Remember those diesel fuel tanks at WTC 7?

[DoYouEverWonder]

the ones the OCTers claim blew up or caught fire and helped bring down the building? Looks like FEMA found them. Intact.

Engineers from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation investigated oil contamination in the debris of WTC 7. Their principal interest was directed to the various oils involved in the Con Ed equipment. However, they reported the following findings on fuel oil: "In addition to Con Ed's oil, there was a maximum loss of 12,000 gallons of diesel from two underground storage tanks registered as 7WTC." To date, the NY State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEC have recovered approximately 20,000 gallons from the other two intact 11,600-gallon underground fuel oil storage tanks at WTC 7.

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. Gee whiz, no one remembers the diesel fuel tanks

that supposedly caught fire and exploded and contributed to the collapse of the building?

[greyl]

2. It looks like they recovered about half of the fuel.

That leaves a possible, app. 20,000 gallons unnaccounted for. (I don't think we know how full the tanks were)
20,000 gallons is significant. If I'm not mistaken, that's more than the capacity of each 767 that hit the Towers.

[DoYouEverWonder]

3. The report is a bit ambiguous

It sounds like there are some additional tanks in the building that may have also spilled because their numbers don't really add up.

However, if the diesel tanks were still intact even after the collapse, then any spillage was probably due to the collapse.

[greyl]

4. It's not ambiguous enough to say "they were found intact"

in apparent reference to all of the fuel tanks like your OP subject does.
In fact, the report states that not all of the tanks were recovered, intact or otherwise.

[Jazz2006]

6. The 5th floor supply tanks were found damaged and empty.

The two 6000 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 beneath.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207...

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. Sounds more like the fuel poured out

from the collapse, rather then burned up before the collapse.

It would expect the tanks to be damaged after a 47 story building feel on top of them. There is a difference between damaged has opposed to burnt to a crisp or exploded. I think if the investigators found an exploded tank it would have been 'breaking news' for at least two weeks with the way the media loves to hype things.

[Jazz2006]

9. It doesn't sound like it.

given the description of the fuel contamination found. It sounds more like some spilled and the rest burnt. Otherwise, one would intuitively expect a lot of contamination below considering the volume (12,000 gallons).

[DoYouEverWonder]

10. The question is even if some fuel did burn

was it before or after the collapse?

Most likely, when the building collapsed the pipes to the tanks would been severed, allowing some of the fuel to pour out. Since the two tanks that everyone claims caused the fires on the ground floor were found intact, that would mean that they showed no evidence of fire or it would have been significant and mentioned in the report. Also there was a large amount of fuel still in those two tanks so obviously the tanks didn't explode.

[Jazz2006]

12. Perhaps, but it is equally likely that the pipes could have been

damaged by the debris that damaged the building before it fell, is it not?

I haven't looked at the data for quite some time but I thought there was just one tank on the first floor, and that was a 6000 gallon tank that was added around 1999 to service the OEM office on the 7th floor. But I could be wrong - do you know where the second tank on the first floor was?

As I understand it, the base tanks were two ~12,000 gallon tanks, then two 6,000 gallon tanks were added around 1990 (the Soloman tanks) to service the Soloman trading floors - not sure what floors exactly but somewhere above 28), then the one for the OEM mentioned above. Those are the only ones I'm aware of besides the few smaller tanks around floors 7, 8, and 9.

As I further understand it, the distribution system for the Soloman tanks operated differently than the others because of the pressurization system it utilized such that if the pipes were broken, say, by falling debris that gouged a big hole in the building, any leak would continue until the tanks were empty. Hypothesizing for the moment that there was a relatively small rupture to the Soloman piping somewhere, that would mean that fuel would leak out at the rupture point and continue to leak out, but assuming that it is not below ground (which it appears not to be) then that would explain the lack of fuel contamination below where the tanks were situated.

Also, the above scenario seems more likely to me than your scenario wherein the two 6000 gallon tanks leaked and then burned only some of their fuel after the collapse, primarily because they were next to the two 12,000 gallon tanks, which did not burn.

I am not saying that either your scenario or mine is correct. I doubt that either of us knows enough about the details to be certain of either my hypothesis or yours, but I am certainly looking forward to the release of the final report on building 7, which is long overdue.

[DoYouEverWonder]

13. Correction

I misunderstood the location of the tanks for the 5th Floor fuel distribution system. From what I am reading it sounds like there were 4 tanks total, located in the basement. Two 6000 gallon tanks which turned up empty, and two 11,600 gallon tanks that were pretty much full.


