[lbo-talk] 'bogus' WTC Collapse story

Paul paul_ at igc.org
Wed Jun 15 06:30:32 PDT 2005


Yes, people were annoyed at the flagrant way the FEMA report swept the Guliani issue under the carpet (of course the champion for perniciousness was the EPA reporting). But to come back to the point, here is one example of hundreds of the widespread knowledge of Number 7 World Trade Center. This fellow only had to use google!

NY TIMES 12/20/2001 City Had Been Warned of Fuel Tank at 7 World Trade Center http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F3081FFC3B5A0C738EDDAB0994D9404482&incamp=archive:search

"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."

Joseph W. writes:
>In fact:
>What did the government do to investigate the unprecedented collapse of a
>steel frame building from fires? It gave FEMA the sole discretion to
>investigate the collapse, even though FEMA is not an investigative agency.
>
>FEMA's BPAT, the only official organization that reported on Building 7's
>collapse, was completely indecisive. Their report stated:
>
>'The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to
>collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on
>the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has
>only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and
>analyses are needed to resolve this issue.'
>
>The report was published in May of 2002, just after the last building
>remains had been scrubbed from Ground Zero.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list