911

riverman wrote:
On Dec 14, 6:22?pm, Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
riverman wrote:

snip

In any case, no one knows what caused the collapse, nor can they
account for the fuel supply or any other reason for it to have
happened. That alone should raise eyebrows.

I thought the claim was damage from the other buildings collapsing coupled
with a diesel tank that was from emergency generators?


Read the FEMA report. That's one scenario that they propose, but they
state that their best models have an extremely low probability. They
admit that they don't really know what was the mechanism. They also
discount that the building acquired much damage as compared to other
buildings nearby. You state that claim with much more certainty than
the folks who propose it.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf says there was a 6000 gallon
diesel tank in the building between the 2nd and 3rd floors and a 275 gallon
diesel tank (and an 11,000 gallon water tank on the 7th floor, that's a lot
of weight on the supports under the 7th floor). An additional 100 gallons of
diesel on the 9th floor and 275 gallons on the 8th floor. Those tanks were
fed from fuel lines coming up from the 6000 gallon tank. How can you say
they can't account for a fuel supply when there are 1000's of gallons of
fuel in the building?

"...It is important to note that floors 5 through 7 contained structural
elements that were important to supporting the structure of the overall
building. The 5th and 7th floors were diaphram floors that contained
transfer girders and trusses. These floors tranferred loads from the
upper floors to the structural members and foundation system that was
built prior to the WTC7 office tower. ..."

Now, they have photographic evidence that shows the south side of the building
was damaged from the collapse of WTC1. They also say that "...a portion of that
piping ran in close proximity to Truss 1" so if that diesel line was ruptured
by debris from the collapse of WTC1, that could have supplied the fire.

Now, if you go on a camping trip, try to crush a good quality can. Next take
that can and put it inside your campfire and let it heat up for a few hours
then try to crush it again... Steel is tempered by heat and reheating steel
can remove the temper...

Figure (or photo) 5-23 refers to "the kink", and that just happens to run
across truss 1 (the same truss that the diesel line ran near...

FEMA is right in stating they don't know for sure because they don't know for
sure, but they do have sensible theories other than implying it was blown up
by saboteurs unknown... When is the last time there was a fire in a highrise
that was allowed to burn for 7 hours because the firefighters didn't have
access to water because another building collapsed and severed the water
supply?

The simple fact is it's important to study because we don't normally let
fires burn that long...

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)

On Dec 16, 12:09*pm, Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
When is the last time there was a fire in a highrise
that was allowed to burn for 7 hours because the firefighters didn't have
access to water because another building collapsed and severed the water
supply?

The closest related instance I can come up with is One Meridian Plaza
in Philadelphia in 1991. A smoke detector triggered at about 10:23 on
Feb 23, 1991 on the 22nd floor. The fire burned through electrical
cables as fire crews reached the 11th floor. All equipment had to be
hand carried up 20 floors using only battery powered lights.

Almost from the beginning, there were water supply problems, and
firefighters had inadequate pressure and water flow to attack the fire
as it spread upward to the 23rd and 24th floors. It wasn't until 2:15
a.m. that they managed to get a 5" line up one of the stairways. By 6
a.m. they'd gotten a third as far as the 17th floor when a sprinkler
contractor adjusted pressure reducing valves on the standpipes to give
firefighters near normal flows. By then, however, the fire had spread
upward and could no longer be fought with manual hose systems.

All firefighting operations were stopped shortly thereafter and the
building evacuated at 7 a.m. due to the danger of a pancake collapse;
and the fire burned unimpeded for another several hours. When the
fire reached the 30th floor, it was supressed by automatic sprinklers
that were being supplied by fire department pumpers. It was declared
under control at 3:01 on the Feb. 24th, about 17 hours after starting.

CT folks often cite this fire as an example of a serious fire in a
high rise, but as one that burned longer and still did not cause the
same failure as the WTC fires. The flaw in that logic is two-fold.
Firstly, the fire did not burn any longer on any one floor than WTC.
It simply consumed all flammable materials and moved upward.
Secondly, the fire at One Meridian had only 8 floors above the damage
zone, not the 20 or more at WTC. That's a significant difference in
supported loads where the structural factor of safety is concerned.