There were also some(?) tanks located in the Penthouse.

[Jazz2006]

16. I don't know about any in either of the penthouses but

you could be right.

As mentioned above, there were four below grade (2x 6000 gallons and 2x ~12,000 gallons), one on the first floor (6000 gallons), and a few smaller ones (I think a couple ~ 250 gallons or so and a smaller one ~50 gallons) on 7, 8, and 9.

Maybe the confusion about the 5th floor is because that is where the pressurized fuel distribution system was located on the north, south and west floor areas and was a likely place for fire, sitting atop of the Con Edison sub station, too, I think (but again, it's been a while since I've read this stuff so I could be wrong). That floor didn't have any windows either, by the way.

[DoYouEverWonder]

20. So is that why most of the 5th Floor

didn't even have a sprinkler system?

• The 5th floor was the only floor with a pressurized fuel line supplying the emergency power generators.

<snip>

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.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf#search=%22WTC%207%20floor%20plan%20NIST%22

They had no fire suppression systems in areas that they were storing fuel and running pressurized fuel lines for their EMERGENCY power systems. Unbelievable! They didn't need to rig the building for a CD. They just needed a few guys with matches.

[Jazz2006]

22. Strange that the building code didn't call for

sprinkler systems in the generator rooms, but I'll suppose that there's some reason for that which is beyond my knowledge. (I'll ask my beau but he's away all week with sporadic email access so I may not have an answer for a few days.)

And yet, they did install sprinklers where the 6000 gallon tank on the first floor was located, and there were sprinklers for the underground tanks.

Must be some Building Code thing that makes sense to somebody.

[DoYouEverWonder]

24. This whole building is strange

They considered it a 'sprinklered' building and had sprinkler systems on most of the floors, except on most of the 5th Floor and not in places like the equipment rooms in the building. However, they did make them build masonry vaults to house the transformers that were also on the 5th Floor.

This building sounds like an accident waiting to happen.

I wonder how many of these modifications and systems were installed after 1997 when they added the Penthouse or after Guilliani build his bunker?

One more thing about the 5th Floor that's interesting, that floor didn't have any windows.

[Jazz2006]

25. It seems unusual

but since it appears that it was in keeping with the building code, that makes me think that there is some rational explanation for it. (The sprinkler stuff was all put in at the time of construction and was all to code, if I'm reading it correctly, and then when they added the new 6000 gallon fuel tank for Guilliani's bunker and installed it on the first floor, they sprinklered that room, too.)

So it seems as though the rules are to sprinkler the fuel tank areas but not the generator areas?

Seems odd to me, too. But I will make inquiries because it seems that if it meets code, there has to be some rational explanation for it.

As for the lack of windows on the 5th floor, yes, I mentioned that in my post #16 above.

Probably not much point in having windows on a floor full of generators and piping, and I suspect that's why that floor had vents running all around it (as you can see in photographs of the building) - perhaps that, too, is a building code issue? I don't know, but I'll try to find out.


Edit: grammar

[DoYouEverWonder]

26. Looking forward to hearing what you find out

I've had to deal with codes enforcement with my own business property and it's unbelievable some of the crap they require. We did a renovation once where we put carpet on the walls to sound proof a room, and what they made us go through to get a CO was beyond ridiculous. I can't believe they would have a floor full of pressurized fuel lines and no fire suppression system for it.

I know the building officials in NYC are as corrupt as they come, but that doesn't mean you can get away with not building to code, it just means you have to grease a lot of palms to get there.

[AZCat]

27. It's weird what code officials choose to enforce

It can be very arbitrary, especially when doing remodels. I've had a few nightmares myself where a building official refused to budge on an issue even if the relevant section of the code had until then been interpreted (by everyone involved) differently. They wield an amazing amount of power with no avenue available for redress.

[Jazz2006]

28. You can say that again!

Sometimes I think that building officials just get off on that feeling of power they wield when they are in the mood to play the "just because I can" game.

Conversely, it is also astounding how much they'll let pass if you bat your eyelashes at them :evilgrin:

(Or, alternatively, pay them)

[Jazz2006]

29. As far as I can tell, the buildings were to code, though,

thus my surprise as noted above about the fuel tank areas requiring sprinklers and the generator rooms not requiring sprinklers. But like I said, I don't understand why that would be.

