Was this building heated by

[warrior1]

electricity or gas?

A friend had mention recently that he thought that the fires at the buildings were fed by the power that ran it, like if it had been heated by gas. I wouldn't think that is safe or cost wise practical.

Sorry if this question has been asks before.

[Ezlivin]

1. Which building?

There are a fair number of buildings in the world.

[mirandapriestly]

2. You mean the world trade center or the pentagon?

I think that is an interesting idea, actually.

[DoYouEverWonder]

3. WTC 1 & 2 had steam heat

that was provided by the city.

However, there is a very good possibility that the fuel stored in WTC 7 for the back up power systems and a natural gas line that ran to a kitchen near the top of the building could have been used to bring that building down.

[Beam Me Up]

4. You are very wrong.

"there is a very good possibility that the fuel stored in WTC 7 for the back up power systems and a natural gas line that ran to a kitchen near the top of the building could have been used to bring that building down."

Take a steel structure, any steel structure. Set it in a tank of kerosene. Set fire to the kerosene. Let it burn for hours, weeks, I don't care how long. What happens? The fuels burns off, the metal gets hot and dissipates the heat.

What we call "oil burning stoves" or "oil burning furnaces" run on the same principal. They do not fall apart. They do not collapse. They do not melt.

Same thing with the natural gas. WHY, you ask? Because neither kerosene nor natural gas burn hot enough to significantly alter the structural integrity of steel. This is not even debatable. If you believe that it can, then you are ignorant of scientific fact and have only your opinions to cling to.

[DoYouEverWonder]

5. I didn't say the fuel burned

did I?

However, that doesn't mean the fuel might not have been used in some other ways to bring about the collapse of the buildings.

Let's say you want to bring a big building down and you can only use the fuel delivery systems (ie, pressurized fuel lines), water and steam pipes, and the fuel that was already in the buildings, but you can install components to adapt this system to a different purpose, I bet we could figure something out.

[Beam Me Up]

7. "FIGURE SOMETHING OUT" ?

Depends on how desperate you are to avoid the obvious. Have you seen the videos of Building 7's demolition? Straight down, 6.2 seconds. Perfect demolition. Masterful. 47 story steel structure reduced to a pile of rubble no more than 2 stories high and all in a neat pile.

If this is so easy to do with "fuel delivery systems" or what have you, why does it take demolitions experts months of planning and cost the building owners millions of dollars?

What I don't understand is why you or anyone else would try to "figure something out" that would get the perps off the hook.

[DoYouEverWonder]

8. Why does it take demolitions experts months of planning?

Because with a regular CD, first you have to submit a plan to the local authorities, then you have to get assorted permits, you have to get the EPA in to access the environmental issues. Then who have to empty the building of its tenants and contents. Then you have to strip away anything you can recycle. Plus you have to properly dispose of any asbestos and other hazards. By that point, then you can finally wire the building and set the explosives, which by that time is probably the easy part. The majority of these steps were not required for the WTC attack, since there was no need to pull a permit before hand.

Besides it probably did take years to plan the WTC demolition, and there is evidence that at least some of the systems to accomplish this task were installed years earlier during the renovations for Rudy's OEM bunker.

[Beam Me Up]

10. I see now.

It is really easy to set up a perfect demolition of a 47 story steel building.

It can be done with kerosene and steam.

My bad.

[DoYouEverWonder]

12. It is when you build the darn thing on top of trusses

WTC 7 wasn't a normal steel building. The 5th thru 7th floor housed the truss system that held the building up over ConEd's substations that were there before the building was built. It is very unusual and difficult to try to build a skyscraper on top of an existing building.

In order to bring the building down, you had to take out the trusses on the 5th floor. According to the NIST report the building failed on the 5th Floor first. Yet, there were no significant fires observed on this floor and there was little on it in the way of combustibles, since it was a mechanical floor. Whoever brought the building down, had to know how it was constructed. One person who knew all this, yet insisted on installing the back up power systems for Rudy's OEM bunker there was Jerome Hauer. Hauer is one of the key people who made 9-11 happen.

[petgoat]

15. I sure would like to see a picture of those trusses--see if the

collapse damaged them, or if they were distorted before the collapse.

Doesn't it seem strange that nobody took a picture of the trusses
as the pile came apart?

If there was WTC1 wreckage in the WTC7 pile, it should have been
quite conspicuous. Doesn't it seem strange that nobody took
a picture of that?

[DoYouEverWonder]

9. I think you misunderstand me

I'm not trying to get the perps off the hook at all. I'm trying to prove that it had to be an inside job that was planned since at least the mid 90's.

[Beam Me Up]

11. Yeah. Well, you're doing a great job of it.

[DoYouEverWonder]

13. Well then what do you think happened?

Since we seem to be not communicating very well, it may help me figure out why we seem to be at odds?

[moodforaday]

17. Different method used on WTC 7

If this is so easy to do with "fuel delivery systems" or what have you, why does it take demolitions experts months of planning and cost the building owners millions of dollars?

Without opining on the OP's idea, it seems to me that the method used to bring down WTC7 was different from the method used on WTC1 and 2. WTC7 collapse is not "explosive", there are no huge clouds of smoke billowing upwards or to the sides, there are no lateral spikes, the building does not seem to be turning to dust as it falls. It falls to the gound witbout disintegrating. There is some smoke apparently shooting up from the collapsing roof, but it takes a very different shape - it's more of a unidirectional jet, streaming upwards. And there is much, much less of smoke/dust coming from WTC7.

This may actually be a problem with the controlled demolition theory. WTC7 looks *exactly* like traditional CD you can see in many pre-911 documentaries. OTOH, WTC1 and 2 literally disintegrate into dust, floor by floor, with no blobs of concrete reaching the ground whole. You know, when you do controlled demolition, you specifically do NOT want to cover half the city with asbestos particles and other toxic dust. The structure is supposed to go down orderly, not blow up and disperse over the whole area. I am convinced it was demolition and I am convinced explosives were used, but the specific technology seems different.

I have no idea if there exists any liquid explosive you could pump into existing piping to make it blow up like this. Or how you would be able to conceal the source. But *if* you could do it, it would be significant, because you wold not need to shut the building down for weeks while CD technicians did all the meticulous research to figure out where to plant conventional explosives, how much to use, etc.

[moodforaday]

16. If you could replace the regular fuel

with something else, with a liquid explosive sufficiently powerful to bring down the whole building, then you might just have the perfect setup. Perfect, because it would not take the weeks (or months, depending on who you ask) required to prepare a traditional controlled demolition. You would "only" have to switch the source that feeds into the pipes.

Whether this is plausible or sci-fi depends on whether there are any liquid explosives of the necessary characteristics.

[leftofthedial]

18. same problem with the planes caused the steel to melt theory

huh?

[HamdenRice]

6. Much of Manhattan is heated by co-generation steam

Remember all those moody movie scenes of Manhattan at night and steam is billowing up from the street?

That's because we actually have a power plant in the middle of the east side that creates a huge amount of super hot steam. Rather than dissipate it, that steam is routed through pipes underground and sold to numerous buildings for heating.

I can't vouch for the WTC, but when DYEW says it was heated by steam, this is what she meant.

[warrior1]

14. I'm sorry

yes the WTC buildings...thanks for response.