10 story hole in WTC 7

[jaydeehess]

There is no reason to think the double wall supply pipe severed completely at the other end of the building while remaining intact where the damage was.

As I understand it there is only one place where the pipe is solidly fixed to the building.
Otherwise the pipe connects via hangers, to the building. That means that only at one point would the pipe be vulnerable to seismic damage.

To my knowledge this has not been thoroughly investigated has it Chris?


,,,,, wait for it
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,louvers
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,smoke
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,all fires known

[jaydeehess]

They did not investigate the possibility of diesel fuel fires in or near the NE generator room, they just included it in the summary saying:
"The presence of a fuel distribution system and the possibility of damage at the south face from WTC 1 debris impact, indicates that fires may have been present on Floor 5."

This is misleading.

I don't see how.
It apparently did not mislead you, or me.
It would be something that would be investigated in more detail in a more extensive report

The debris impact to the south face indicates the possibility of fires to the SW part of WTC 7,
NOT THE NORTH EAST GENERATOR ROOM!

The next statement starts with:
"The initiating event may have included a number of structural components"

This is misleading.
.


Really? I don't see how. It did not mislead you or me.
Should they have put a few empty lines between the two? Actually the next line begins with a number does it not? You know , such as is used in demarking the separation between two technical points.

You certainly are looking for ghosts in the minutia.

Maybe there is a way to rearange the letters in "Shyram Sunder of NIST" to get it to spell something sinister too Chris.:boggled::rolleyes:

[Christopher7]

Reported for quote mining my post, sad that you cannot even quote the whole post and reply, as usual with truthers it is cherry picked. Conveniently leaving out the explosives again C7? Why is that?This thread is about DD/F, not CD. OK?

If someone who was involved in the NIST investigation was not happy with the report they can remove their name from it. I dont see anyone who has, so why is this? If your name goes against the report you are saying you are happy with its conclusions and everything contained in it.
If you say so.

NIST L-51
"The presence of a fuel distribution system and the possibility of damage at the south face from WTC 1 debris impact, indicates that fires may have been present on Floor 5."
A statement about the diesel cannot be misleading if it does not state categorically but says there was a possibility I disagree.
Including diesel fuel fires as a possible contributing factor to the collapse is misleading for two reasons.
1) There is NO EVIDENCE of fire in or near the NE generator room and no reason to think there was a fire there.
2) The fires indicatedwould have been in the other end of the building.

And why does the next statement make it misleading? Because it leads the reader to think the possible diesel fuel fires in the SW corner contributed to the initiating event.


You make great assumnptions make bold claims yet castigate NIST or any other poster here for the same
You are a [childish insult deleted]
Why can you make assumptions like this C7 surely you can see this is misleading by your own standards?Your understanding of the word 'assumption ' is incorrect.
In the sentence,
"Falling debris may have severed pipes in the SW corner of WTC 7, where the SSB, OEM and Silverstein generator rooms were.",
'may have' does not assume, it suggests a possibility.

[jaydeehess]

"Falling debris may have severed pipes in the SW corner of WTC 7, where the SSB, OEM and Silverstein generator rooms were.",
'may have' does not assume, it suggests a possibility.




NIST L-51
"The presence of a fuel distribution system and the possibility of damage at the south face from WTC 1 debris impact, indicates that fires may have been present on Floor 5[/B]."

......Including diesel fuel fires as a possible contributing factor to the collapse is misleading


Oooh the irony, oooh the hypocrisy!!!!!!!!

Stundie nominated

[Christopher7]

Oooh the irony, oooh the hypocrisy!!!!!!!!

Stundie nominatedOh the reading comprehension disability.

The fires indicated would have been in the other end of the building.

They would NOT be a factor in the initiating event.

[Christopher7]

As I understand it there is only one place where the pipe is solidly fixed to the building.
Otherwise the pipe connects via hangers, to the building. That means that only at one point would the pipe be vulnerable to seismic damage.
Only the horizontal piping on the 5th floor was a double-wall pipe within a pipe.

The SSB fuel oil risers [supply and return pipes] were single-wall pipes in a utility shaft in the west end of the building.
The risers would be fixed to the side of the shaft and to the single-to-double pipe fitting which would be fixed to the building.

There had to be a special fitting at the 'T' for the SW and NW generators to 'T' off the inner pipe while keeping the outer pipe continuous.
This fitting would be fixed to the building.


It is simply not possible for the double wall pipe at the other end of the building to completely break off and these single wall connections, close to the debris damage, to remain intact.

[Belz...]

Oh the reading comprehension disability.

The fires indicated would have been in the other end of the building.

They would NOT be a factor in the initiating event.

I think you meant "may have been".

[funk de fino]

This thread is about DD/F, not CD. OK?

So, you have not mentioned CD in this thread? You do not believe it was CD?

If you say so.

You know so, you would not put your name to a report that had aspects you were not happy with would you?

NIST L-51
"The presence of a fuel distribution system and the possibility of damage at the south face from WTC 1 debris impact, indicates that fires may have been present on Floor 5."
I disagree.
Including diesel fuel fires as a possible contributing factor to the collapse is misleading for two reasons.
1) There is NO EVIDENCE of fire in or near the NE generator room and no reason to think there was a fire there.
2) The fires indicatedwould have been in the other end of the building.

Waffle, there is no evidence of a lot of things you believe in this situation so I guess you will be dismissing them?

Because it leads the reader to think the possible diesel fuel fires in the SW corner contributed to the initiating event.

It leads you due to your bias, it does not lead me anywhere. How are the statements seperated?

Your understanding of the word 'assumption ' is incorrect.
In the sentence,
"Falling debris may have severed pipes in the SW corner of WTC 7, where the SSB, OEM and Silverstein generator rooms were.",
'may have' does not assume, it suggests a possibility.