The photos of the damage at One Meridian show exactly what engineers
would expect from such an event. The fire seriously twisted and
deformed floor joists and beams, but the structure stayed up because
the columns were not sufficiently damaged or displaced to cause
buckling.

If you're into such stuff, here's the report from the US Fire
Administration:
http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pd...ons/tr-049.pdf

Joe F.

rb608 wrote:
On Dec 16, 12:09?pm, Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
When is the last time there was a fire in a highrise
that was allowed to burn for 7 hours because the firefighters didn't have
access to water because another building collapsed and severed the water
supply?

The closest related instance I can come up with is One Meridian Plaza
in Philadelphia in 1991. A smoke detector triggered at about 10:23 on
Feb 23, 1991 on the 22nd floor. The fire burned through electrical
cables as fire crews reached the 11th floor. All equipment had to be
hand carried up 20 floors using only battery powered lights.

Almost from the beginning, there were water supply problems, and
firefighters had inadequate pressure and water flow to attack the fire
as it spread upward to the 23rd and 24th floors. It wasn't until 2:15
a.m. that they managed to get a 5" line up one of the stairways. By 6
a.m. they'd gotten a third as far as the 17th floor when a sprinkler
contractor adjusted pressure reducing valves on the standpipes to give
firefighters near normal flows. By then, however, the fire had spread
upward and could no longer be fought with manual hose systems.

All firefighting operations were stopped shortly thereafter and the
building evacuated at 7 a.m. due to the danger of a pancake collapse;
and the fire burned unimpeded for another several hours. When the
fire reached the 30th floor, it was supressed by automatic sprinklers
that were being supplied by fire department pumpers. It was declared
under control at 3:01 on the Feb. 24th, about 17 hours after starting.

CT folks often cite this fire as an example of a serious fire in a
high rise, but as one that burned longer and still did not cause the
same failure as the WTC fires. The flaw in that logic is two-fold.
Firstly, the fire did not burn any longer on any one floor than WTC.
It simply consumed all flammable materials and moved upward.
Secondly, the fire at One Meridian had only 8 floors above the damage
zone, not the 20 or more at WTC. That's a significant difference in
supported loads where the structural factor of safety is concerned.

The photos of the damage at One Meridian show exactly what engineers
would expect from such an event. The fire seriously twisted and
deformed floor joists and beams, but the structure stayed up because
the columns were not sufficiently damaged or displaced to cause
buckling.

If you're into such stuff, here's the report from the US Fire
Administration:
http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pd...ons/tr-049.pdf

I'm good with what FEMA said... I agree it makes sense to say study it
but as they point out in the report, the diesel pump could have been
pumping fuel into that fire for hours as it was an automatic design...

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)

