Was WTC-7 a Fire Hazard?

[LastChild]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02EEDD103EF933A15751C1A9679C8B 63

A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRADE CENTER; 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.

How did they get that insured?

[PhantomWolf]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02EEDD103EF933A15751C1A9679C8B 63

A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRADE CENTER; 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.

How did they get that insured?

the NYNJPA didn't have to abide by the City Building and likely the Fire Codes.

[Walter Ego]

He/she/it never gives up does he/she/it?

(Back to ignoring he/she/it.)

[LastChild]

the NYNJPA didn't have to abide by the City Building and likely the Fire Codes.

I haven't read any early drafts of NIST on WTC-7. Is the diesel fuel tank still considered a possible contributor to the collapse? Does anyone know if there any indication this will be part of the NIST theory when the report is released?

[Pardalis]

Just wait for it.

[~enigma~]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02EEDD103EF933A15751C1A9679C8B 63

A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRADE CENTER; 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.

How did they get that insured?
How many times do truthers JAQ off to that question and refuse to listen to answers? This time try to retain the information. I know it will be hard with all that wooish nonsense filling your head but try...WTC was not subject to NYC codes.

[~enigma~]

He/she/it never gives up does he/she/it?

(Back to ignoring he/she/it.)
Annoying it is but it is entertaining and it points out the stupidity of the truthers perfectly.

[PhantomWolf]

He/she/it never gives up does he/she/it?

(Back to ignoring he/she/it.)

If that was aimed at me, go and read the dozens of threads where it has been pointed out that the WTC weren't up to the NY Building Codes standards because the NYNJPA didn't have to abide by them but had it's own set of Building Codes. It won't be that hard to find. Why do we have to reference a point that has been referenced and pointed out 500 time previously?

[PhantomWolf]

I haven't read any early drafts of NIST on WTC-7. Is the diesel fuel tank still considered a possible contributor to the collapse? Does anyone know if there any indication this will be part of the NIST theory when the report is released?

Form what I've heard of late, they consider it a factor in the fires, but not in the collapse itself.

[Walter Ego]

If that was aimed at me, go and read the dozens of threads where it has been pointed out that the WTC weren't up to the NY Building Codes standards because the NYNJPA didn't have to abide by them but had it's own set of Building Codes. It won't be that hard to find. Why do we have to reference a point that has been referenced and pointed out 500 time previously?


No, that was for LC, aka known to me only through quotes.

(Walter is a little cranky today.)

[LastChild]

How many times do truthers JAQ off to that question and refuse to listen to answers? This time try to retain the information. I know it will be hard with all that wooish nonsense filling your head but try...WTC was not subject to NYC codes.

WHO GIVES AND PAYS OUT INSURANCE ON FIRE HAZARD BUILDINGS?

And how does Giuliani the 9/11 hero get away with this?


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D03EEDF113DF93BA25755C0A96E9582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
In America; Sci-Fi In the Sky
By BOB HERBERT
Published: June 18, 1998
Because the bunker was cleverly and successfully concealed as it made its way through the budget process, the potential problems, large and small, were not adequately examined. The full range of possible alternatives was never explored.

[~enigma~]

WHO GIVES AND PAYS OUT INSURANCE ON FIRE HAZARD BUILDINGS?

And how does Giuliani the 9/11 hero get away with this?


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D03EEDF113DF93BA25755C0A96E9582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
In America; Sci-Fi In the Sky
By BOB HERBERT
Published: June 18, 1998
Because the bunker was cleverly and successfully concealed as it made its way through the budget process, the potential problems, large and small, were not adequately examined. The full range of possible alternatives was never explored.

[edited] You are on ignore.

Uncivil, nasty, altogether unacceptable.

[LastChild]

[edited] You are on ignore.

lol okay?

[PhantomWolf]

WHO GIVES AND PAYS OUT INSURANCE ON FIRE HAZARD BUILDINGS?

Lloyds of London apparently, though it's hard to determine because it's lost in the middle of about 5,000 CT sites

[Redtail]

WHO GIVES AND PAYS OUT INSURANCE ON FIRE HAZARD BUILDINGS?