You can say "may have" "it is safe to assume" "it is a possibility" but no-one else can? Hypocrisy C7 and you know it

[Christopher7]

I think you meant "may have been".No, i meant to say "would have been".

NIST L-51
1. Fires were observed .......... Fires were not observed on Floor 5, but this may be due to the lack of windows*.The presence of a fuel distribution system and the possibility of damage at the south face from WTC 1 debris impact, indicates that fires may have been present on Floor 5.

2. The initiating event may have included a number of structural components .........


The fires indicated would have been in the other end of the building in the 5th floor generator room in the SW corner of the building.

Debris damage to the south west part of the building does NOT indicate a fire in the north east generator room in the area of the initiating event as the summary implies.


*this statement ignores the tell tale sign of diesel fuel fires, a lot of thick black smoke.

[jaydeehess]

Only the horizontal piping on the 5th floor was a double-wall pipe within a pipe.

The SSB fuel oil risers [supply and return pipes] were single-wall pipes in a utility shaft in the west end of the building.
The risers would be fixed to the side of the shaft and to the single-to-double pipe fitting which would be fixed to the building.

There had to be a special fitting at the 'T' for the SW and NW generators to 'T' off the inner pipe while keeping the outer pipe continuous.
This fitting would be fixed to the building.


It is simply not possible for the double wall pipe at the other end of the building to completely break off and these single wall connections, close to the debris damage, to remain intact.


,, and you know this for a fact because its reported where please?

[Christopher7]

So, you have not

You know so,

you believe in

due to your bias

You can say

Hypocrisy C7 and you know it

Would it be asking too much for you to address the issue?

[Belz...]

No, i meant to say "would have been".

I see you're not following your own advice, or reading your own quotes.

[funk de fino]

Would it be asking too much for you to address the issue?

JAQ, thats what we are supposed to do to get the truth is it not? Why do you not answer?

Too inconvenient?

You still have nothing after all this time do you?

back to the OP, was there a 10 storey gash in the WTC7? Yes or no?

[Christopher7]

It is simply not possible for the double wall pipe at the other end of the building to completely break off and these single wall connections, close to the debris damage, to remain intact.

,, and you know this for a fact because its reported where please?and you can't figure this out for yourself?

Do you really think a double wall pipe broke off in the NE generator room and the single wall pipes in the SW generator room did not?

[jaydeehess]

and you can't figure this out for yourself?

Do you really think a double wall pipe broke off in the NE generator room and the single wall pipes in the SW generator room did not?


If the single wall pipe was mounted with hangers and the only place where the pipe was affixed solidly to the structure was at the valve box then that would be the most likely place for a seismically caused fracture Chris. I asked you what method was used to hold the pipes. You stated an assumption it seems. If you don't know because it has not been stated in the reports to date then that would certainly suggest another item to be explored in an investigation into where the diesel fuel went missing.

Not that long ago I was in our local recreation center(ice rink, training rooms, two pools) and noticed that ALL of the piping ran through hangers and in vertical runs was held by hangers that fixed to the vertical wall by threaded rods. (I was doing a wiring job so I was in the crawl spaces and utility shafts) This building is a steel and concrete construction. It was quite obvious that these were to allow for expansion and contraction of the piping.

[Christopher7]

If the single wall pipe was mounted with hangers and the only place where the pipe was affixed solidly to the structure was at the valve box then that would be the most likely place for a seismically caused fracture Chris. I asked you what method was used to hold the pipes. You stated an assumption it seems. If you don't know because it has not been stated in the reports to date then that would certainly suggest another item to be explored in an investigation into where the diesel fuel went missing.

Not that long ago I was in our local recreation center(ice rink, training rooms, two pools) and noticed that ALL of the piping ran through hangers and in vertical runs was held by hangers that fixed to the vertical wall by threaded rods. (I was doing a wiring job so I was in the crawl spaces and utility shafts) This building is a steel and concrete construction. It was quite obvious that these were to allow for expansion and contraction of the piping.
Point well taken.

Did you see the starting and termination points?

Did the pipes connect to valve bodies and if so, were those affixed solid to the building?

Was the pipe 2 1/2 " ?

The SSB system required a 'T' and valve at the SW and NW generator rooms.

[jaydeehess]

Point well taken.

Did you see the starting and termination points?

For some of the systems, yes. Not attached to the concrete or steel frame of the building.

Did the pipes connect to valve bodies and if so, were those affixed solid to the building?

The ones I saw, some did and no, there were hangers on either side of the valves.

Was the pipe 2 1/2 " ?

about 4" outer diameter for the heating system.
About 2" for the natural gas.
and IIRC about 2" for the ice rink coolant but these were embedded in the concrete starting about 4 feet from the refrigeration unit

[Christopher7]

For some of the systems, yes. Not attached to the concrete or steel frame of the building.
The ones I saw, some did and no, there were hangers on either side of the valves.Just to be clear, were the valves or any part of the heating pipe system affixed solid to the building?

about 4" outer diameter for the heating system.
About 2" for the natural gas.
and IIRC about 2" for the ice rink coolant but these were embedded in the concrete starting about 4 feet from the refrigeration unit

[jaydeehess]

Just to be clear, were the valves or any part of the heating pipe system affixed solid to the building?

At least one was not affixed to the concrete. I recall this one in particular because I hit my head on the dang thing. where the pipes went through the concrete walls they were in a steel sleeve and not affixed to the concrete(ie. they could move)

Where they went up through the concrete they were fixed to it. I do not know what was on the other side of the concrete in this case. The distance from horizontal run to the concrete ceiling of the crawl space was only a few feet at most. the horizontal run of the longest pipe would have been approx 300 feet.