On Dec 18, 4:20*am, Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
rb608 wrote:
On Dec 16, 12:09?pm, Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
When is the last time there was a fire in a highrise
that was allowed to burn for 7 hours because the firefighters didn't have
access to water because another building collapsed and severed the water
supply?
The closest related instance I can come up with is One Meridian Plaza
in Philadelphia in 1991. *A smoke detector triggered at about 10:23 on
Feb 23, 1991 on the 22nd floor. *The fire burned through electrical
cables as fire crews reached the 11th floor. *All equipment had to be
hand carried up 20 floors using only battery powered lights.
Almost from the beginning, there were water supply problems, and
firefighters had inadequate pressure and water flow to attack the fire
as it spread upward to the 23rd and 24th floors. *It wasn't until 2:15
a.m. that they managed to get a 5" line up one of the stairways. *By 6
a.m. they'd gotten a third as far as the 17th floor when a sprinkler
contractor adjusted pressure reducing valves on the standpipes to give
firefighters near normal flows. *By then, however, the fire had spread
upward and could no longer be fought with manual hose systems.
All firefighting operations were stopped shortly thereafter and the
building evacuated at 7 a.m. due to the danger of a pancake collapse;
and the fire burned unimpeded for another several hours. *When the
fire reached the 30th floor, it was supressed by automatic sprinklers
that were being supplied by fire department pumpers. *It was declared
under control at 3:01 on the Feb. 24th, about 17 hours after starting.
CT folks often cite this fire as an example of a serious fire in a
high rise, but as one that burned longer and still did not cause the
same failure as the WTC fires. *The flaw in that logic is two-fold.
Firstly, the fire did not burn any longer on any one floor than WTC.
It simply consumed all flammable materials and moved upward.
Secondly, the fire at One Meridian had only 8 floors above the damage
zone, not the 20 or more at WTC. *That's a significant difference in
supported loads where the structural factor of safety is concerned.
The photos of the damage at One Meridian show exactly what engineers
would expect from such an event. *The fire seriously twisted and
deformed floor joists and beams, but the structure stayed up because
the columns were not sufficiently damaged or displaced to cause
buckling.
If you're into such stuff, here's the report from the US Fire
Administration:
http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pd...ons/tr-049.pdf

I'm good with what FEMA said... I agree it makes sense to say study it
but as they point out in the report, the diesel pump could have been
pumping fuel into that fire for hours as it was an automatic design...

--
John Nelson

And as the FEMA report said...the place where it would have been
pumping diesel wasn't where the support collapsed.

--riverman

riverman wrote:
On Dec 18, 4:20?am, Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
rb608 wrote:
On Dec 16, 12:09?pm, Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
When is the last time there was a fire in a highrise
that was allowed to burn for 7 hours because the firefighters didn't have
access to water because another building collapsed and severed the water
supply?
The closest related instance I can come up with is One Meridian Plaza
in Philadelphia in 1991. ?A smoke detector triggered at about 10:23 on
Feb 23, 1991 on the 22nd floor. ?The fire burned through electrical
cables as fire crews reached the 11th floor. ?All equipment had to be
hand carried up 20 floors using only battery powered lights.
Almost from the beginning, there were water supply problems, and
firefighters had inadequate pressure and water flow to attack the fire
as it spread upward to the 23rd and 24th floors. ?It wasn't until 2:15
a.m. that they managed to get a 5" line up one of the stairways. ?By 6
a.m. they'd gotten a third as far as the 17th floor when a sprinkler
contractor adjusted pressure reducing valves on the standpipes to give
firefighters near normal flows. ?By then, however, the fire had spread
upward and could no longer be fought with manual hose systems.
All firefighting operations were stopped shortly thereafter and the
building evacuated at 7 a.m. due to the danger of a pancake collapse;
and the fire burned unimpeded for another several hours. ?When the
fire reached the 30th floor, it was supressed by automatic sprinklers
that were being supplied by fire department pumpers. ?It was declared
under control at 3:01 on the Feb. 24th, about 17 hours after starting.
CT folks often cite this fire as an example of a serious fire in a
high rise, but as one that burned longer and still did not cause the
same failure as the WTC fires. ?The flaw in that logic is two-fold.
Firstly, the fire did not burn any longer on any one floor than WTC.
It simply consumed all flammable materials and moved upward.
Secondly, the fire at One Meridian had only 8 floors above the damage
zone, not the 20 or more at WTC. ?That's a significant difference in
supported loads where the structural factor of safety is concerned.
The photos of the damage at One Meridian show exactly what engineers
would expect from such an event. ?The fire seriously twisted and
deformed floor joists and beams, but the structure stayed up because
the columns were not sufficiently damaged or displaced to cause
buckling.
If you're into such stuff, here's the report from the US Fire
Administration:
http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pd...ons/tr-049.pdf

I'm good with what FEMA said... I agree it makes sense to say study it
but as they point out in the report, the diesel pump could have been
pumping fuel into that fire for hours as it was an automatic design...

--
John Nelson

And as the FEMA report said...the place where it would have been
pumping diesel wasn't where the support collapsed.

