1975 WTC fire

Two things I find interesting from this link is a picture showing what might be an area that might have been off limits to workers and out of view to worker where phone cables were run through. Were these area possibly where explosives could have been packed in and set up for a demolition job?

Of course knowing that a previous fire had taken place in one of the WTC and it had suffered a previous fire on several floors for three hours, in the past without structural damage. While it is true that at that time it had not been hit with a plane, most people say the buildings fell from heat due to the fires anyway, yet the previous fires did no damage.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

So, this was a very serious fire which spread over some 65 per cent of the eleventh floor (the core plus half the office area) in the very same building that supposedly "collapsed" on 9/11 due to a similar, or lesser, fire. This fire also spread to a number of other floors. And although it lasted over 3 hours, it caused no serious structural damage and trusses survived the fires without replacement and supported the building for many, many more years after the fires were put out.

It should be emphasized that the North Tower suffered no serious structural damage from this fire. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced.

That the 1975 fire was more intense than the 9/11 fires is evident from the fact that it caused the 11th floor east side windows to break and flames could be seen pouring from these broken windows. This indicates a temperature greater than 700°C. In the 9/11 fires the windows were not broken by the heat (only by the aircraft impact) indicating a temperature below 700°C.

Originally posted by goose
Two things I find interesting from this link is a picture showing what might be an area that might have been off limits to workers and out of view to worker where phone cables were run through. Were these area possibly where explosives could have been packed in and set up for a demolition job?

Of course knowing that a previous fire had taken place in one of the WTC and it had suffered a previous fire on several floors for three hours, in the past without structural damage. While it is true that at that time it had not been hit with a plane, ...............

This is where you should have stopped and not posted the link. The FACTS are that a plane flying at 500MPH slammed into the building. The fires ALONE didnt NOT cause the collapse. PERIOD. FEMA, NIST, ASCE, or anyone else with 1/2 a brain has never stated this.

In regards to the "offlimits" areas. They are locked! Thats why they are "off limits". Im sure there were MANY of those areas.
Most speculate the core was a good spot for hidign them... thank god they didnt have a bunch of elevator technicians working 7 days a week there... of that the state requires annual inspections of these areas. (minimal)




[edit on 14-7-2007 by CaptainObvious]

What Captain Oblivious didn't state was that most of that fuel from the jet that slammed into it exploded outside the buildings. We saw the second HUGE FIREBALL outside the building at the impact of that plane. Nor did Captain Oblivious talk about the fact that teh Fire Department said the fires were out except for two small pockets and that "One hose should take care of it". But I am sure he didn't know what the hell he was talking about, the place was ablaze from top to bottom with 64 billion degrees jet fuel, why the hell would anyone listen to a firefighters assesment anyways?? Besides those Firefighters aren't trustworthy, they said Rudy Giluiani isn't a good person or leader, that right there should be enough to show you how UNRELIABLE those dumb ass Firefighters are...

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
What Captain Oblivious didn't state was that most of that fuel from the jet that slammed into it exploded outside the buildings.

No i didn't say that. Because that is incorrect. In fact not even 1/2 of the fuel burned off with the initial fireball. That leaves over 5K gallons of jet fuel burning and pouring down elevator shafts.

Originally posted by theindependentjournalNor did Captain Oblivious talk about the fact that teh Fire Department said the fires were out except for two small pockets and that "One hose should take care of it".

I can't believe people still buy that. That was ONE FIREFIGHTER! not the FIRE DEPARTMENT. Your post is misleading. This fire was not even NEAR the impact point.

THe rest of your rant is a Strawman at it's finest. I suggest you go read the FACTS.

EDIT TO ADD:
"Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

Ladder 15: "What stair are you in, Orio?"

Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha to lobby command post."

Ladder Fifteen: "Fifteen to Battalion Seven."

Battalion Seven Chief: "... Ladder 15."

Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."