I tell ya what Chris, if the company ever needs me to go back there and point out exactly where I ran my cables I'll take pictures and post them here. Not likely to happen though as I do not have the same job anymore and there was another guy with me who also knows where the cables run for the most part

[Christopher7]

At least one was not affixed to the concrete. I recall this one in particular because I hit my head on the dang thing. where the pipes went through the concrete walls they were in a steel sleeve and not affixed to the concrete(ie. they could move)

Where they went up through the concrete they were fixed to it. I do not know what was on the other side of the concrete in this case. The distance from horizontal run to the concrete ceiling of the crawl space was only a few feet at most. the horizontal run of the longest pipe would have been approx 300 feet.

I tell ya what Chris, if the company ever needs me to go back there and point out exactly where I ran my cables I'll take pictures and post them here. Not likely to happen though as I do not have the same job anymore and there was another guy with me who also knows where the cables run for the most partThank you for the info.
What so said about the risers makes sense.
I still think the valve bodies and 'T' housings were fixed solid to the building.
Absent further evidence, it cannot be assumed either way.

In any case, the chances of a double wall pipe breaking at the other end of the building are slim to remote.
There is no evidence to suggest the fuel pipe broke in the NE generator room.
On the other hand, it is likely that the pipe was severed in or near the SW generator room where the debris damage was.

[Christopher7]

JAQ, thats what we are supposed to do to get the truth is it not? Why do you not answer?

Too inconvenient?

You still have nothing after all this time do you?

back to the OP, was there a 10 storey gash in the WTC7? Yes or no?
What i have uncovered after all this time is:

You have nothing.

There was no 10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7 as described on pg 18 of NIST Apx. L.

There was no debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.

There is no evidence of diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.

The fires in the area of the initiating event were insufficient to cause a column weighing over 4 tons per floor to fail.

[GT/CS]

Thank you for the info.
What so said about the risers makes sense.
I still think the valve bodies and 'T' housings were fixed solid to the building.
Absent further evidence, it cannot be assumed either way.

In any case, the chances of a double wall pipe breaking at the other end of the building are slim to remote.
There is no evidence to suggest the fuel pipe broke in the NE generator room.
On the other hand, it is likely that the pipe was severed in or near the SW generator room where the debris damage was.

Chris, is a strong pipe has a force applied to it that force can travel a great distance until it finds a weak point. Where would the weak point be?

[Miragememories]

Chris, is a strong pipe has a force applied to it that force can travel a great distance until it finds a weak point. Where would the weak point be?

Is it too much to ask that a post be coherent and grammatically correct?

I mean geez GT/CS do you bother to proofread your posts?

MM

[beachnut]

Is it too much to ask that a post be coherent and grammatically correct?

I mean geez GT/CS do you bother to proofread your posts?

MM
At least his post is on topic and contains facts; when will you post a fact?

A fact, you know something to support your ideas on 9/11? When?

So when will Chris finally believe WTC7 fell due to fire? Steel fails in fire; and fires not fought destroy buildings. But it is harder to explain how the building fell, but not why. Fire.

[twinstead]

Is it too much to ask that a post be coherent and grammatically correct?

I mean geez GT/CS do you bother to proofread your posts?

MM

You might want to actually deal with the serious logical and logistical problems of your beloved 'inside job' theory instead of scolding posters about their grammar.

I'm just saying.

[GT/CS]

Is it too much to ask that a post be coherent and grammatically correct?

I mean geez GT/CS do you bother to proofread your posts?

MM

MM, and the rest of the members who were appalled by my grammatically atrocious post, please accept my sincere apology for not proofreading the post before submitting it.

Thank you MM for civilly alerting me to the error.

[GT/CS]

Chris, if a strong pipe has a force applied to it that force can travel a great distance until it finds a weak point. Where would the weak point be?

Corrected post. The grammar still sucks but so be it.

[Christopher7]

Chris, if a strong pipe has a force applied to it that force can travel a great distance until it finds a weak point. Where would the weak point be? You are assuming there is a weak point.

A double wall pipe is extremely strong.
Testimony of Dr. S. Shyam Sunder
"The pipe-in-pipe design used in WTC 7 is quite robust ....."

FEMA 5-28
The following is, therefore, a hypothesis based on potential rather than demonstrated fact.

There was no sign of fire in the NE generator room at any time.

This whole diesel fuel fire thing is a pipe dream with no basis and no evidence to support it.

Even if there was a fire in the NE generator room, it would not have had sufficient air flow to burn hot enough to be a factor in the collapse.

[GT/CS]

You are assuming there is a weak point.

A double wall pipe is extremely strong.
Testimony of Dr. S. Shyam Sunder
"The pipe-in-pipe design used in WTC 7 is quite robust ....."

FEMA 5-28
The following is, therefore, a hypothesis based on potential rather than demonstrated fact.

There was no sign of fire in the NE generator room at any time.

This whole diesel fuel fire thing is a pipe dream with no basis and no evidence to support it.

Even if there was a fire in the NE generator room, it would not have had sufficient air flow to burn hot enough to be a factor in the collapse.

Regarding pipe-in-pipe designs be robust. There would be 2 typical weak points in the pipe system. The 1st would be the hangers. They are designed to support the weight of the pipe, not impacts.

Do you know what happens when pipes try to hang in air without hangers? They fail at the 2nd weak points, the joints, usually elbows. A "robust" pipe can span a much longer distance than a flimsy pipe so it is nearly impossible to say where the pipes broke just by looking at impact points.

[funk de fino]

What i have uncovered after all this time is:

You have nothing.

Still more than you CD boy

There was no 10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7 as described on pg 18 of NIST Apx. L.