Actually, it says the pipe runs near where they believe the failure was.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf is the report I'm reading,
what are you reading?

Page 5-27 clearly shows that "the kink" where the building started sagging
before collapsing is located right along truss 1, and truss 1 just happens
to be near the diesel supply pipeline... true the pump is on the 2nd floor
but the pump would pump thru a pipe that ran near truss 1 and if that pipe
had ruptured, then indeed, as they say on page 5-28, that could have fed
the fire for 3 hours at total pipe failure, or for many more hours at a
partial pipe failure...

Page 5-28 says "A portion of the piping ran in close proximity to Truss 1.
However there is no physical, photographic or other evidence to substantiate
or refute the discharge of fuel oil from the piping system..."

So, while the building burned, no one went around looking at various
floors, which I would expect, especially after WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed
I would think folks would be pretty leary of hanging out in WTC7.

If a tree falls in the forest when no one is around does it make any noise?

Again, they are being honest in saying they don't know, but they are giving
some pretty good reasons to account for the failure based on the photos they
have of "the kink" and the structural layout of the building...

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)

On Dec 18, 9:42*pm, Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
riverman wrote:
On Dec 18, 4:20?am, Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
rb608 wrote:
On Dec 16, 12:09?pm, Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
When is the last time there was a fire in a highrise
that was allowed to burn for 7 hours because the firefighters didn't have
access to water because another building collapsed and severed the water
supply?
The closest related instance I can come up with is One Meridian Plaza
in Philadelphia in 1991. ?A smoke detector triggered at about 10:23 on
Feb 23, 1991 on the 22nd floor. ?The fire burned through electrical
cables as fire crews reached the 11th floor. ?All equipment had to be
hand carried up 20 floors using only battery powered lights.
Almost from the beginning, there were water supply problems, and
firefighters had inadequate pressure and water flow to attack the fire
as it spread upward to the 23rd and 24th floors. ?It wasn't until 2:15
a.m. that they managed to get a 5" line up one of the stairways. ?By 6
a.m. they'd gotten a third as far as the 17th floor when a sprinkler
contractor adjusted pressure reducing valves on the standpipes to give
firefighters near normal flows. ?By then, however, the fire had spread
upward and could no longer be fought with manual hose systems.
All firefighting operations were stopped shortly thereafter and the
building evacuated at 7 a.m. due to the danger of a pancake collapse;
and the fire burned unimpeded for another several hours. ?When the
fire reached the 30th floor, it was supressed by automatic sprinklers
that were being supplied by fire department pumpers. ?It was declared
under control at 3:01 on the Feb. 24th, about 17 hours after starting..
CT folks often cite this fire as an example of a serious fire in a
high rise, but as one that burned longer and still did not cause the
same failure as the WTC fires. ?The flaw in that logic is two-fold.
Firstly, the fire did not burn any longer on any one floor than WTC.
It simply consumed all flammable materials and moved upward.
Secondly, the fire at One Meridian had only 8 floors above the damage
zone, not the 20 or more at WTC. ?That's a significant difference in
supported loads where the structural factor of safety is concerned.
The photos of the damage at One Meridian show exactly what engineers
would expect from such an event. ?The fire seriously twisted and
deformed floor joists and beams, but the structure stayed up because
the columns were not sufficiently damaged or displaced to cause
buckling.
If you're into such stuff, here's the report from the US Fire
Administration:
http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pd...ons/tr-049.pdf

I'm good with what FEMA said... I agree it makes sense to say study it
but as they point out in the report, the diesel pump could have been
pumping fuel into that fire for hours as it was an automatic design...

--
John Nelson
And as the FEMA report said...the place where it would have been
pumping diesel wasn't where the support collapsed.

Actually, it says the pipe runs near where they believe the failure was.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdfis the report I'm reading,
what are you reading?