Maybe you could look at the NY building code and find an answer there about those specific points. Perhaps there is some other requirement for the generator rooms and perhaps there is a good reason not to have sprinklers in those rooms? I don't know.

I will, as I said, ask my beau about it too, though, because it will bug me until I find out if there's some reason for it from a fire response expert's perspective.

[John Q. Citizen]

30. Just speculation here, but maybe because the electrical generators

could short out due to water, they purposely don't want sprinklers where they are located.

[Jazz2006]

31. That could be.

It makes sense on the surface anyway. I don't know enough about the "why", as noted above, to draw any firm conclusions about it, except to the extent that it seems that there must be some rational reason for it if, as it appears, the NY building code called for sprinklers in the tank storage areas but not the generator areas, and your speculation is at least a good starting point to think about.

But that's a good starting point to think about, thanks.

[jschurchin]

38. Actually Jazz, it's not odd at all..............

to have a fuel storage room sprinklered, but not the generator room.

The reason being, the generator makes electricity. And in this case a lot of it. We all know how much electricity and water love each other, so it does make sense not to sprinkler the generator room.

There are other system's available to extinguish generator room fires, Argon, Halon and Co2, just to name three. Were these system's in place at WTC 7? I have not been able to find any documentation that they were.

[DoYouEverWonder]

50. The generators and day tanks were housed in their own enclosures

The rest of the floor did not have sprinklers except for an office and a mechanical space.

The generators enclosures couldn't have taken up that much space. What else was on that floor? Was there a fire suppression system for the pressurized fuel pipes? It would be interesting to know where the pipes ran and where the shut valves were located, things like that.

Who needs explosives when you got a system already built in?

BTW: Is this common or out of the ordinary to have this much fuel storage and generating equipment for an office building?

[DoYouEverWonder]

51. Some of the generator rooms were sprinklered

See Table 12-1, page 177.

The table shows that the 8th and 9th floor generator rooms had sprinklers installed 1994.

In 1999, the installed smoke detectors in a generator room on the 7th floor.

[DoYouEverWonder]

52. Found some interesting info about the PA and building codes

The inadequacy of codes to ensure safety of persons in high rise buildings became glaringly apparent on 9/11. In 2001, the NYC building codes, as well as all model codes throughout the nation, treated a 100 story building with the same guidelines as a ten story building. This is no different today. No fire drills with full building evacuations were ever mandated and the WTC occupants were just as totally unprepared for a mass evacuation as they were in the 1993 attack. NYC codes allowed a building designed to house 25,000 people to have only three staircases for emergency escape! It allowed gypsum board walls in stairways which at the WTC, collapsed under impact and pressure, trapping fleeing victims. NYC codes allowed many or all of a high rise building's stairwell doors to be locked, trapping fleeing victims when stairs collapsed, and preventing firefighters from gaining timely access to floors where people needed to be rescued. The unfortunate truth is that today, very little has changed in the area of building code reform throughout our country, including few extra safety measures for high rise buildings.

But any discussion of the NYC codes is completely irrelevant to the WTC, because these buildings were, and remain, above the law. The Port Authority's deadly buildings, of unorthodox design and construction, were totally immune from every single NYC building and fire code and were subject to "the Port Authority's own codes" which remain a mystery to this day, because no one has ever seen them! The PA repeatedly claims that they "meet or exceed" NYC codes, however, history has show that this is a falsehood. No high rise building of 100% bar joist floor construction before or since the WTC has ever been allowed under NYC standards and practices. According to the NIST/WTC Collapse Investigation, there is no evidence that fire tests were ever done on the fireproofing of the WTC — this is a glaring example of lack of code compliance, to say the least. Finally, the untested fireproofing was grossly inadequate- a clear violation of NYC codes, however, since no FDNY violations can be issued to such an "immune" building, no codes violations were ever served on these dangerous buildings. Indeed, the FDNY had no jurisdiction in the WTC, but paradoxically, they were required to risk and eventually lose their lives in these buildings! What a disgrace — what a crime against humanity!

http://www.skyscrapersafety.org/html/speaking_20040212sr.html


The number of tanks and the amount of fuel that was stored in WTC 7 created a very dangerous situation. How the owners and tenants of the building get away with the modifications that they made are incredible.

I found out that there were no fuel storage tanks in the original design. All of these systems were added later has modifications to the building. On one diagram that I saw, there are day tanks located all over the place, in addition to the 4 huge tanks in the lower level. Even the Penthouse had a tank. Funny that part collapsed first?

