WT7 Penthouse

OK, we all know of the Gash in building 7. now how does this gash on the outside of the building cause the penthouse to collapse first? The penthouse colapse was pointed out by official version-ers when the issue of timing the freefall came up. So it is with that in mind i ask this question. The colapse started in the center of the building wether you look at it from the crimp, or the penthouse colapse. So what caused the Center supports to go if all the damage was from the gash and fires caused from falling debris.

You'll get the answer of the transfer trusses. I know it's not a great answer but that's all you're gonna get from the "official" people.

I would doubt that man.. There really isn't as big of a gash in WTC 7 as originally thought.

Look here.

Photographic Analysis of the WTC7 Hole - NIST Debunked

So I even doubt the gash idea also.

There's also Howard Roark's....I mean NIST's new speculation of the 12,000 gallons of fuel. The idea I think is that the lines for this fuel were surrounding the columns that failed? Is that correct?

Didnt FEMA say they recovered all that fuel?

Last I recalled they did, I will try to get a quote later.. I have to dissapear soon.

Take a look at this thread. It's near the end where all this fuel stuff comes out.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Edit: I'll narrow it down for you.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

A working hypothesis is that the impact sustained by WTC 7 from the collapse of WTC 1 resulted in fractures in the fuel piping system (both the fuel pipe and the containment pipe) especially at the point where the pipes entered the valve box, which was rigidly mounted to the underside of the floor slab. With the base system and all of the modifications thereto, such a fracture would result in a small leak of residual fuel in the pipes at the point of the fracture. A fracture of the pipe at the valve box would release fuel under pressure that, if ignited, could produce a spray fire and/or a pool fire very near column 79.

wtc.nist.gov...

[edit on 11/3/2006 by Griff]

[edit on 11/3/2006 by Griff]

Molto Grazie Thichhead e Griff,

I dont know how i missed those threads. I heard enough 'testimonials' that the gash was "Bulging". I know a gash couldnt cause this, i was just wondering if they concluded what would cause an entire structure on the roof with minimal visual damage to implode in on itself and then the building to crimp before falling str8 down.

Thanks for the info. The blob is very suspect. I've never seen anything indicating it even exsisted until then.

Originally posted by Griff
Take a look at this thread. It's near the end where all this fuel stuff comes out.

Come on Griff, they are making excuses just like the way we cant use the video of Windsor because its at night.

Its garbage and you know it... We were DEFINATELY TOLD by the OFFICAL report people that they GATHERED ALL THE FUEL FROM THAT BUILDING.

GO tell Roark to take a long walk off a short pier. I am going by what his guys said, not some whackjob like us.

Above isn't a dig at us, I am just sick of them making stupid excuses on why something happen, even though we all know diesel fuel can not burn a building to collapse like WTC 7 did top down.

Almost all of the fuel was recovered from some tanks, but not others.


Problem is, FEMA assumed the tanks were full on the morning of 9/11. If any of the diesel had been used before 9/11, obviously it would be "missing", and yet it seems it's automatically assumed to have caused WTC7's collapse.

Originally posted by Griff
There's also Howard Roark's....I mean NIST's new speculation of the 12,000 gallons of fuel. The idea I think is that the lines for this fuel were surrounding the columns that failed? Is that correct?

No, but the valve box which was fixed to the floor slab was in the general area of the column that supported the penthouse.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Almost all of the fuel was recovered from some tanks, but not others.

Most of the fuel was recovered from the two base building tanks.

None was recovered from the SSB system.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Problem is, FEMA assumed the tanks were full on the morning of 9/11. If any of the diesel had been used before 9/11, obviously it would be "missing", and yet it seems it's automatically assumed to have caused WTC7's collapse.

Well there was the little detail from the interview with the person in charge of maintaining the systems. It seems that they had a contract with a fuel oil delivery company that specified that the tanks were to be kept topped off.

It doesn't do any good to have an emergency generator system with no fuel in it does it?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Most of the fuel was recovered from the two base building tanks.

None was recovered from the SSB system.

You keep repeating this as if a burning tank of diesel would make WTC7 fall straight down at free-fall velocity, but it wouldn't, and you haven't even established that any diesel burned in the first place.

How do you know the tank wasn't empty already? This applies to all tanks that had any missing fuel. FEMA never went in before 9/11 and checked each tank; no one did, apparently. All that "missing" fuel could have just been used pre-9/11 and you wouldn't know the better.

Hell, any number of things could have happened to it. But I'm not seeing thick black smoke after WTC1's collapse, and that's when it should have caught fire if ever.

So, in your own words, put up or shut up.

Well there was the little detail from the interview with the person in charge of maintaining the systems. It seems that they had a contract with a fuel oil delivery company that specified that the tanks were to be kept topped off.

Were they topped off on the morning of 9/11? Because there were suggestions in the FEMA Report that fuel started pumping as soon as the emergency situation presented itself, at several score gallons per hour or so.

Originally posted by bsbray11
How do you know the tank wasn't empty already? This applies to all tanks that had any missing fuel. FEMA never went in before 9/11 and checked each tank; no one did, apparently. All that "missing" fuel could have just been used pre-9/11 and you wouldn't know the better.

So, the testimony from the mainenance personell thatthey kept them topped off is a lie, right?

Just like all the other lies that so conveinently contradict your position.





Whatever.


believe what you want to believe.

Again, FEMA suggests these tanks may have become operational ON THE MORNING OF 9/11.


Show me some guys rolling up to Building 7 to top off those tanks while the Towers have just been hit by airplanes and I'll lend credence to what you're suggesting.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Were they topped off on the morning of 9/11? Because there were suggestions in the FEMA Report that fuel started pumping as soon as the emergency situation presented itself, at several score gallons per hour or so.

They would have turned on automatically when ComEd cut the power to the building, about 5 minutes before WTC 1 fell.

yes, some of the fuel would have been used by the generators, but depending on the power loads, not all of the generators would have turned on. Furthermore, the dust clouds from the collapse would have choked out the filters and radiators fairly quickly.

At any rate, the system was designed to run as long as their was a pressure differential in the supply and return lines.