voodoo

WTF would a foreign soldier be doing there in the first place?

A school of the america's graduate?

How many languages do I need to know "open up, or we are breaking the door down?". Too many, I'm moving asap.

__________________
It's the truth, stupid.

VKMHVM2

Was he working for Giuliani?

__________________
It's All Here!

Dr. Albert Pastore: An Independent Investigation of 9-11 and the War on Terrorism

White Rabbit

Um, excuse me, this country is founded on imigrants a lot who don't speak the languge to well.

White Rabbit

kblair7

You don't know anything about engineering, architecture, demolition, or mathematics. So why would scientific evidence mean anything to you? Go pick up a copy of the 9/11 commissions report and read that, no one understands it because its all technical language. Hundreds of people EXPERTS in the fields mentioned above appraised the sites. What the hell could you possibly know that they don't? Nothing.

White Rabbit

Hey, we showed you up on dada's BB so you had your chance and you blew it.

PS Still no scientific evidence just more personal attacks from the ant- 911 Truthers.

eagleclaw

Apperently the story surrounding Building 7 is full of holes, and I am only talking about the diesel fuel tanks. The problem here with people like kblair and others who like to chirp once in a while is that they don't have a fucking clue what they are talking about. I have noticed with these types that anything that goes against the mainstream school of thought is deemed irrelevant and kooky. Nothing to back up their assertations, just misguided and illconcieved name-calling.

[I sent this to DN ages ago and, well, they've long since stopped any correspondence with me]

>From Goodman’s Exception to the Rulers, “Blowback” chapter:

“At 5:00 p.m., producer Miranda Kennedy and I walked outside and watched Building 7 go down. Seeing this forty-seven-story building just north of the Twin Towers crumple like a dollhouse was a surreal, sad moment. The building housed the mayor’s multimillion-dollar eighth-floor bunker, built after the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. The command center included 130,000 gallons of oil. As many pointed out—and objected to—at the time, if the World Trade Center was attacked again, Mayor Giuliani’s command center would blow up, endanger everything around it, and poison Lower Manhattan with PCBs. That’s exactly what happened” (15-16, my emphasis).

The phrase “exactly what happened” (16) will haunt me for some time, as I hope it eventually comes to haunt Amy.

Even though most of us here know that diesel tanks couldn't possibly cause the collapse of WTC7, let's just PRETEND we're as clueless as Amy Goodman...

What is amazing about this small item in Amy’s book is how it suggests that seeds for this myth, apparently, were planted in advance of the event? This may be a case of Goodman merely exaggerating some statement made by the NYFD. I could find nothing predating 9-11-01 as she alleges, although the NYFD’s apparent conflict with the mayor about the safety standards of his little tank seem rather peculiar, rather like a planted story. Fumes? Problems with fumes? Put a lid on it! Disaster? Exploding diesel tanks because of fumes? Funny, but that sort of accident seems rather rare, and it may have to do with the fact that diesel is not particularly flammable. (http://www.ngv.org/ngv/ngvorg01.nsf/...tyBulletin.htm) Diesel needs to be mixed with air to burn, so the story of the “fumes” seems important, but a rather unlikely accident (particularly on that day!) that the “fumes” from the Mayor’s tank on the first floor would have permeated the building, turning it into a veritable internal implosion engine! Preposterous. Only on 9-11-01 do we have to believe such tall tales.

The best article tidbit on this subject of contradictory information about oil tanks in WTC7, http://www.wtc7.net/articles/elitewatch_7wtc.html, contained some interesting expired links:

NY TIMES 12/20/2001 City Had Been Warned of Fuel Tank at 7 World Trade Center

"Fire Department officials warned the city and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1998 and 1999 that a giant diesel fuel tank for the mayor's $13 million command bunker in 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high-rise that burned and collapsed on Sept. 11, posed a hazard and was not consistent with city fire codes. The 6,000-gallon tank was positioned about 15 feet above the ground floor and near several lobby elevators and was meant to fuel generators that would supply electricity to the 23rd-floor bunker in the event of a power failure. Although the city made some design changes to address the concerns - moving a fuel pipe that would have run from the tank up an elevator shaft, for example - it left the tank in place. But the Fire Department repeatedly warned that a tank in that position could spread fumes throughout the building if it leaked, or, if it caught fire, could produce what one Fire Department memorandum called "disaster."
http://www.ulster.net/~babs7/article...ilianigang.htm [link expired]

So Goodman apparently mixed up two separate facts in her book, a rather embarrassing blunder of at least 124,000 gallons. Perhaps a fact checking service could be useful before the next book goes to print? Chip Berlet, a researcher who has been on Democracy Now, might be helpful in the future?

