Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scout
Aw but somewhere in this thread there is a post about there being fuel oil, which is the same thing for the most part.
Please refer to post #24 for this tidbit :
Fuel Oil
Diesel
Jet Fuel
You will see they are all pretty much the same thing, some are just refined a little more and others have a few extra additives. |
The "tidbit" in <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2387703&postcount=24">post #24</a> was poster Byrnison's own opinion, possibly influenced by media reports and prior comments by NIST investigators, in their now, six years plus, long, and yet to be completed, investigation of the collapse of WTC 7.
I've posted the current NIST "working hypothesis", relevant excerpts from the transcript of their Dec. 17, 2007 meeting, and the time log points where the combustibles in WTC 7 are discussed by NIST, on Dec., 18. Listen to the audio and use my time points to minimize the time you have to spend.
The media covered the speculation of what fueled the WTC 7 fires, in the months following the 9/11 collapse, but they did not report on the new NIST disclosures.
Byrnison posted a now obsolete assumption.
Even in 2005, when NIST released it's 10,000 page report on this collpases of WTC 1 & 2, they were laying the groundwork for abandoning a hypothesis for "diesel oil fueled fires", in WTC 7.:
Quote:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%...se%20Final.pdf
April 5, 2005
page 4
....NIST plans to release a draft of the final report for public comment in June 2005; public
comment period of about 6 weeks after release of the draft reports; NIST plans to release final
Investigation report in September 2005.
• WTC 7 report will be issued as a supplement to the main report: draft planned for October
2005; final for December 2005.
• Decoupling of WTC 7 report necessary to accommodate overlapping staffing demands for work
on WTC towers.
• This change affects mainly the collapse analysis; other WTC 7 work will be reported with the
other Investigation reports......
page 6
Working Collapse Hypothesis for WTC 7
If it remains viable upon further analysis, the working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7
suggests that it was a classic progressive collapse, including:
page 21
Observed Fire Locations (11:30-2:30 pm)
General
No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby
No signs of fire or smoke below floor 6 from stairwell and lobby areas
Fire reported at west wall of floor 7 around 12:15 pm
In east stairwell, smoke was observed near floors 19-20; signs of a fire
observed on floor 23
Looking from southwest corner to the south face
Fire in SW corner near floors 10 or 11
Fire on floors 6, 7, 8, 21, 30
Multiple fires observed on floors numbered 20’s and 30’s
Heavy black smoke coming out of south face gash; no fire observed
Looking from southeast corner to the south face
Fire on floor 12;1 area above covered with smoke
Fire on floors 11-121 moved to east face and progressed to the north
1 fires reported on floor 14, but photographs showed east face fires on floor 12
page 22
Observed Fires
East Face Fires on Floors 11-12 near 2 PM
Fires in WTC 7—which began soon after WTC 1 collapsed—were observed on Floors 7, 8, 9,
and 11 near the middle about half an hour before collapse; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.
Fires were also seen on Floors 12, 13, 22, 29, and 30 at various times during the day.
page 23
Observed Fires
North Face Fires on Floors 7 and 12
near 3 PM
page 29
Status of Initiating Event Analysis
NIST continues to evaluate the factors that could have caused column 79,
80, or 81 to fail
Possible contributing factors include:
Damage to components adjacent to truss #2 from debris impact
Damage to fireproofing from normal activities prior to event or debris
damage
Unusual fuel loads (fuel lines, high density of building contents)
Analysis to date indicates:
Massive size of columns 79, 80, and 81 appears to require severe
fires and/or damaged fireproofing to initiate thermally-related failures
page 38
Fuel System for Emergency Power in WTC 7
• NIST has reviewed and documented the fuel system for emergency power in WTC 7
• Floor 5—which did not have any exterior windows and contained the only
pressurized fuel distribution system on the south, west and north floor
areas—is considered a possible fire initiation location, subject to further data
and/or analysis that improve knowledge of fire conditions in this area.
• The two 6,000 gallon tanks supplying the 5th floor generators through a pressurized
piping system were always kept full for emergencies and were full that day.
• Both tanks were found to be damaged by debris and empty several months after the
collapse. Some fuel contamination was found in the gravel below the tanks and
sand below the slab on which the tanks were mounted, but no contamination was
found in the organic marine silt/clay layer underneath.
• This finding allows for the possibility, though not conclusively, that the fuel may have
contributed to a fire on Floor 5.
page 39
Observations on Fifth Floor
• Critical columns (79, 80, 81) carrying large loads from about 2,000 ft2 of floor area were
present on the 5th floor.
• The 5th floor was the only floor with a pressurized fuel line supplying the emergency power
generators.
• Two 6,000 gallon fuel tanks supplying a pressurized line possibly contributed to fires; tanks
were found to be damaged by debris and empty several months after collapse.
• In a 1997 facility condition survey, fireproofing was observed to be prominently missing on 5th floor
framing above main lobby; possible repair not confirmed.
• A majority of the 5th floor was not protected by sprinkler systems, with the exception of mechanical
space to east and office area to north side of building; no evidence of sprinklers in enclosures on
5th floor (also on floors 7, 8, and 9) which housed OEM generators and day tanks. Seventh floor
generator room may have been sprinklered, conflicting data.
• Two of the three sprinkler risers which were located next to stairs (#1 and #2) on the west side of
the building transferred towards center on the 5th floor along with stairs.
• Sprinkler systems on floors 1 through 20 were supplied directly from the city distribution system
through an automatic pump located on the 1st floor; water supply could be interrupted by loss of
power to fire pump or significant damage to underground city main in vicinity of building.
|
The above status was issued on April 5, 2005. 31 months later, NIST stated that it's working hypothesis involves ONLY "normal building fires", and NIST asnswered a question on Dec. 18, 2007, as to what those fires were fueled by; "normal"room contents, predicted to be 4 lbs, of combustibles, per square foot, consumed in moving fires, buring no more than 20 minutes in a given location, before completely consuming the combustibles.