Page 5-27 clearly shows that "the kink" where the building started sagging
before collapsing is located right along truss 1, and truss 1 just happens
to be near the diesel supply pipeline... true the pump is on the 2nd floor
but the pump would pump thru a pipe that ran near truss 1 and if that pipe
had ruptured, then indeed, as they say on page 5-28, that could have fed
the fire for 3 hours at total pipe failure, or for many more hours at a
partial pipe failure...

Page 5-28 says "A portion of the piping ran in close proximity to Truss 1..
However there is no physical, photographic or other evidence to substantiate
or refute the discharge of fuel oil from the piping system..."

So, while the building burned, no one went around looking at various
floors, which I would expect, especially after WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed
I would think folks would be pretty leary of hanging out in WTC7.

If a tree falls in the forest when no one is around does it make any noise?

Again, they are being honest in saying they don't know, but they are giving
some pretty good reasons to account for the failure based on the photos they
have of "the kink" and the structural layout of the building...


Yes, and without a doubt the building DID fall down, so its pointless
to debate whether or not reasons existed...obviously they did. The
scenario you gravitate towards seems to fit the data the best, however
as FEMA says; there are a series of necessary conditions that they
have no evidence for (or against), but the liklihood of this
collection of conditions being met is very unlikely. I'm talking about
1) the piping being damaged at the right spot (which happens to be
*away* from the part of the building that had visual damage from the
earlier collapses), 2) the piping being damaged partially so that it
didn't discharge its fuel too fast and burn out in 3 hours, but being
damaged enough so that it DID discharge its fuel fast enough to
provide a suitable flame. 3) the pumps being activated and causing the
pipes to leak 4) a fireproof door being compromised at the right time
5) the fireproofing around the truss being compromised at the right
place 6) the vent doors opening and providing enough air to support
the fire (although this seems to be the easiest condition to meet).

Anyway, in the same sense that a bunch of "highly unlikely"s might
have come together in the right way to bring a building down (as
Sherlock Holmes said: when you have eliminated the impossible,
whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth) it is just as
easily possible that all these other "highly unlikely" incredible
coincidences surrounding 911 like found passports and IDs are just too
convenient to be real (as they say, if something is too good to be
true, it probably is)

IAC, we're not going to solve this. But I would not be so quick to
dismiss the skeptics merely on the claim that everything is easily
explainable.

--riverman

riverman wrote:
On Dec 18, 9:42?pm, Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
riverman wrote:
On Dec 18, 4:20?am, Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
rb608 wrote:
On Dec 16, 12:09?pm, Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
When is the last time there was a fire in a highrise
that was allowed to burn for 7 hours because the firefighters didn't have
access to water because another building collapsed and severed the water
supply?
The closest related instance I can come up with is One Meridian Plaza
in Philadelphia in 1991. ?A smoke detector triggered at about 10:23 on
Feb 23, 1991 on the 22nd floor. ?The fire burned through electrical
cables as fire crews reached the 11th floor. ?All equipment had to be
hand carried up 20 floors using only battery powered lights.
Almost from the beginning, there were water supply problems, and
firefighters had inadequate pressure and water flow to attack the fire
as it spread upward to the 23rd and 24th floors. ?It wasn't until 2:15
a.m. that they managed to get a 5" line up one of the stairways. ?By 6
a.m. they'd gotten a third as far as the 17th floor when a sprinkler
contractor adjusted pressure reducing valves on the standpipes to give
firefighters near normal flows. ?By then, however, the fire had spread
upward and could no longer be fought with manual hose systems.
All firefighting operations were stopped shortly thereafter and the
building evacuated at 7 a.m. due to the danger of a pancake collapse;
and the fire burned unimpeded for another several hours. ?When the
fire reached the 30th floor, it was supressed by automatic sprinklers
that were being supplied by fire department pumpers. ?It was declared
under control at 3:01 on the Feb. 24th, about 17 hours after starting.
CT folks often cite this fire as an example of a serious fire in a
high rise, but as one that burned longer and still did not cause the
same failure as the WTC fires. ?The flaw in that logic is two-fold.
Firstly, the fire did not burn any longer on any one floor than WTC.
It simply consumed all flammable materials and moved upward.
Secondly, the fire at One Meridian had only 8 floors above the damage
zone, not the 20 or more at WTC. ?That's a significant difference in
supported loads where the structural factor of safety is concerned.
The photos of the damage at One Meridian show exactly what engineers
would expect from such an event. ?The fire seriously twisted and
deformed floor joists and beams, but the structure stayed up because
the columns were not sufficiently damaged or displaced to cause
buckling.
If you're into such stuff, here's the report from the US Fire
Administration:
http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pd...ons/tr-049.pdf