But there was a huge gash on the face of the building at least 10 stories high?


There was no debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.

Possibly

There is no evidence of diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.

Possibly


The fires in the area of the initiating event were insufficient to cause a column weighing over 4 tons per floor to fail.

In your opinion and using your assumptions, hypocrisy again C7?

[Christopher7]

Regarding pipe-in-pipe designs be robust. There would be 2 typical weak points in the pipe system. The 1st would be the hangers. They are designed to support the weight of the pipe, not impacts.
Do you know what happens when pipes try to hang in air without hangers? They fail at the 2nd weak points, the joints, usually elbows. A "robust" pipe can span a much longer distance than a flimsy pipe so it is nearly impossible to say where the pipes broke just by looking at impact points.
Hangers are not a weak point.

It is conjecture to say the double wall pipe broke anywhere because of a shock wave.

It is quite possible that the SSB supply pipe was severed in or near the SW generator room by a falling debris.

This whole idea that the shock wave from the impacts caused a double wall pipe to break off at the other end of the building is a pipe dream.

[GT/CS]

Hangers are not a weak point.

It is conjecture to say the double wall pipe broke anywhere because of a shock wave.

It is quite possible that the SSB supply pipe was severed in or near the SW generator room by a falling debris.

This whole idea that the shock wave from the impacts caused a double wall pipe to break off at the other end of the building is a pipe dream.

Please explain how hangers are not a weak point. Have you seen pipe hangers and understand how they work?

Are you familiar with the concept of a moment arm? I'll give you some time to Google it if you need.

[Randy Mott]

This gets pretty ridiculous pretty fast.

The conspiracy theory has to had a major event- explosions - knock out the building at approximately the time it started to collapse. Nitpicking about NIST and FEMA language or minor unexplained issues, etc. does not addess the fundamental and undispouted facts:

1.The debris from the North Tower pulverized part of WTC7.

2. WTC7 did not fall "symetrically" oir "in its own footprint." It threw with the north wall on top and it fell across the street.

3. The fire department - before any event that could be part of a conspiracy- announced that the damage to the building was so extensive that it should be evacuated. There was no dissent among any of the NYFD supervisiors on the site about this conclusion. It was arrived at BEFORE any aleged "squibs" (faked in the photograph by Prof. Jones).

These known facts seem to be ignored by the CTs in favor of some petty dispute about column numbers, etc.

Some real questions in their explanations seem to also never by answred:

1. If it was a conspiracy, why would Silverstein admit to it on public broadcasting?

2. Why would all the fire department bosses lie, especially when dozens of their colleagues and fellow workers had been killed that day?

3. Why would such a clever conspiracy do make the building fall asymetrically or it a mater that was more convincing to them? i.e. symetrically collapse actually proves nothing, even if it occurred.

4. How could hundreds of charges be placed in WTC7 in secret over the weeks before 9-11? They would have had to be placed inside the walls and behind the interior surfaces, pretty ovious to anyone who worked there.

5. Devices to cut steel beams would have to be elaborate to get the thermite to cut horizonally. Elements of these in the hundreds of locations needed would have survived the fall, none were found.

6. All of this would have to be coordinated with the WTC Towers attack and with the willing participation of Al Qaeda, who has repeatedly now admitted the attacks. How likely is this theory?

So we have numerous known facts the contradict the CTs and major questions that suggest it is completely implausible and incredible to believe their allegations.

Randy

[Christopher7]

Please explain how hangers are not a weak point. Have you seen pipe hangers and understand how they work?Yes, I have done work in commercial buildings. As jaydeehess noted, the hangers are usually threaded rod with a 2 piece clamp that wraps around the pipe. The rods are attached to a mounting bracket which is fixed solid to the building.
To allow an adequate safety margin, these rods and mounting brackets are capable of carrying many times their prescribed load.
In any case, the hangers near the impact would receive a greater shock than the hangers at the other end of the building.


Are you familiar with the concept of a moment arm? I'll give you some time to Google it if you need.Moment means torque [twisting force].
This would not come into play until the pipe was severed and there was an arm that could rotate.

[Christopher7]

Nitpicking about NIST and FEMA language or minor unexplained issues, etc. does not addess the fundamental and undispouted facts:On the contrary, what you call nitpicking is simply quoting facts in the FEMA and NIST reports concerning critical issues.

These facts do not support the DD/F hypothesis.

1.The debris from the North Tower pulverized part of WTC7.The south west part. The collapse began in the east central part.

2. WTC7 did not fall "symetrically" oir "in its own footprint." It threw with the north wall on top and it fell across the street.
Wrong

FEMA 5-31 WTC 7 had a relatively small debris field because the façade came straight down, suggesting an internal collapse.
NIST L-33 The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building.

Part of the north wall buckled outward and damaged the building across the street.
The upper part of the north wall landed on top of the debris pile.

There was simply too much material to be entirely contained within the original footprint.

This implosion was done without permits and damage to the surrounding buildings was not a consideration.

3. The fire department - before any event that could be part of a conspiracy- announced that the damage to the building was so extensive that it should be evacuated. There was no dissent among any of the NYFD supervisiors on the site about this conclusion.Wrong again.

Chiefs Nigro, Fellini and Hayden thought WTC 7 was going to collapse.
Chief Norman did not.
"I looked at 7 World Trade Center. There was smoke showing, but not a lot and I’m saying that isn’t going to fall."

"I never expected it to fall the way it did as quickly as it did, 7."

These known facts seem to be ignored by the CTs in favor of some petty dispute about column numbers, etc. There is no dispute about column numbers.