Where did Goodman get that number, 130,000? Here’s one possibility, after 9/11, a common story of a “substation” oil leak:

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn20242.htm

On the other hand, there are an astounding variety of stories about the size of the possible “combined” fuel contained in other tanks. For example, this story claims 42,000 gallons [ http://www.wanttoknow.info/020302nytimes], but no breakdown for how that figure is obtained.

HOW MANY TANKS WERE THERE AND WHAT WERE THEIR RESPECTIVE CAPACITIES?

Were the tanks adjacent or on separate floors? This question is never explored. A simple question. But what is the answer? Here’s the best information based on on an expired link:

"A cleanup is underway to remove tens of thousands of gallons of oil that spilled from 7 World Trade Center when the 47-story office tower collapsed on Sept. 11, according to a published report.

Citing an environmental impact report made public by the Empire State Development Corp., Newsday reported Thursday that 130,000 gallons of oil leaked from the Con Edison substation contained within the building.

Additional oil leaked from two 6,000-gallon storage tanks owned by Salomon Smith Barney, and conduits beneath the building may have contained asbestos and feeder lines wrapped in a material containing toxins, the report said.

Two 11,690-gallon diesel fuel tanks operated by Silverstein Properties were also inside the building, but were removed in March and April and showed no evidence of spillage, Newsday said. "
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/WABC_060602_oil.html [link expired]

So from these stories, if the three tanks were full, the two operated by SSB and the one for the command center, that would be 18,000 gallons total, but not necessarily adjacent tanks, apparently not on the same floor. It would have been a freak accident if even one of the 6000-gallon tanks caught on fire since the building had a sprinkler system and was not hit by a plane. How ANY FIRE started in that building is not clear. Debris from the blasts of the other buildings would not have started a fire. None of the debris was on fire, although some might have been smoldering as it was blown from one of the towers? Whatever fire might have started in that building should have been easily extinguished by the sprinkler system. In photos and video, there is only a little smoke coming from one or two floors, no visible flames, and no official explanation about why fires were started on those floors, nor any speculation about who or how such fires started or were able to burn despite a sprinkler system.

In explaining the collapse of WTC7, no article or report alleges that the substation caught on fire or was the source of an explosion. All the articles I found pertaining to the 130,000 gallons, refer to that oil “leaking” from the substation, but not from a tank. Logically, things that have already burned do not leak. There are many stories about 130,000 gallons “leaking”, always leaking, from the substation. How would anyone know how many gallons “leaked” anywhere, particularly after a fire and an implosion? It certainly suggests that the story is either intentional disinformation or that there was a tank that large. Does anyone make a 130,000 gallon tank? Yes, I found reference to such a large tank. ( http://www.laseagrant.org/hurricane/oil.htm). But nowhere in the reading I’ve done about WTC7, is there a discussion of a such a tank at the substation, only the implication that the substation would have had one if there was a “leak” of that size. In all of the discussions of the leak, there is never mention of whether the leak came from one tank or several tanks. There is the strange implication that the substation contained a 130,000-gallon tank, but no reference to such a tank is made in any literature about WTC7, the fire, etc.

What is the substation? Good luck finding a description of it. What is it doing under a building? Presumably, it would be saving space to put it under a building, and that’s why, presumably, they are doing the same thing again! Perhaps Democracy Now can do an investigation into the safety of the new substation as Goodman apparently believes the substation “tank”--not the mayor’s tank-- caused the implosion? Or does Goodman believe that 6000 gallons of diesel can completely demolish a building? From her confusion, it’s not clear what she believes. She seems to be espousing her own unique crackpot conspiracy theory that she created, one that is clearly wrong.

Why would a substation have a bunch of oil? A substation is not a power plant. Here’s Con Edison description of the new substation in the new WTC7-- http://www.coned.com/newsroom/news/p...26.asp?from=hc --The new substation at 7 World Trade Center currently houses three large power transformers, each 20 feet tall and weighing 168 tons, and have a capacity of approximately 80 megawatts of electricity. One megawatt can power approximately 1,000 homes. Eventually, 10 transformers will occupy the site to meet the growing power demand in the area.