And how does Giuliani the 9/11 hero get away with this?


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D03EEDF113DF93BA25755C0A96E9582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
In America; Sci-Fi In the Sky
By BOB HERBERT
Published: June 18, 1998
Because the bunker was cleverly and successfully concealed as it made its way through the budget process, the potential problems, large and small, were not adequately examined. The full range of possible alternatives was never explored.

Silverstein had insured the complex through 22 companies, including SR International Business Insurance, a unit of Swiss Re (otc: SWCEY (http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/compinfo/CompanyTearsheet.jhtml?tkr=SWCEY) - news (http://www.forbes.com/markets/company_news.jhtml?ticker=SWCEY) - people (http://www.forbes.com/peopletracker/results.jhtml?startRow=0&name=&ticker=SWCEY)), the giant Zurich-based insurer.

http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html

[~enigma~]

http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html
You mean the idiot nazi wannabes in the truth movement accuse Silverstein of profiting from the insurance and taking part in a government plot to kill 3000 people yet they don't know who the insurer was? Someone want to explain slowly so I can understand the truther mindset that avoids the glaring contradiction.

[Magenta]

You mean the idiot nazi wannabes in the truth movement accuse Silverstein of profiting from the insurance and taking part in a government plot to kill 3000 people yet they don't know who the insurer was? Someone want to explain slowly so I can understand the truther mindset that avoids the glaring contradiction.


Their conclusion comes first. Evidence to support it is optional. Evidence that doesn't support the conclusion is evidence of a cover-up. Or something like that.

[PhantomWolf]

http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html

Seems Llyods were underwriters for the Willis Group....

[fezzic]

I would observe that expressing a concern is not the same as citing the building owner for a violation. The FDNY would be concerned, as in "unsafe", with ANY significant source of fuel (and 6,000 gallons would be a lot of potential fuel) being anywhere except in, perhaps, an underground tank. I am reasonably sure that having day tanks on generators would be a concern though because of the limited (I think 550 gallon limit per floor) amount it would be considered manageable.

It might also be noted that even a large fuel tank, if properly protected from expected threats, would not render a building uninsurable because, if you recall, the amount of destruction wrought by debris on 7 WTC was probably pretty unprecedented under any normal set of circumstances. IOW, while probably not as safe as the FDNY would like, the insurance company certainly felt that the precautions taken were adequate for what they expected.

[beachnut]

How did they get that insured?
It is called money.

[fezzic]

Since the insurance business is a matter of managing risk from the insurer's point of view, it should be no surprise to find that if a risk (i.e. fire) is sufficiently mitigated a property can be insured. The insurance premium may be greater than for a property that doesn't have that feature, but that is a far cry from being uninsurable.

[A W Smith]

date of article
By JAMES GLANZ AND ERIC LIPTON
Published: December 20, 2001


some excerpts
The Port Authority, which owns the land on which the building stood and issued the building permit for the tank and its fireproof enclosure, said yesterday that it believed the structure had in fact met the terms of the city's fire code. Though the tank was on a tall fireproof pedestal, it was still effectively on the lowest floor of the building, as the code requires, said Frank Lombardi, the Port Authority's chief engineer.

A spokesman for the city's office of emergency management, Francis E. McCarton, said the city accepted the Port Authority's determination that the tank and its placement were properly safe. He said it was essential that the mayor's command center have a backup energy source and placing it on ground floor was unacceptable because the area was deemed to be susceptible to floods.
''We put it in the area where we needed to put it,'' Mr. McCarton said. Any suggestion that the tank's position was a factor in the collapse of the building was ''pure speculation,'' he said.
He added that the tank had fire extinguishers and was surrounded by the thick, fire-resistant containment system, and that the fiery collapse of the towers could never have been anticipated in the city's planning.




At least two firefighters who were at the scene, Deputy Chief James Jackson and Battalion Chief Blaich, said that the southwest corner of the building near the fuel tank was severely damaged, possibly by falling debris, and that the tank might have been breached.
Mr. Jackson said that about an hour before the building's collapse, heavy black smoke, consistent with a fuel fire of some sort, was coming from that part of the building.
The Port Authority said it was unlikely the heavy masonry surrounding the tank could have been breached, and its officials have raised the possibility that the two diesel tanks buried just below the ground floor of the building might have contributed to the fire. They have also asserted that structural damage from falling debris is a more likely culprit in the collapse.