Recorded audio of the actual event..

www.firehouse.com...



[edit on 14-7-2007 by CaptainObvious]

Actually Captain Oblivious I feel this previous fire is relavant in studying the events of 911, and let us not foget that WTC 7 a 47 story building was not hit by a plane and did fall just as the other two did.

Plus it is a known fact that the WTC 2 was in power down conditions for cable installation during the weekend before the attacks.

www.serendipity.li...

So it would make sense that someone was using these areas to run cable since that is clearly what these areas I mentioned, and is shown in the picture from the first link, were for.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
thank god they didnt have a bunch of elevator technicians working 7 days a week there... of that the state requires annual inspections of these areas. (minimal)

NY and NJ don't have jurisdiction on Port Authority property, so there is no "state" to enforce annual inspections but only the Port Authority itself.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
That leaves over 5K gallons of jet fuel burning and pouring down elevator shafts.

Which is it, burning or pouring?
ITs absurd to say that burning jet fuel 'poured' down the elevator shafts.
Simply absurd.
Especially on the second impact which only caught the corner of the building. (oddly the FIRST building to fall IIRC)
THe jet fuel would have been vaporized when it hit the building at 500 miles an hour.
It would have been dispersed over an area GREATER then the size of the plane.
Your suggestion that it 'poured' down the elevator shafts, as if it was pouring from a giant five thousand gas can is preposterous.

I dont care who says it or what 'experts' may back you up.
Its ludicrious.

[edit on 15-7-2007 by 11Bravo]

Originally posted by bsbray11
NY and NJ don't have jurisdiction on Port Authority property, so there is no "state" to enforce annual inspections but only the Port Authority itself.

the port authority takes care of transportation

www.panynj.gov...

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey manages and maintains the bridges, tunnels, bus terminals, airports, PATH and seaport that are critical to the bistate region's trade and transportation capabilities.

Well not everything is so obvious to the capt. after all, if the fuel is burning it's not pouring, and then burning, lol. It's like opps somehow this fuel never caught fire in the fireball, it magically escaped and then poured down the elevator then blew up, hey that's what those later explosions were that everybody heard. WOW it's solved, LOL.

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret
the port authority takes care of transportation

Yes, and so do the states of NY and NJ. That's one thing they do. If you'll let me guess -- did you just do a 2-second Google search on the PA?

The PA has their own police force, engineers, etc., and the WTC Towers and whether or not they were up to any code were completely their own jurisdiction and were their responsibility, not NY's or NJ's.

[edit on 15-7-2007 by bsbray11]

Can fuel BURN? yes...
Can fuel POUR? yes...

IT is a fact that some fuel ignited and some did not... this is very possible and in fact actually did happen. I have posted stories from vicitims that survived the jet fuel fire balls.

Some of the fuel ignited right away.. .some did not. It was dispersed over several areas. And down several elevator shafts where many people where killed. (in the elevators)

wtc.nist.gov...
IF you care to read this, it shows the dispersment of the jet fuel in both towers and the fireballs.


IF you "dont care" who says it...then my friend you are not searching for the truth.

But hey...who ever said truthers ignored evidence???

Can you point me to a single page of that 300 page document or do I need to read the entire thing?
I sure will take a look at it.

YOu know, had I been alive way back when, I would have said
"I dont care who says the world is flat, or what experts back you up, its ABSURD to think its flat"
Then you could have given me a book approved by the 'state' that confirms in so many words that the world is indeed flat.
I still wouldnt believe it was flat, no matter what you or your experts or your 'report' say.
I will read your report though, with a skeptical eye.

Originally posted by 11Bravo
Can you point me to a single page of that 300 page document or do I need to read the entire thing?
I sure will take a look at it.

God I am too nice... here ya go:

South Tower:


North Tower:

Originally posted by goose
and let us not foget that WTC 7 a 47 story building was not hit by a plane and did fall just as the other two did.