You cannot dispute or accept the facts so you change the subject and ask the infinitely arguable questions.
Some real questions in their explanations seem to also never by answred:
1. If it was a conspiracy, why would Silverstein admit to it on public broadcasting?
2. Why would all the fire department bosses lie, especially when dozens of their colleagues and fellow workers had been killed that day?
3.etc.
RandyThese are the facts in the NIST report.

There is no evidence to support the DD/F hypothesis.
There were fires on several floors, at different times, in the area of the initiating event.
[the failure of core column 79, 80 and/or 81]

Fires in east half of WTC 7

NIST
11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Fire on floor 12, moved toward the east face
2:00 to 2:30 p.m.
Fires on east face Floors 11 and 12 at the southeast corner, progressing north

As of 3:00 p.m., there were fires on floors 11 and 12 in the area of the initiating event.

Some time later, fires on 8 and 13

For the NIST hypothesis to happen, a core column, weighing over 4 tons per floor, would have to be uniformly heated to about 1,000 F, and 2 or 3 floors would have to collapse all around that column, before it could break at 3 splice joints and buckle.

There is no evidence of diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.

There was no debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.


That's the evidence.

Debris damage to the other end of the building,
and fires that a burned on a few floors, for a few hours, at different times, in the area where the implosion began.

[Belz...]

What i have uncovered after all this time is:

[SIZE=4]You have nothing.
[SIZE=2]

If that is true, then you're left with a negative amount of evidence.

[jaydeehess]

There was observed fire on floors 7 and 8 with the one on 8 eventually moving along the north face all the way to the east face.
There was a two storey opening from the 5th floor slab through the 6th floor right at the area of the initiating event.

Some type of damage occured just west of the initiating event due to the collapse of WTC 1 which caused the elevator cars to be ejected out of their shafts at floor 8.

So, there is a major fire on 8 and structural damage quite possible at the 8th floor core area diaphragm.

Fire causes the floor span of floor 8 to sag all along the north face all the way to the east face creating a pull on the core columns towards the north and then , later in the day, also to the east. There was also a fire towards the center of the north face on the 7th floor which puts it in the vicinity of the elevator car that was ejected at the 8th floor.

The ceiling of the 5th floor is the floor of the 6th floor EXCEPT at the area of the initiating event where there is an opening. That would be a weak point in the 6th floor. If the 7th and 8th floor fires are both pulling the core columns, along the north side of the core, towards the north then there is less lateral bracing for columns 79,80,81 at the 2 storey opening just below that area.

IFa slow leak from a crack in the diesel pipe created a pool of fuel in the same area but on the 5th floor that pool would be evaporating into the 5th floor space, with, as Chris likes to point out, little ventilation and thus creating a fairly large fuel air mix. This need not occur in the NE generator room but rather just about anywhere along the north side of the 5th floor. That fuel cloud could eventually make its way to an ignition source on the still smoldering 7th floor (with fires on the 7,8,11,12th floors air would be moving up through the bottom floors of the building) which would create a blast event on the 5th floor pushing the columns 79,80,81 to the east and or north , the same direction they are already being pulled by the sagging 7th and 8th floors.

Columns 79,80,81 shift to the east pulling down on them, they are also suffering some creep at the 11/12th floor fires due to the heavy fires that were there. They are then already shortened at the 12th floor level when they are pulled down by the event on the 5-7th floor and while in isolation neither the fire damage at the 12th floor nor the insult at the 5-7th would be enough to cause the columns to fail, the combination of the two does fail them at the 12th floor.


The penthouse kink is created and the machinery in the penthouse falls through the floor along with flooring and other debris. This dense, heavy debris falls with little in the way to slow it until it reachs the transfer trusses at the 7th floor, impacting them and pulling them also to the east which pulls the next core columns out of line as well which in turn pull on the next causing a horizontal progression from east to west of column failures at the 7th floor which is evident from the outside as the rest of the roof structures start to sink into roof. Before the roof structures can completely fall into the building the failure of these core columns causes the cantilever trusses runing over the Con-ed building to have no support at their connection to the core and they push up on the north face. They north face end of the canitlever trusses cannot lift the north face though and the columns under them fail and the north wall starts down while being pulled southward by the already falling core.

The eastern portion of the building fails at the bottom at columns 79,80,81but has separted from the western 2/3rds of the building along that line of columns and thus has less force pulling the NE corner towards the core than does the western portion of the building since the horizontal progression of column failures went west from the initial failure. At least part of the NE corner falls away from the building and impacts the building accross Broadway while most of the rest of the building collapses inward.

This is all guess work on my part, based upon what we know of damage to the building, location of fires and the fact that diesel fuel went missing. As such it uses much more in the way of empirical evidence than does any contention of the use of explosives to knock out columns in WTC 7. the probability of this sequence of events may be low, that's for experts to decide, but aside from a fuel air explosion it uses only known events and empirical evidence. In this, the only difference needed between this senario and a CD senario would be the cause of the blast event. Given that diesel fuel was missing and had to have been burned off somehow whereas there is no evidence that any explosives actually were in the building at any time on 9/11/01 Occam's razor would argue that if the two senarios are to be considered against only each other, the one with a diesel fuel explosion would be that most likely.

[GT/CS]

Yes, I have done work in commercial buildings. As jaydeehess noted, the hangers are usually threaded rod with a 2 piece clamp that wraps around the pipe. The rods are attached to a mounting bracket which is fixed solid to the building.
To allow an adequate safety margin, these rods and mounting brackets are capable of carrying many times their prescribed load.
In any case, the hangers near the impact would receive a greater shock than the hangers at the other end of the building.

Moment means torque [twisting force].
This would not come into play until the pipe was severed and there was an arm that could rotate.

Wow. Just wow. Now I understand. I'll have no more questions for you Chris.