How many people died in building seven last child?

[gtc]

Clearly they tue building insured because the insurer was satisfied that the premiums would be enough to cover the risk of paying out on an insurance claim.

Either the insurance company was satisfied that building was safe enough or the issues were rectified or the building paid higher premiums than other buildings without fuel tanks (or some combination of the above).

Whether the insurance company set a premium that was consistent with the risks that were known at the time (or should have been known) is a question for its shareholders, underwriters and the government regulators.

I am moderately curious to know where you think this fits into the big picture.

[leftysergeant]

If anything, this issue points to one of the reasons the commission may not have wanted to do too good a job. A few of the members have a vested interest in keeping the regulatory burden on the construction industry as minimal as they can. I'm sure that people with ties to large-scale construction businesses are fine with the exemption from city fire codes.

Like they would really like the word to get out that we are talking about three faulty towers here.

[Minadin]

If that was insurance fraud, it was the single stupidest insurance fraud in the history of ever.

[boloboffin]

The NIST working hypothesis for WTC 7 is not dependent on diesel fuel tanks as a contributor to the collapse.

This does not mean that the diesel fuel tanks did not contribute to the collapse.

[Myriad]

Duh. Of course WTC-7 was a fire hazard. With the exception of the occasional unused concrete bunker, all buildings are fire hazards. There are about half a million building fires per year in the U.S. alone.

That's why buildings have fire-safety systems such as sprinklers, ventilated staircases, fire alarm systems, fireproofing of structural members, etc.

And it's also why almost all building owners carry fire insurance. If they weren't fire hazards, they wouldn't have to be insured against damage from fire. Again, duh.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[16.5]

Last Child wrote this on:

16th February 2008, 08:28 AM #14
LastChild

“Now did I miss the release of the final WTC7 report? I read here somewhere that it should be coming out soon but it's been ages hasn't it? I also heard there might be a possibility that when it does come out a certain recently departed JREF debunker might have to make a major overhaul to his precious google pages. LOL that’s not why he bailed is it?”

This referred to Gravy’s WTC7 page which referenced diesel as a possible source of the fires at WTC7, and the recent NIST update suggesting that diesel had been rejected.

Yesterday, LastChild does a little JAQ’ing off:

“I haven't read any early drafts of NIST on WTC-7. Is the diesel fuel tank still considered a possible contributor to the collapse? Does anyone know if there any indication this will be part of the NIST theory when the report is released?”

Disingenuous? Yes. In fact a fraudster, liar, and a complete waste of time. YES, YES, and YES.

Sad really.

[bonavada]

With the exception of the occasional unused concrete bunker, all buildings are fire hazards.


what about an empty igloo? :-]


BV

[Travis]

My idea for "fire proof" buildings never came true due to the fact that the buildings were to be constructed entirely out of asbestos.

C'mon what worries you more? Lung cancer or being burned alive by searing hot, painful flames?

[Alferd_Packer]

what about an empty igloo? :-]


BV

It depends on the size of the storage tank of whale fat.

[LastChild]

Last Child wrote this on:

16th February 2008, 08:28 AM #14
LastChild

“Now did I miss the release of the final WTC7 report? I read here somewhere that it should be coming out soon but it's been ages hasn't it? I also heard there might be a possibility that when it does come out a certain recently departed JREF debunker might have to make a major overhaul to his precious google pages. LOL that’s not why he bailed is it?”

This referred to Gravy’s WTC7 page which referenced diesel as a possible source of the fires at WTC7, and the recent NIST update suggesting that diesel had been rejected.

Yesterday, LastChild does a little JAQ’ing off:

“I haven't read any early drafts of NIST on WTC-7. Is the diesel fuel tank still considered a possible contributor to the collapse? Does anyone know if there any indication this will be part of the NIST theory when the report is released?”

Disingenuous? Yes. In fact a fraudster, liar, and a complete waste of time. YES, YES, and YES.

Sad really.