I also see no reason for putting the generators on the 5th floor, requiring pressurized fuel pipes to deliver fuel stored in the lower level. Why didn't they just put the generators down in the lower level too? The fuel tanks were in harden bunker type rooms. The generators could have been placed on the same level outside of the fuel tank rooms. Then they wouldn't have needed this elaborate and dangerous pressurized pipe system, that ran the east/west length of the 5th floor to deliver fuel. When they were building Guilliani's bunker, they wanted to run the pressurized fuel lines up the inside of the elevator shaft but the fire dept wouldn't let them. Why would anyone even suggest running pressurized diesel fuel up a working elevator shaft?

This building was turned into a time bomb waiting to happen. No wonder Guilliani and Kerik bailed as soon as the Towers were hit.

[Grateful for Hope]

53. Excellent info

I am stunned.

:wtf:

[DoYouEverWonder]

17. Odd, the NIST report only mentions the two 6000 gallon tanks

but not the two 12,000 galloon tanks.

However, they do report on the condition of the two 6000 gal tanks. They were found damaged and empty several months after the collapse. Yet, no mention of fire damage or any signs of being involved in an explosion.

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.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf#search=%22WTC%207%20floor%20plan%20NIST%22

[Jazz2006]

19. See my message below. The full report is much clearer than the powerpoint

version.

I posted a link there.

[petgoat]

33. Equally likely? Not bloody likely!

Hurling random debris at a building is not a terribly efficient way to rupture
its fuel tanks.

Collapsing the building on the tanks is.

[Jazz2006]

34. Facts and evidence please, goat girl/boy

Your unsubstantiated histrionics won't quite cut it, sorry.

By the way, did you notice that this was a nice, polite conversation before you shouted at it hours later, goat girl/boy? Hopefully, you can learn something from that.

[John Q. Citizen]

40. Odds wise, I'd have to go with the collapse most likely

caused the rupture of the tanks.

Falling debris of course could have caused it. But the odds of that are much less.

That debris would have had to penetrate the exterior and landed with enough force in just the exact right place. It's possible but not as probable as the collaspe causeing the damage.

By the way, calling another poster a cute name of your chosing isn't very rational. It makes it appear you lost the argument and are upset about it. Just my observation.

[petgoat]

43. "Facts and evidence please"

Think of it this way, Jazz. Suppose you were angry with me and wanted
to hurt me. I offer you two choices:

1. I will stand somewhere in a darkened movie theater and you can throw
three meat cleavers wherever you want

2. You can drop a bowling ball on my head

Which would you choose?

[Jazz2006]

35. unintended duplicate - disregard. (but mind the one above)

Facts and evidence please goat girl/boy. Your unsubstantiated histrionics won't quite cut it, sorry. By the way, did you notice what a nice, polite conversation this was before you shouted at it hours later, goat girl/boy?

[petgoat]

44. "what a nice, polite conversation this was"

My apologies, Jazz. I tend to hold lawyers and people who claim to be lawyers
to a higher standard of logic and truth than I apply to ordinary mortals.

Please let me know if you prefer a less stringent standard. Where would you place
yourself on a scale of "bubblehead" to "acutely subjective"?

[DoYouEverWonder]

47. The tanks didn't rupture

The four big tanks in the basement were all found intact.

However, the two 6000 gallon tanks were empty. That's a different matter entirely, since there was no signs of fuel contamination under the slabs. The fuel was just 'gone'.

[John Q. Citizen]

14. Yes, and besides, diesel is flamable but not explosive unless subjected

to great pressure. Like inside the piston of a diesel engine.

But it's not explosive like gasoline is.

[DoYouEverWonder]

15. The big question is were the two 6000 gallon tanks

damaged before or after the collapse? Unfortunately, the report jumps from the talking about the two 6000 gal tanks but doesn't give any info on their condition or why they lost all their fuel, to talking about the two bigger tanks being found intact. That's why I was confused. They make it sound like they are still talking about the same two tanks and never address the condition of the first two. They do not address what happened to the fuel that they can't find either? We are left to assume that it burnt up either before or after the collapse. Of course, the NIST report assumes that these tanks must have caused the fires that caused the total failure of a 47 story steel building. I bet they've got a bridge in Brooklyn they'd like to sell us too.