[Christopher7]

There was observed fire on floors 7 and 8 with the one on 8 eventually moving along the north face all the way to the east face.
There was a two storey opening from the 5th floor slab through the 6th floor right at the area of the initiating event.

Some type of damage occured just west of the initiating event due to the collapse of WTC 1 which caused the elevator cars to be ejected out of their shafts at floor 8.You are assuming the elevator cars were ejected by debris from WTC 1 and that this happened just west of the initiating event.

So, there is a major fire on 8 and structural damage quite possible at the 8th floor core area diaphragm.

Fire causes the floor span of floor 8 to sag all along the north face all the way to the east face creating a pull on the core columns towards the north and then , later in the day, also to the east. Wrong.
The fire on floor 8 may have cause the beams on floor 9 to sag.

There was also a fire towards the center of the north face on the 7th floor which puts it in the vicinity of the elevator car that was ejected at the 8th floor.

The ceiling of the 5th floor is the floor of the 6th floor EXCEPT at the area of the initiating event where there is an opening. That would be a weak point in the 6th floor. If the 7th and 8th floor fires are both pulling the core columns, along the north side of the core, towards the north then there is less lateral bracing for columns 79,80,81 at the 2 storey opening just below that area.

IFa slow leak from a crack in the diesel pipe created a pool of fuel in the same area but on the 5th floorA slow leak would be partially captured by the outer containment pipe, directed to the containment vessel and the pumps would be turned off.

that pool would be evaporating into the 5th floor space, with, as Chris likes to point out, little ventilation and thus creating a fairly large fuel air mix. This need not occur in the NE generator room but rather just about anywhere along the north side of the 5th floor. That fuel cloud could eventually make its way to an ignition source on the still smoldering 7th floor (with fires on the 7,8,11,12th floors air would be moving up through the bottom floors of the building) which would create a blast event on the 5th floor pushing the columns 79,80,81 to the east and or north , the same direction they are already being pulled by the sagging 7th and 8th floors. A blast event would blow out thru the louvers as would the smoke from the ensuing fire.
This did not happen.

Columns 79,80,81 shift to the east pulling down on them, they are also suffering some creep at the 11/12th floor fires due to the heavy fires that were there. They are then already shortened at the 12th floor when they are pulled down by the event on the 5-7th floor level Shortened? You are making this stuff up as you go along.
How did these massive columns get shorter?

and while in isolation neither the fire damage at the 12th floor nor the insult at the 5-7th would be enough to cause the columns to fail, the combination of the two does fail them at the 12th floor. There is NO evidence of an 'insult' on the 5 floor near the initiating event.

Quite the contrary, there was NO sign of fire in that area at any time.

If there was a fire there, smoke would be pouring out of the ventilation louvers.

This did not happen.

There is NO reason to think there was a fire in the NE part of floor 5.
The evidence clearly demonstrates that there was no fire there.

[jaydeehess]

You are assuming the elevator cars were ejected by debris from WTC 1 and that this happened just west of the initiating event.

Just dealing with the known factor of elevator cars being ejected Chris and surmising one distinct possibility.

Wrong.
The fire on floor 8 may have cause the beams on floor 9 to sag.

Ok, make it floor 9, anything to help your understanding of this senario along Chris.

A slow leak would be partially captured by the outer containment pipe, directed to the containment vessel and the pumps would be turned off.


No, I am reffering to a crack that allowed a slow leak through both inner and outer pipe but which is not a complete severing of them.

A blast event would blow out thru the louvers as would the smoke from the ensuing fire.
This did not happen.

Its not IN the NE generator room Chris, its in the core area and occurs moments before the east penthouse sinks.

Shortened? You are making this stuff up as you go along.
How did these massive columns get shorter?

Do some research on how steel behaves in fires Chris. The steel heats and attempts to expand but is under axial load so it cannot and instead sags (bunchs up near the ceiling usually, I am sure you have seen the pictures of the fire that occured in the WTC towers years ago in which a column(s?) did exactly this or those in the Cardington tests that did it) under the combination of this load and the more plastic state it is in due to the heat. This is usually not enough to cause failure. When the fire moves on the steel starts to cool and as it does so it contracts which it can do under axial load. what it cannot do it return to the same length it had before sagging and thus is now shorter than it was before being heated.

There is NO evidence of an 'insult' on the 5 floor near the initiating event.

Quite the contrary, there was NO sign of fire in that area at any time.

If there was a fire there, smoke would be pouring out of the ventilation louvers.

Again this occurs just before the collapse occurs Chris.


There is NO reason to think there was a fire in the NE part of floor 5.
The evidence clearly demonstrates that there was no fire there.



No fire Chris, an explosion that occurs just before collapse. No one saw the smoke because this was not an overly powerful explosion but enough to tip the balance and besides you have stated that no one need have seen the explosives you believe in going off either. It does not require that fire be the initiating event, something you state it could not be. Instead it is an extrodinary event that simply would not occur in most steel structure fires.

Hey, I thought you'd be pleased since this senario even includes a source of a "thunderclap" while using info that is well docuemented.

[Christopher7]

That fuel cloud could eventually make its way to an ignition source on the still smoldering 7th floor .... which would create a blast event on the 5th floor pushing the columns 79,80,81 to the east and or north

A blast event would blow out thru the louvers as would the smoke from the ensuing fire.
This did not happen.


Its not IN the NE generator room Chris, its in the core area and occurs moments before the east penthouse sinks.Please

Diesel fumes igniting would not have the explosive force to effect the core columns.

[MRC_Hans]

Please

Diesel fumes igniting would not have the explosive force to effect the core columns.Not directly, but it would exert great force on walls and floors, attached to the core columns. Gas (and fume) explosions have been known to knock down buildings before.