Correct... kinda... But, this building was showered with tons of debris from a 110 Story Skyscraper. Also, WTC7 did not collapse as the other two did

Originally posted by goosePlus it is a known fact that the WTC 2 was in power down

This is not a fact. One person states that it happened on HIS floor. Where is the memo that states this? Scott Forbes can NOT say for certain what floors were down. Again... what about the other 2 buildings? When where they "powered down?"

Originally posted by gooseSo it would make sense that someone was using these areas to run cable since that is clearly what these areas I mentioned, and is shown in the picture from the first link, were for.

ok? and ?

Actually Captain Oblivious I feel this previous fire is relavant in studying the events of 911, and let us not foget that WTC 7 a 47 story building was not hit by a plane and did fall just as the other two did.

Sure, lets discuss the previous fire......

The 1975 fire happened in the first tower, that was constructed. Unlike tower two, the first tower had asbestos fireproofing used up until the 38th floor. The 1975 fire was limited to floors that had the intact, asbestos fireproofing. On 9/11/01, the fireproofing used on the floors subjected to first the impact of the jetliners, and then the ensuing fire, was not up to the job.

"Whenever I pass by [the World Trade Center], I worry," said Herbert Levine, the inventor of the special safe-asbestos coating used to coat steel beams on floors below where the planes hit. "If a fire breaks out above the 64th floor, that building will fall down," he predicted

Plus it is a known fact that the WTC 2 was in power down conditions for cable installation during the weekend before the attacks.

Ah yes...Mr Scott Forbes rears his head again, his original email states that there was a power down from the 50th floor up. However, when interviewed his story changes....

GW: How do you know that there was no electricity from floor 50 up, if Fiduciary Trust was on much higher floors -- starting at the 90th floor?

SF: I can't absolutely verify that there was no power on lower floors ... all I can validate is that we were informed of the power down condition, that we had to take down all systems and then the following day had to bring back up all systems ...

In the same interview.

SF: All systems were shutdown on Saturday morning and the power down condition was in effect from approximately 12 noon on Saturday September 8, 2001.

GW: When did it end?

SF: Approximately 2PM on Sunday 9/9.

So now its only 26 hours instead of 36. Yes I know, ten hours big deal....well yes it is a big deal, because it takes a heck of a lot longer to wire a building for implosion.

In 24 days, CDI's 12 person loading crew placed 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on 9 levels of the structure. Over 36,000 ft. of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay devices were installed in CDI's implosion initiation system. As the implosion required the detonation of a total of 2,728 lb. of explosives, CDI implemented 36 "primary delays" and an additional 216 “micro-delays" in the implosion initiation sequence in an attempt to keep detonation overpressure to a minimum.

www.controlled-demolition.com...


24 days for NINE stories......and we are supposed to believe that one tower of the WTC was wired for demolition in 26 hours? Not to mention that NO ONE has come forward with a similar tale for the other tower?

Originally posted by bsbray11
[
Yes, and so do the states of NY and NJ. That's one thing they do. If you'll let me guess -- did you just do a 2-second Google search on the PA?

The PA has their own police force, engineers, etc., and the WTC Towers and whether or not they were up to any code were completely their own jurisdiction and were their responsibility, not NY's or NJ's.

[edit on 15-7-2007 by bsbray11]

i'd say more about five minutes.....and i went to their mission statement page...i can see that they're control of the site now...but i saw nothing on pre 9-11.....

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret
i'd say more about five minutes.....and i went to their mission statement page...i can see that they're control of the site now...but i saw nothing on pre 9-11.....

Well you didn't even know that they control now until today. The Port Authority existed before the WTC itself existed, and ran the WTC site from the beginning once it was built.