[Jazz2006]

18. It's clearer in the full report than the powerpoint one, if that helps

Unfortunately, the report jumps from the talking about the two 6000 gal tanks but doesn't give any info on their condition or why they lost all their fuel, to talking about the two bigger tanks being found intact. That's why I was confused. They make it sound like they are still talking about the same two tanks and never address the condition of the first two.

It's clearer in the full report than the powerpoint one, if that helps:

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05119.pdf

Still, it would be nice if they'd finish their final report on building 7.

Edit to add: Chapter 12 of the report at the link above is what you'll want.

Initially 2x 12000 gallon tanks below grade
1990 - Added 2x 6000 gallon tanks below grade
1999 - Added 1x 6000 gallon tank on first floor
1994 - 1999 Added some small tanks on 7, 8, and 9 (2x 275 gallons and 1x 50 gallons)

Hope that helps.

[DoYouEverWonder]

21. Ah, thanks for the link

n.t

[Jazz2006]

23. You're welcome. n/t

[DoYouEverWonder]

37. Most of the 5th Floor

was for a pressurized piping system for the two 6000 gallon tanks supplying the 5th floor generators.

The two 6000 gallon tanks were found intact but empty.

Now we know where the fuel went. The question is whether it was on purpose or not?

[Jazz2006]

5. moved to correct location. nt

[mirandapriestly]

8. Good find. here is pic of wtc

which shows it from barclay street which is the opposite side of the wtc.

[DoYouEverWonder]

11. You can see the glow of the fires from WTC5 & WTC 4

which did have significant fires raging.

[rman]

32. FEMA: "best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence"

FEMA http://www.fema.gov
World Trade Center Building Performance Study http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm
Chapter 5 - WTC7 http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf (pdf)

5.7 Observations and findings (page 31)
(...)
"The specifics of the fires in WTC7 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."

[Jazz2006]

36. Maybe you hadn't noticed but instead of quote mining, we were

actually trying to have a conversation here.

We can get to your quote mining later if you really want to, but as you know, (or certainly as you should know) quote mining is dumb and it will end up embarrassing you.

So, yeah, sure, if you insist, drop a note with your entire quote bomb next week, would you? And be prepared to answer questions about your cute little sound bites and, um, something called reality.

See you then.

Eta: typo note, not "not"

[John Q. Citizen]

41. You sound a little bit out of sorts

today, Jazz.

The post you replied to wasn't even addressed to you, it was addressed to the OP. Or because you have another thread going, does that preclude others from responding to the opening OP?

Breath deep, relax, it's all OK.

[spooked911]

39. that's a good find but I thought there were diesel tanks for Ghouliani's

bunker that were high up in WTC7 and that's what they thought fueld the fires.

Though I still think WTC7 was controlled demo!

[DoYouEverWonder]

42. The main system for the generators for the bunker

was located in the basement where they had the two 6000 gal tanks and the 5th floor where they housed the generators and the PRESSURIZED PIPING system that took up most of the windowless floor. There was a holding tank at the generator, that held some fuel but when it ran out, the pressurized system was supposed to kick in to bring the fuel up from the tanks in the basement.

The tanks were found intact but empty. There was no evidence of contamination under the tanks. The fuel was gone. Where did the fuel go? Got a match?

[petgoat]

45. What, no check valves? nt

[DoYouEverWonder]

46. Or maybe

Instead of shutting them, someone went around and opened them up?

[petgoat]

54. OK, that suggests an alternative to my "spooky" scenario I've

presented before:

FDNY personnel in WTC7 found a number of people in the blazing SEC floors for
no good reason, and found the diesel pipeline floors awash in diesel fuel
for no good reason, and so decided to abandon a $680 million building.

[DoYouEverWonder]

48. NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC is that it was triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm


DYEW would like to determine the CAUSE of hypothetical blast scenarios. 12,000 gallons of atomized fuel should create quiet the explosion.


Thanks for the link greyl :)

[DoYouEverWonder]

49. Correction

It was Bushwick Bill who posted the link for the NIST Q&A that I got the info from in the above post. Thanks BB.

[DoYouEverWonder]

55. A kick and a link to more info

The Port Authority permitted the installation of 7 WTC's huge diesel fuel tanks in the interior, sitting directly under transfer beams and trusses. - Fire Engineering September, 2002

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:GDqUAZuB17cJ:fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm%3FSection%3DARCHI%26ARTICLE_ID%3D158382%26VERSION_NUM%3D1+OEM+FDNY+warned+diesel+storage&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a


Well now we know a little more about how this system was situated.