Hans

[The Doc]

I wonder if this thread could remain on the front page for a whole year... I mean, I don't want it to, but I wonder if it will.

[firecoins]

why are people still debating in this thread?

[Christopher7]

Not directly, but it would exert great force on walls and floors, attached to the core columns. Gas (and fume) explosions have been known to knock down buildings before.

HansGreat force?

Natural gas and gasoline fumes are far more volatile than diesel fuel fumes.

If a diesel fuel tank is exposed to fire it could explode.

Diesel fuel fumes in open air will flash over.

Can you site a case of a diesel fuel fume [in open air] explosion?


Jaydehess' hypothesis requires the double wall pipe to fracture in such a way as to spill a large amount of diesel without any being caught by the containment pipe. This is very unlikely.

It is extremely unlikely that both pipes would fracture in the NE generator room and not in the SW generator room.

Someone would have to leave the door open between the NE generator room and the mechanical room. This is also extremely unlikely.

[funk de fino]

Great force?

Natural gas and gasoline fumes are far more volatile than diesel fuel fumes.

If a diesel fuel tank is exposed to fire it could explode.

Diesel fuel fumes in open air will flash over.

Can you site a case of a diesel fuel fume [in open air] explosion?


Jaydehess' hypothesis requires the double wall pipe to fracture in such a way as to spill a large amount of diesel without any being caught by the containment pipe. This is very unlikely.
It is extremely unlikely that both pipes would fracture in the NE generator room and not in the SW generator room.

Someone would have to leave the door open between the NE generator room and the mechanical room. This is also extremely unlikely.

What does your hypothesis require C7?

Something more likely than JDH?

Out with it, you could even start a new thread.

[Christopher7]

What does your hypothesis require C7?

Something more likely than JDH?

Out with it, you could even start a new thread.When left without a leg to stand on, OTers subject shift to "My dog is still bigger than your dog."

Example:
Originally Posted by Christopher7
What i have uncovered after all this time is:
You have nothing.

Response by Belz:
[size=4]You have nothing.
[size=2]
If that is true, then you're left with a negative amount of evidence.


This thread is about the "10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC7" and other false or misleading claims.

If you want to deny the evidence for CD, you may do so here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2902751#post2902751

[funk de fino]

When left without a leg to stand on, OTers subject shift to "My dog is still bigger than your dog."

Example:
Originally Posted by Christopher7
What i have uncovered after all this time is:
You have nothing.

Response by Belz:
[size=4]You have nothing.
[size=2]
If that is true, then you're left with a negative amount of evidence.


This thread is about the "10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC7" and other false or misleading claims.

If you want to deny the evidence for CD, you may do so here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2902751#post2902751


Should that be a column to stand on? Unfortunately for you C7, your dog does not exist.

You admit you are too scared to admit what your theory for the collapse is and if it is more plausible than the one JDH put forward in his post?

The thread you quoted was a joke and you got the smackdown there as well, no evidence again.

back to the OP

Was there a gouge 10 stories high in the face of the WTC7 building? yes or no?

Could this gouge have been reported incorrectly as being further west than it was? yes or no?

Is there any other actual evidence for anything other than DD/F as having caused the collapse of the building? yes or no?

Is it a more plausible hypothesis than the one put forward by JDH. yes or no?

[Christopher7]

Should that be a column to stand on? Unfortunately for you C7, your dog does not exist.Only to those in denial

You admit you are too scared to admit what your theory for the collapse is and if it is more plausible than the one JDH put forward in his post?Wrong
I created a thread to discuss that issue separately

The thread you quoted was a joke and you got the smackdown there as well, no evidence again.
Wrong again.
All evidence of CD is simply denied and dismissed.

back to the OP

Was there a gouge 10 stories high in the face of the WTC7 building? yes or no?
You are a superb sophist.
You intentionally left out the 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7 and ignored the FACT that this graphic shows the 10 story gouge described on pg 18 as being in the middle of the south side.

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/3375/11qd1.jpg

Was there a 10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7 as described on pg 18 and depicted in this graphic?

NO

There was a 20+ story gouge but it is NOT the one described on pg 18 and shown in this graphic as "Approximate region of Impact Damage by WTC 1 debris". You know that.
The 20+ story gouge is in line with the "Roof and Upper Level Debris Damage".

Could this gouge have been reported incorrectly as being further west than it was? yes or no?
It was reported incorrectly as being further EAST than it was.

Is there any other actual evidence for anything other than DD/F as having caused the collapse of the building? yes or no?Yes, but deniers simply deny that evidence and then claim "There is no evidence".

Is it a more plausible hypothesis than the one put forward by JDH. yes or no?http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3154908#post3154908

[funk de fino]

Only to those in denial

Pot-kettle-black

Wrong
I created a thread to discuss that issue separately

explosives? show me the video and sound of these explosives, i do not see them in the other thread

Wrong again.
All evidence of CD is simply denied and dismissed

replace dismissed with non-existant

You are a superb sophist.
You intentionally left out the 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7 and ignored the FACT that this graphic shows the 10 story gouge described on pg 18 as being in the middle of the south side.

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/3375/11qd1.jpg

Was there a 10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7 as described on pg 18 and depicted in this graphic?

NO

While the accounts are mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions: − middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to

So. It is not stated as a fact, is it stating there were conflicting descriptions and this may be one of the conflictions?

I intentionally left nothing out, I was asking a question

There was a 20+ story gouge but it is NOT the one described on pg 18 and shown in this graphic as "Approximate region of Impact Damage by WTC 1 debris". You know that.
The 20+ story gouge is in line with the "Roof and Upper Level Debris Damage

So because this mentions roof and upper level this means that this is the huge gouge we see in the face in photos from top to nearly bottom?

Can it be this is another confliction?