And? How about answering it? I haven't read any drafts of the WTC-7 report. I did read here somewhere that Gravey might have to update his Google page which I also haven’t read. Is the diesel fuel tank the reason?

[Myriad]

It depends on the size of the storage tank of whale fat.


Nonsense! Fire can't melt ice!

Respectfully,
Myriad

[LastChild]

Duh. Of course WTC-7 was a fire hazard. With the exception of the occasional unused concrete bunker, all buildings are fire hazards. There are about half a million building fires per year in the U.S. alone.

That's why buildings have fire-safety systems such as sprinklers, ventilated staircases, fire alarm systems, fireproofing of structural members, etc.

And it's also why almost all building owners carry fire insurance. If they weren't fire hazards, they wouldn't have to be insured against damage from fire. Again, duh.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Really? All buildings are not consistent with city fire codes?

[Myriad]

Really? All buildings are not consistent with city fire codes?


Show me proof that any building, anywhere, is consistent with city fire codes.

And before you attempt to offer some fire safety inspector's report as evidence, prove that fire safety inspectors can never be bribed.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[16.5]

And? How about answering it? I haven't read any drafts of the WTC-7 report. I did read here somewhere that Gravey might have to update his Google page which I also haven’t read. Is the diesel fuel tank the reason?

Just Asking Questions, huh? Do you think people buy your innocent act?

Go ahead and read something. I'm not going to do your "homework" for you. Seriously, do something original for once.

[Dave Rogers]

Show me proof that any building, anywhere, is consistent with city fire codes.

Why bother even asking for it? LastChild's question is a non sequitur. Buildings that are consistent with city fire codes still present a fire hazard; the purpose of the fire codes is to manage the hazard, not to eliminate it.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

I haven't read any drafts of the WTC-7 report. I did read here somewhere that Gravey might have to update his Google page which I also haven’t read.

The quality of your research is breathtaking.

Dave

[njslim]

WTC 7 was built in mid 1980's (about 15 years after remainder of WTC site) - by that
time the 1968 fire codes were in effect. WTC 7 was not built by Port Authority, but by
Silverstein and would have to obey 1968 code. The 1968 code weakened much of the
older 1938 code. The 1938 code required steel members be encased in concrete or terra
cotta masonary several inches thick to be up to standard. By 1968 was changed to a
performance based standard where if material could stand being heated in furnace for
several hours and resist deformation when subject to heavy weight. Fire proofing
material consisted of mineral (asbestos was banned in 1970) with cement binders sprayed
on to steel - unlike solid masonary was weak and easily damaged or peeled off. Impact
damage striped fire proofing and left steel exposed like in WTC towers. Diesel fuel for
backup generators, both for OEM "bunker", Salomon Brothers and others was housed in
large tanks outside of building connected by pipes to small "day" tanks of 275 gal (size
of tank used in many residental heating oil fuel tanks) inside building. Conjecture is
broken fuel lines feed fires,

Contrast WTC 7 with 90 West St (built in 1907, 80 years before) - it suffered similar
damage to WTC 7 and severe fires which burned out several floors yet steel survived
with only few columns showing any damage and floors (built of terra cotta flat arches)
were not breached by fires or impact. Difference in construction standards - old and
solid vs cheap and nasty (and dangerous!)

Read CITY IN THE SKY by Lipton and Glanz of NY Times for further info on construction
standards.

[1337m4n]

How exactly does this fit in with your controlled demolition hallucinations?

[Pardalis]

How exactly does this fit in with your controlled demolition hallucinations?

He's trying to give it a new spin. Since the CD theory really doesn't work no matter how you distort reality, now LC is going after the fire safety conspiracy.

I bet he's trying to cast blame on the evil owners of the building. So there is a conspiracy to destroy the building by bad design.

I call it the LIHOP Collapse Theory.

In short, they knew the building was unsound, and they knew that this would be the perfect cover to let it destroy itself by natural causes. Nobody would know they really wanted for it to collapse by letting it collapse anyway.

Geniuses, I tell you.

[LastChild]

Just Asking Questions, huh? Do you think people buy your innocent act?