OR CONSIDER THIS: http://www.projectrebirth.org/rebuil...ing/power.html --The substation will house ten total transformers weighing about 85 tons apiece, and reaching 20 feet in height. Each one can provide up to 80 megawatts of power - enough to power 80,000 homes.

Power Restoration Stats

More than 130 miles of new cable laid
More than 50 miles of underground conduit installed
46,000 feet of new trenches dug
Tens of thousands of cable splices made

In NO description of a substation will you find reference to vast oil tanks. No mention of fuel tanks, back-up generators, “fuel lines”, or any other notion other than the typical substation: transformers & cable. And yet, if responsible, or partly responsible, for the collapse of WTC7, one would expect some mention of the new design; how was it a safer version than the last one?

Neither of these descriptions (albeit contradictory) of the new substation mention diesel or oil tanks. This is consistent with the fact that a substation moves electricity; it is not a power plant and does not generate electricity. It makes sense for them to contain transformers as that would be their primary task, to take energy from power lines, power generated elsewhere, and step it down for local, short distance lines.

But there is the endlessly repeated “story” about 130,000 gallons “leaking” (e.g., "Did you mean to search for: 130000 gallons of oil leak from the Con Edison substation").

Again, no one alleges that the “substation” caught on fire or exploded. Oddly, whatever the substation was, it is never described in any news article or official FEMA or NIST report that I could find. Nothing specific about what it was, what size tanks it allegedly held, etc. Ironically, one can read about the NEW Con Edison substation built to replace the old one!-- http://www.state.ny.us/governor/press/04/may26_2_04.htm NO DESCRIPTION OF NEW OIL TANKS in that story either.

Here’s another example of where Goodman may have gotten her facts mixed up. Evidently the NYFD complained about the mayor’s little fuel tank. I say “little” because a 6000-gallon tank of diesel isn’t very big and has little explosive capability. When was the last time a tank of diesel fuel blew up? Has it ever happened? At the end of the following article, there is mention of the NYFD’s warning (fumes, alleged ‘danger’) to the mayor about his 6000-gallon tank: http://www.americanfreepress.net/Con..._Call_WTC_Prob... In my view, this “conflict” between the NYFD and the mayor is most probably disinformation.

I searched for any evidence that ANY diesel fuel tank had EVER exploded ANYWHERE and had a difficult time finding any such event. (Google “diesel fuel tank explodes “) Here is the only case I could find, a tank that was under pressure, :
Pressurisation of Fuel Storage Tanks
A diesel fuel storage tank exploded at a Wembley foundry and engineering works after it was pressurised with compressed air.
Published: 10/01/1998
http://www.safetyline.wa.gov.au/page...jrsign0050.htm

The mythology of the exploding fuel tank of WTC7 is one of wackiest ancillary notions of the “official” narrative, an unsubstantiated, inconsistent, and preposterous idea that any investigator will soon find laughable after a day of research. That such an improbable scheme was repeated by Goodman in her book, that she got the facts wrong and told the world that her misunderstanding was “exactly what happened” is embarrassing and disheartening. All the more so because she hasn’t been able to apologize for being wrong as her bestseller continues to spread misinformation on this important topic.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/11700


Kblair, have you checked out Naiomi Kleins new book "Shock Doctrine"? Hopefully it will open more people's eyes to the destructivness of unfettered Capitalism and how it affects this Country and other parts of the world.


http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine

__________________
All the time, always

kblair7

I am not very well acquainted with her work because it doesn't stand out in the sea of blather. I don't disagree with everything she says about liquid modernity, however her better intellectual points are usually overshadowed by her anti-corporate/anti-globalization propaganda.

As for your point about some gas tanks. I guess you don't live (or never have lived in NYC) we live on a crumbling infrastructure and leaking is not surprising. This summer I missed 3 days of work because the subways were flooded. So the fact that things are falling apart is not really all that important, its called urban decay.

eagleclaw

A sea of blather? I would have to say that your objectivity is lacking.

Featured Review:
"It’s a chilling, important book, and anyone who wants to understand how the world really works—not to mention how the war on terrorism has made the likes of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney extremely wealthy men—should read it immediately.”
Rolling Stone

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Latest News
December 6th, 2007
The Shock Doctrine has hit bestseller lists in the United States, Canada, Italy, Germany, Spain and Sweden!


November 29th, 2007
Naomi Klein appeared on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Watch a clip

__________________
All the time, always

White Rabbit

EC don't waste your time on this one. Dada had a BB and for weeks she had her chance to argue her case and was a complete was of time. She just like to act like a troll ask dada.