• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Woolworth Building & 9/11

Timble2 said:
A puff of smoke could just be the central heating system venting....

What I know about the central heating system of a large building could be written on the back of a postage stamp, but it's an explanation of sorts I suppose. Perhaps it could be something to do with air-conditioning?

Are there any pictures of the central heating/ air-conditioning system of the Woolworth Building venting at other times?
 
Bigfoot73 said:
That's quite a big puff of smoke, whatever the cause.
Would the central heating have been on, seeing as it's early September and evrybody seen in the news films was dressed for summer ?

The building where I work has an emergency power system, driven by a generator. When this is turned on, it starts by sending up a cloud of black smoke ("They've elected a new Pope then," someone observed last time it was tested). I wouldn't be surprised if emergency power supplies all over the place were tested or activated on 9/11.

There are, of course, many other mundane explanations.
 
Locating a presumably petrol powered generator inside a skyscraper seems likely to go against fire hazard regulations and even likelier to increase insurance costs.
As far as I know there wasn't a power failure in the district, and surely by that stage in the proceedings the Woolworth Building would have been at least partially if not completely evacuated.
I don't think there are that many mundane reasons for puffs of smoke on skyscrapers on mundane days, let alone 9.11
 
This is somewhat O/T, but I just found this gem of an interview with Omar Bin Laden, son of Osama. Omar was with his father in the beginning of the 9/11 plotting.

The whole thing is very worthwhile reading - but the below passage is especially astonishing as it revealed just why Osama chose his path of action:

A few months later, his father destroyed the World Trade Center, killing thousands. "I never thought the attack would be civilian buildings," Omar says. "I thought it would be a ship, like the USS Cole. My father's dream was to bring the Americans to Afghanistan. He would do the same thing he did to the Russians. I was surprised the Americans took the bait. I so much respected the mentality of President Clinton. He was the one who was smart. When my father attacked his places, he sent a few cruise missiles to my father's training camp. He didn't get my father, but after all the war in Afghanistan, they still don't have my father. They have spent hundreds of billions. Better for America to keep the money for its economy. In Clinton's time, America was very, very smart. Not like a bull that runs after the red scarf.

"I was still in Afghanistan when Bush was elected," he continues. "My father was so happy. This is the kind of president he needs — one who will attack and spend money and break the country. Even Bush's own mother says he is the biggest idiot boy of his family. I am sure my father wanted McCain more than Obama. McCain has the same mentality as Bush. My father would be disappointed because Obama get the position."

Game set and match OBL?

Source: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/st ... igal_son/1
 
Bigfoot73 said:
Locating a presumably petrol powered generator inside a skyscraper seems likely to go against fire hazard regulations and even likelier to increase insurance costs.
Presumably diesel, I'd have thought, for that very reason, and probably more likely to emit black smoke.
Nasty, oily, barely flammable stuff, diesel,
 
wow, this is new! Not familliar with the woolworth building involvement and i don`t recall ever seeing any info on it in my many, many trails for info on the 911 conspiracy!
When you say woolworth, are you referring to the headquarters of FW Woolworth, the man who created that now defunct and sadly missed high street store in the UK? As i used to work for them!
 
Bigfoot73 said:
I don't think there are that many mundane reasons for puffs of smoke on skyscrapers on mundane days, let alone 9.11

Except that there is a vent located pretty much where the alleged puff appears.
 
...and it also seems to be the fisrt building to have it's own steam turbine, and steam venting seems have been mistaked for a fire before.

Also, according to Wikipedia "After the September 11, 2001 attacks a few blocks away, the building was without electricity, water and telephone service for a few weeks"
 
Well it's hardly likely to have had it's own generator then is it? :roll: :p
 
Bigfoot73 said:
Well it's hardly likely to have had it's own generator then is it? :roll: :p

Well yes it is, emergency generators are usually intended to keep essential things running for a few hours if there's a temporary interruption of power, not to provide a complete backup for weeks, when the mains water, power, and telephones have been completely severed.
 
So these are emergency generators which don't actually work much in an emergency ? How many weeks, months or years would it have taken them to recover from their exertions on 9.11 ?
How long was the district without power, water or phones for, if at all ?
 
Bigfoot73 said:
So these are emergency generators which don't actually work much in an emergency ? How many weeks, months or years would it have taken them to recover from their exertions on 9.11 ?
How long was the district without power, water or phones for, if at all ?

They work in the emergencies they're designed for, no-one expects the business district of a major city to be cut off for days or weeks. It wouldn't have taken them time to recover, it depends on the fuel supply, and whether this was replenished.