Go ahead and read something. I'm not going to do your "homework" for you. Seriously, do something original for once.

You or any so-called debunker having a correct answer for any of my questions would be the originality.

Debunking something, anything, would be an originality here.

[16.5]

You or any so-called debunker having a correct answer for any of my questions would be the originality.

Debunking something, anything, would be an originality here.

Wait, you want me to read to you the draft of the NIST report, and the various updates, because you don't want to do it?

I'll have to respectfully decline. Thanks though!

[leftysergeant]

The diesel only had to be adequate to start a few Class A fires. The damage to the building allowed the propogation of class A fires through the building of its south face.

Even if the tanks were protected, prior to the impact of the north tower, does not mean that the heat of the fires would not have eventually reached them and boiled out some of the contents. It is, further, likely that the supposedly fire-resistant walls were displaced as floors settled and sagged after parts of the walls and columns supporting them were mis-alligned.

Relaxing the codes doomed the buildings from the very start. The fires in all three aggravated the damage done to the structures by the impact of the aircraft and falling parts of the other buildings.

The commission probably did not want to dwell on the structural safety issue because so many of them, being still involved in the construction industry, would have been opening the door to further regulatory burdens on their own industry, and they shared the Republican view that over-regulation is what is keeping millions of Americans from realizing their ecconomic potential.

A bit like appointing a Wahabi to a commission on religious freedom, I think.

[LastChild]

The diesel only had to be adequate to start a few Class A fires. The damage to the building allowed the propogation of class A fires through the building of its south face.

Even if the tanks were protected, prior to the impact of the north tower, does not mean that the heat of the fires would not have eventually reached them and boiled out some of the contents. It is, further, likely that the supposedly fire-resistant walls were displaced as floors settled and sagged after parts of the walls and columns supporting them were mis-alligned.

Relaxing the codes doomed the buildings from the very start. The fires in all three aggravated the damage done to the structures by the impact of the aircraft and falling parts of the other buildings.

The commission probably did not want to dwell on the structural safety issue because so many of them, being still involved in the construction industry, would have been opening the door to further regulatory burdens on their own industry, and they shared the Republican view that over-regulation is what is keeping millions of Americans from realizing their ecconomic potential.

A bit like appointing a Wahabi to a commission on religious freedom, I think.

That and every litigation to some Republicans is a frivolous litigation. Especially if it could come back around to bite the very republican who evaded all the frivolous building codes.

[applecorped]

LastChild, Edited to remove inappropriate remark.

Do not use insults or personal attacks to argue your point.

[Dr Adequate]

How exactly does this fit in with your controlled demolition hallucinations? The same way that his stuff about how heavily armed the hijackers were fits in with the there-weren't-any-hijackers-and-if-there-were-they-couldn't-have-hijacked-the-planes-with-boxcutters tripe.

This is Truth, not truth. It doesn't have to be internally consistent.

[peteweaver]

Lastchild, will your efforts bring back those who were killed that day ?

No.

No offence, but may I suggest you direct your efforts towards something more positive, such as campaigning against Guantanamo bay & Extroadinary rendition flights? I've taken part in protests against G'tmo & renditions.

[Brainster]

The commission probably did not want to dwell on the structural safety issue because so many of them, being still involved in the construction industry, would have been opening the door to further regulatory burdens on their own industry, and they shared the Republican view that over-regulation is what is keeping millions of Americans from realizing their ecconomic potential.

Eh? As far as I know, the only 9-11 Commission member with any significant ties to the real estate business was James R. Thompson, who was a member of the board of directors of a REIT. Most of them were lawyers and politicians.

[gumboot]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the PANYNJ exemption from NYC building codes would apply only to PANYNJ buildings would it not?

WTC7 was owned by Silverstein, not the PANYNJ, and therefore would not be exempt from building codes.

[leftysergeant]

Rudy's modifications to the building didn't improve the safety of the building a bit.

[Magenta]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the PANYNJ exemption from NYC building codes would apply only to PANYNJ buildings would it not?

WTC7 was owned by Silverstein, not the PANYNJ, and therefore would not be exempt from building codes.


From Kryptos's Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wtc7):

Both buildings were developed by Larry Silverstein who holds a ground lease for the site from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.


