concerns at the time of construction: I recall while digging into the aircraft impact study done on the WTC towers that there was a major public controversy that the towers would be vulnerable to collision with aircraft trying to land in fog. The obvious precedent was just such an incident with the Empire State Building. While apparently engineer Leslie Robertson oversaw the study and was satisfied that the towers could withstand that scenario, nobody envisioned an aircraft travelling at 400+ knots impacting the towers.
I understand that it was actually John Skilling who did the analysis white paper for this before the construction, him being the lead structural engineer on the project. The analysis was for a 707 at 600mph, and not a slow moving 707 as Robertson now claims in one of his many contradictions.
 
Top