Some parts of lower Manhattan were without power for weeks. Since the Woolworth building was without power for weeks it was obviously weeks, and power's not a lot of use to an office building without water or telephones....

Do you have problems thinking things through under that bridge?
 
What's all this stuff about generators got to do with a puff of steam out of the vent located on the roof?
 
I think someone suggested that the puff of steam/smoke could be something to do with emergency generators starting as the power cut out.

It's a bit more credible, than missiles, orbs and what have you...
 
What's even more credible is that it was the steam that powers the building. Half of Manhattan is steam-powered.
 
It's only credible if you can provide some evidence that the smoke is steam, that it came from the as yet unreferenced vent, and that it was from the generators - preferably with some documentation of when or if the emergency genearators started up at that time, and wre connected to that vent.
The troll comment was uncalled for, and looks trollish.
 
Bigfoot73 said:
It's only credible if you can provide some evidence that the smoke is steam, that it came from the as yet unreferenced vent, and that it was from the generators - preferably with some documentation of when or if the emergency genearators started up at that time, and wre connected to that vent.
The troll comment was uncalled for, and looks trollish.

Although apparently it's credible that it's smoke not steam without a shred of evidence? Interesting standards you have. Anyhoo, here's a picture of the roof. You can see that one of the turrets is open and is in fact a disguised vent:

IMG_0117.jpg


The Woolworth is powered by steam, like much of Manhattan. It's used to both heat and cool buildings so your earlier comment about the warm weather on 9/11 doesn't really have any bearing.
 
Well Doc, I was starting out from the viewpoint that it seemed far more likely to be smoke than steam given that until your post nobody had introduced any good evidence that it was steam.
It has not been established when the generators were switched on , or even when the power went off. If the building was running off those generators all the time, as you seem to imply, then surely the 'steam' in the video would not be such an anomalous event - everybody would have known what it was. If they are on all the time why is there no steam coming from the vent in your photo ?
What about the lights ?
 
It's been established that the power went off since the Woolworth building was without power for weeks.

More pictures of the vents

Wool_Views_1.jpg


WWturret.jpg
 
It is still to be established how long the emergency generators were on for, whether they were on at all, or if so when.
Thankyou for more pictures of the vent, singular, again not emitting anything.
 
The evidence relating to this incident is incomplete to say the least : all the police witness reports , and media reports of police accounts yet the article says nothing about the police response.
If people, including police officers, had seen a missile or missiles fired from the Woolworth Building, what did they do about it? Why was a policeman telling a fireman he'd seen a missile launched without telling him what the official response was?
 
Where are you taking these reports from, though? The Orbwar site is particularly poor at citing anything. Most of the links don't work and when you do finally get to a source it sometimes mentions nothing of the Woolworth building and frankly little that can be tied in to it beyond confused reports.

Also, why is this puff of smoke/steam/fog of war considered anomalous? Because there aren't lots of pictures of whatever gas it is coming out of the vent? Has the 9/11 conspiracy industry really reached the stage where we're now looking for a non-smoking vent rather than a smoking gun?
 
I've been asking myself much the same questions actually. There is only so far this issue can go without a wealth of further evidence.
I am much more interested in the recent Flight 77 FDR revelations, though that wasn't really the topic of this thread - which without a lot more evidence has pretty well run it's course. The statements and the video seem anomalous, but remain unprovable.
 
Bigfoot73 said:
I don't think there are that many mundane reasons for puffs of smoke on skyscrapers on mundane days, let alone 9.11


taken from Central Park in december 2009, 2 minutes either side of this photo you would not have guessed anything happened. I saw the smoke, took the photo, then it went as soon as it had appeared.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2749/429 ... 8914_b.jpg
 
Interesting photo. Not the Woolworth Building however, and smoke, not steam.
 
I know that, it was just a response to your sentence I quoted
 
Point taken, and it throws light on this aspect of the issue very well.
If I might take the liberty of drawing up a scorecard for the issue then:
Smoke/steam - possible mundane explanation.
Lights - no convincing mundane explanation.
Witness statements - no further evidence apparent.

Which is kind of where we started off from I think.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Don't fritter and footer your time away, Cavynaut, get back to studying! :lol:

Yep, you're right P_M. Time to get back to "America's Wars in Asia" and "The Impact of the First World War on British Society". :(

It's been a salutary lesson in entering the minefield of 9/11 conspiracy theory though! 8)
 
Back
Top