Not sure how that complicates things.

[Mr. Skinny]

Regardless of who held the lease, or what building codes did or did not have to be followed, the insurance companies that insured the building would adjust their rates upward or downward to match the risk base on the available fire protection systems, type of construction, fire protection water supplies available and their reliability, occupancy, fire department rating, fire walls and their rating,etc.

If the building was not up to standards, the insured would pay a higher premium until improvements were made.

I'm really kinda at a loss as to what the OP is trying to say. Even if the building was far below current standards of every standards setting organization and state code, the insurance companies would have charged far higher rates.

What, ultimately, would have been LS's financial advantage? Sure he may have saved initial costs on fire protection issues, but he would have paid out the you-know-what in insurance premiums.

[LashL]

WHO GIVES AND PAYS OUT INSURANCE ON FIRE HAZARD BUILDINGS?

All buildings are at risk from fire. That is why fire insurance exists and why fire insurers make billions of dollars of profit every year. It's all about risk management and setting premiums at sufficient levels to offset the level of risk assumed.

But if you are asking who insured and paid out on the policy extended on WTC7, the answer is Industrial Risk Insurers, a unit of General Electric's Employers Reinsurance division.

If you are asking who insured and paid out on the policies extended on WTC1, WTC2, WTC4 and WTC5, there have been threads about that in the past. Take a look here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65615) and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2191861) if you actually want to educate yourself instead of just JAQing off.

If that was insurance fraud, it was the single stupidest insurance fraud in the history of ever.

I love that jonnyfive quote in your sig!

Lloyds of London apparently, though it's hard to determine because it's lost in the middle of about 5,000 CT sites
Seems Llyods were underwriters for the Willis Group....

See links above. :)

[Apollo20]

The Port Authority owned the land on which WTC 7 was built. Because of this ownership WTC 7 was not subject to the requirements of the NYC Building Code.

The NYC Fire Batallion Commander William Blaich toured the WTC 7 building in 1999 and issued a report on March 14th entitled "Dangerous Conditions at WTC 7". He listed three significant code violations, (which would have applied under the NYC Code), concerning the fuel tanks in the building. Because of this report The Port Authority initially refused to grant a letter of completion, but eventually did so in 2001.

[LastChild]

Regardless of who held the lease, or what building codes did or did not have to be followed, the insurance companies that insured the building would adjust their rates upward or downward to match the risk base on the available fire protection systems, type of construction, fire protection water supplies available and their reliability, occupancy, fire department rating, fire walls and their rating,etc.

If the building was not up to standards, the insured would pay a higher premium until improvements were made.

I'm really kinda at a loss as to what the OP is trying to say. Even if the building was far below current standards of every standards setting organization and state code, the insurance companies would have charged far higher rates.

What, ultimately, would have been LS's financial advantage? Sure he may have saved initial costs on fire protection issues, but he would have paid out the you-know-what in insurance premiums.

Really? For how long did Larry have to pay those premiums?

[applecorped]

Not as much as he lost.

[pomeroo]

Gee, I really should have asked Arthur Scheuerman if building 7 was unsafe.

Oh, wait--I did ask him. We talked about the subject in our 'Hardfire' interview. I hope I didn't disturb the Child's slumber.

[AZCat]

The Port Authority owned the land on which WTC 7 was built. Because of this ownership WTC 7 was not subject to the requirements of the NYC Building Code.

The NYC Fire Batallion Commander William Blaich toured the WTC 7 building in 1999 and issued a report on March 14th entitled "Dangerous Conditions at WTC 7". He listed three significant code violations, (which would have applied under the NYC Code), concerning the fuel tanks in the building. Because of this report The Port Authority initially refused to grant a letter of completion, but eventually did so in 2001.

I've seen the same thing in the jurisdiction where I do most of my work. We're supposed to get everything okayed by the Building Services Department because the City A/E Department is trying to play nice with them, but occasionally things just don't move quickly enough through the red tape (like when you're spending money for equipment that is on site but can't be installed yet).

[LashL]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the PANYNJ exemption from NYC building codes would apply only to PANYNJ buildings would it not?