I posted a thread a while back with this interesting story relating to the Port Authority from the 1980's:

The Office of Special Planning (OSP), a unit set up by the New York Port Authority to assess the security of its facilities against terrorist attacks (see Early 1984), spends four to six months studying the World Trade Center. It examines the center’s design through looking at photographs, blueprints, and plans. It brings in experts such as the builders of the center, plus experts in sabotage and explosives, and has them walk through the WTC to identify any areas of vulnerability. According to New York Times reporters James Glanz and Eric Lipton, when Edward O’Sullivan, head of the OSP, looks at WTC security, he finds “one vulnerability after another. Explosive charges could be placed at key locations in the power system. Chemical or biological agents could be dropped into the coolant system. The Hudson River water intake could be blown up. Someone might even try to infiltrate the large and vulnerable subterranean realms of the World Trade Center site.” In particular, “There was no control at all over access to the underground, two-thousand-car parking garage.” ... [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 227; New York County Supreme Court, 1/20/2004]

www.cooperativeresearch.org...


So there's an article talking about the Port Authority setting up an anti-terrorism investigative unit to study the vulnerabilities of the towers in 1984. So far, they've identified the parking garage as a vulnerability. In 1993, the FBI supplied a bomb to what they called a terrorist cell through a man named Emad Salem (because this man also taped hours of phone conversations with the FBI once he was informed the bomb would be live), trying to arrest them in the act of bombing, but the end result was that the same bomb went off in that very same place.

The bit on the OSP study goes on, though:

However, O’Sullivan consults “one of the trade center’s original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.” He is told there is “little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.” [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 227; New York County Supreme Court, 1/20/2004] The OSP will issue its report called “Counter-Terrorism Perspectives: The World Trade Center” late in 1985 (see November 1985).

So it's 1984 and the Port Authority is already considering plane impacts into the towers (slow-moving plane, not slow-moving passenger jet: there's a big difference). And this is during a meeting in which intentional sabotage is being considered.

my initial look around the PA site said nothing of buildings other than terminals for planes trains and automobiles...(and the likes)...including the mission statement....

you're partially right on the FBI and 1993 connection....they did not supply the bomb....they were originally supposed to supply a fake ingriedient that that the egyptian would tell the rest was a super explosive powder...but instead just make the bomb a dud....apparently near the end...an unnamed supervisor got in a fight with the egyptian and the ingriedient was never given.....


i thought i had linkage saved to favorites but i dont....i gotta get to work...but at lunch or something i'll look it up for you....

i came back too late to edit my last post...so heres the link...


www.whatreallyhappened.com...

"He requested to make me to testify, and if he didn't push for that, we'll be going building the bomb with a phony powder, and grabbing the people who was involved in it. But since you, we didn't do that."

also that wiki site says ramzi yousef planned on flying 12 aircraft into the prominent us buildings...when it was 11 planes he planned on just blowing up...he was busted when he caught his house on fire making the bombs...


www.fas.org...

. In January 1995, Yousef and his associates plotted to blow up eleven U.S. commercial aircraft in one spectacular day of terrorist rage. The bombs were to be made of a liquid explosive designed to pass through airport metal detectors. But while mixing his chemical brew in a Manila apartment, Yousef started a fire. He was forced to flee, leaving behind a computer that contained the information that led to his arrest a month later in Pakistan

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

24 days for NINE stories......and we are supposed to believe that one tower of the WTC was wired for demolition in 26 hours? Not to mention that NO ONE has come forward with a similar tale for the other tower?

No actually they could have been wired over a period of weeks or months prior leading up to that time, within these areas I mentioned being off limits to the majority of personnel and probably locked as Captain Oblivious mentioned. If our gov. did it I doubt they would have had any problems with locks. LOL Captain Oblivious is funny sometimes.

In buildings of that size there were probably lots of repairmen coming and going in all of the WTC's everyday, I seriously doubt anyone would have paid them much mind. I've worked in a large building where repairs were going on 24/7, no one questioned these workers, we just tried to stay out of their way.

So I think the floors that was powered down that weekend was a rush job to finish on schedule.