I'm good with what FEMA said... I agree it makes sense to say study it
but as they point out in the report, the diesel pump could have been
pumping fuel into that fire for hours as it was an automatic design...

--
John Nelson
And as the FEMA report said...the place where it would have been
pumping diesel wasn't where the support collapsed.

Actually, it says the pipe runs near where they believe the failure was.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdfis the report I'm reading,
what are you reading?

Page 5-27 clearly shows that "the kink" where the building started sagging
before collapsing is located right along truss 1, and truss 1 just happens
to be near the diesel supply pipeline... true the pump is on the 2nd floor
but the pump would pump thru a pipe that ran near truss 1 and if that pipe
had ruptured, then indeed, as they say on page 5-28, that could have fed
the fire for 3 hours at total pipe failure, or for many more hours at a
partial pipe failure...

Page 5-28 says "A portion of the piping ran in close proximity to Truss 1.
However there is no physical, photographic or other evidence to substantiate
or refute the discharge of fuel oil from the piping system..."

So, while the building burned, no one went around looking at various
floors, which I would expect, especially after WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed
I would think folks would be pretty leary of hanging out in WTC7.

If a tree falls in the forest when no one is around does it make any noise?

Again, they are being honest in saying they don't know, but they are giving
some pretty good reasons to account for the failure based on the photos they
have of "the kink" and the structural layout of the building...


Yes, and without a doubt the building DID fall down, so its pointless
to debate whether or not reasons existed...obviously they did. The
scenario you gravitate towards seems to fit the data the best, however
as FEMA says; there are a series of necessary conditions that they
have no evidence for (or against), but the liklihood of this
collection of conditions being met is very unlikely. I'm talking about
1) the piping being damaged at the right spot (which happens to be
*away* from the part of the building that had visual damage from the
earlier collapses), 2) the piping being damaged partially so that it
didn't discharge its fuel too fast and burn out in 3 hours, but being
damaged enough so that it DID discharge its fuel fast enough to
provide a suitable flame. 3) the pumps being activated and causing the
pipes to leak 4) a fireproof door being compromised at the right time
5) the fireproofing around the truss being compromised at the right
place 6) the vent doors opening and providing enough air to support
the fire (although this seems to be the easiest condition to meet).

Actually, I didn't think FEMA worded it like that. Read the report and quote
FEMA exactly rather than your paraphrase which fits your black helicopters
mindset... Floors above and below were on fire and there were no windows
on the transfer floors so they don't know for sure if it was on fire...

The buildings weren't designed for fires to burn endlessly in them...

They also don't know if some of the tanks above had been damaged and were
leaking and if fuel leaks were traveling between floors...

Ignition could have come from something as simple as a coffee maker hotplate
knocked off a break room counter in the haste to evacuate... also the fire
proof door may have been left propped open during evacuation... they just
don't know.

Anyway, in the same sense that a bunch of "highly unlikely"s might
have come together in the right way to bring a building down (as
Sherlock Holmes said: when you have eliminated the impossible,
whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth) it is just as
easily possible that all these other "highly unlikely" incredible
coincidences surrounding 911 like found passports and IDs are just too
convenient to be real (as they say, if something is too good to be
true, it probably is)

IAC, we're not going to solve this. But I would not be so quick to
dismiss the skeptics merely on the claim that everything is easily
explainable.

I wouldn't insist someone blew it up with demolition charges when they have
laid out ways for the building to come down within the framework of events
that occurred.

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)