WTC7 was owned by Silverstein, not the PANYNJ, and therefore would not be exempt from building codes.

As I understand it, the exemption applies not only to buildings and structures that the PANYNJ owns, but also to buildings and structures that it manages.

It it possible that it also applies to buildings and structures owned and managed by others but situated upon lands owned by the PANYNJ. Without reading the statute(s) that confer exemption from certain codes (including fire codes) upon the PANYNJ, it is impossible to give a properly informed and iron-clad answer to your questions.

In other words, the answer depends upon whether the exemption applies only to buildings and structures owned and/or managed by the PANYNJ or whether the exemption applies to any and all buildings and structures situated on lands owned by the PANYNJ, even if the PANYNJ leases the land to others and even if others own and manage the buildings and structures erected upon those lands.

If you happen to have links to primary sources of the PANYNJ's exempt status, I will be happy to take a look at them, though, in order to try to provide a properly informed answer.

[Mr. Skinny]

Really? For how long did Larry have to pay those premiums?
I really don't know how old the building was, but guessitmating that the building was about 25 years old at the time, I'd say he paid the extra premium for that long.

Like you, I'm not trying to advance a particular theory here, just trying to add to the discussion with my former experience as a fire protction engineer for an insurance mutual. I'm also unsure of what statement, if any, you were trying to make in the OP.

I'm just trying to say if it was a poor fire insurance risk, he would have paid for it.

Open to any questions on this subject, though I must admit my experience in this area is 30 years old.

[LashL]

The Port Authority owned the land on which WTC 7 was built. Because of this ownership WTC 7 was not subject to the requirements of the NYC Building Code.


Ahh, how fortuitous. I just posted above on this very issue in response to a post by gumboot, and I asked if he could provide the primary sources that confer the exemptions at issue upon the PANYNJ, so that I could read them in order to provide a properly informed answer to his questions, but it appears from your post that you may have at hand the sources that I referred to.

So, can you please provide links to the primary sources that exempt PANYNJ from the provisions of the NYC building and fire codes so that I (and other interested parties) can read them in order to try to answer definitively the questions raised above?

Thanks in advance.

[Apollo20]

Well I'm just getting info from the book "Grand Illusion - The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11" by W. Barrett and D. Collins. In a footnote to chapter 6 we have:

"In response to a freedom of information request, the Department of Citywide Administrative Services, the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of City Planning, and the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York turned over hundreds of documents related to the rental and construction of space at WTC 7 for the Emergency Operations Center. Con Ed and its attorneys also supplied some records ....."

That's all I have... nothing from the PANYNJ unfortunately!

[Pardalis]

Seriously, where's the conspiracy here?

[Apollo20]

I would say it's Larry and Rudy's nice little deal to locate the OEM on the 23rd floor of WTC 7!

[Pardalis]

I said seriously.

[LashL]

Well I'm just getting info from the book "Grand Illusion - The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11" by W. Barrett and D. Collins. In a footnote to chapter 6 we have:

"In response to a freedom of information request, the Department of Citywide Administrative Services, the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of City Planning, and the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York turned over hundreds of documents related to the rental and construction of space at WTC 7 for the Emergency Operations Center. Con Ed and its attorneys also supplied some records ....."


Thanks, but that does not address the question about whether PANYNJ's exemption from local codes extends to all buildings situated on PANYNJ-owned lands regardless of ownership or control of the buildings (e.g. WTC7) or whether it applies only to those buildings owned, managed or controlled by PANYNJ.

In your prior post to which I replied, you stated that because WTC7 was built upon land owned by PANYNJ, it was exempt from the local codes. That is why I thought you might be able to provide a primary source that addresses the point.

That's all I have... nothing from the PANYNJ unfortunately!


So that it's clear, I am not looking for something from PANYNJ. Rather, what I'm after is the primary source (i.e. legislation) that exempts PANYNJ from compliance with NYC building and fire codes.

I am sure that I can find it but I thought that you may have already read it, in light of your prior post above. I see now that was not the case, but thanks anyway.

Although there appears to be no conspiracy involved, and although the matter may be of little practical significance, it has made me curious so I'll look into it.