It was reported incorrectly as being further EAST than it was.

Which I meant to say of course, I stand corrected


Yes, but deniers simply deny that evidence and then claim "There is no evidence".

Thats a no then

There is no evidence, you know what would happen if there was dont you?

[Christopher7]

explosives? show me the video and sound of these explosives, i do not see them in the other thread
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3156769#post3156769

So. It is not stated as a fact, is it stating there were conflicting descriptions and this may be one of the conflictions?Yes
The problem is, they used the 10 story gouge statement in their graphic and ignored two other statements in direct conflict with that statement.

Shyam Sunder, a Bush appointee, is the one who quoted that statement and failed to mention the other two statements in his interview for FM.

That's dishonest.

Many people have come to believe there was a huge gouge in the middle of WTC 7 after reading that interview because he withheld the other conflicting statements. Had he included them, people would have known the issue was in question.

It is known that the Bush administration systematically distorts scientific documents.

NIST Apx. L is no exception.


So because this mentions roof and upper level this means that this is the huge gouge we see in the face in photos from top to nearly bottom?It means it is not in the middle of WTC 7, floor 10 to the ground.

Which I meant to say of course, I stand correctedNo worries mate, Been there, done that.

[MRC_Hans]

Great force?

Gas explosions usually make houses collapse. The reason is that although the expansion speed is low compared to a HE, the expansion volume is great.


Natural gas and gasoline fumes are far more volatile than diesel fuel fumes.


That is only a question of temperature. And how volatile they are has no direct bearing on their explosivity, only on the conditions where an explosive situation could arise.


If a diesel fuel tank is exposed to fire it could explode.


Quite possibly, yes. Especially if it is partly empty.


Diesel fuel fumes in open air will flash over.

Can you site a case of a diesel fuel fume [in open air] explosion?


Aerosol bombs. However, since we are discussing a possible explosion inside a building that is irrelevant.

Jaydehess' hypothesis requires the double wall pipe to fracture in such a way as to spill a large amount of diesel without any being caught by the containment pipe. This is very unlikely.

Why is that unlikely? We have a situation where a building is hit by flying debris and takes considerable damage. Why can't pipes suffer multiple breaks, and posibly be displaced?

It is extremely unlikely that both pipes would fracture in the NE generator room and not in the SW generator room.

Why is there to be any connection between what happens in the two rooms?

Someone would have to leave the door open between the NE generator room and the mechanical room. This is also extremely unlikely.

Why? And why could the violent events (debris hitting the building, possible mionor explosions due to fires, etc.) not cause the door to open?

Hans

[funk de fino]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3156769#post3156769

not even close

Yes
The problem is, they used the 10 story gouge statement in their graphic and ignored two other statements in direct conflict with that statement.

I cannot see anywhere on that graphic where it says 10 story gouge. All it says is "possible region". The other statements could also fit that description? Unless you can show me different

Shyam Sunder, a Bush appointee, is the one who quoted that statement and failed to mention the other two statements in his interview for FM.

That's dishonest.

Many people have come to believe there was a huge gouge in the middle of WTC 7 after reading that interview because he withheld the other conflicting statements. Had he included them, people would have known the issue was in question.

They could also wait and read the report and see for themselves, there was a huge gouge in it though so not really misleading or dishonest. Not anymore dishonest than truthers who say there was no damage to WTC7 from the collapse of the towers


It is known that the Bush administration systematically distorts scientific documents.
NIST Apx. L is no exception.

really, so where are the scientists who are shouting about these distortions? are the scientists who did the investigations happy with the distortions?


It means it is not in the middle of WTC 7, floor 10 to the ground.

Not what you claimed. Does this mean this is the gouge we have seen in photos even though it only mentions the roof and upper level?

No worries mate, Been there, done that.

Not when it matters though

one thing C7, please quote me all the times that NIST use "implode" compared to "collapse". Please do not fly back to FEMA again it is very dishonest and dare I say it cherrypicking

[Christopher7]

That is only a question of temperature. And how volatile they are has no direct bearing on their explosivity, only on the conditions where an explosive situation could arise.
Volatile: a substance that evaporates at a relatively low temperature
Gasoline evaporates faster, burns faster and is therefore, more explosive.

Jaydehess' hypothesis requires the double wall pipe to fracture in such a way as to spill a large amount of diesel without any being caught by the containment pipe. This is very unlikely.
Why is that unlikely? We have a situation where a building is hit by flying debris and takes considerable damage. Why can't pipes suffer multiple breaks, and posibly be displaced?
They might have, in the SW generator room, but that's not what i was saying.
Read the statement again.
The fuel was under 50 lbs. of pressure and a break at a welded joint would be somewhat jagged.
The odds that none of the fuel would be caught by the containment pipe are remote.
The odds that the pipe would fracture in the NE generator room at the other end of the building and not in the SW generator room, where the damage was, are remote.

Why? And why could the violent events (debris hitting the building, possible mionor explosions due to fires, etc.) not cause the door to open?
HansOnce again, the odds of that door, at the other end of the building, popping open, are remote.
Do you think every door in the building popped open or just that one?

The hypothesis is a series of extremely unlikely events.

[Christopher7]

I cannot see anywhere on that graphic where it says 10 story gouge. All it says is "possible region". The other statements could also fit that description? Unless you can show me differentThe inner area is 1/4 the width of WTC 7 and the outer area is 1/3 the width.
The depth is consistent with what Shyam Sunder told FM.
On page 23 it is labeled "Possible region" and on pages 31 and 32 it's labeled as "Approximate Region".
In the summary, it lists the damage attributed to this 10 story gouge
as:
"Possible components that may have led to the failure of columns 79, 80, and/or 81 include interior columns 69, 72, 75,78, and 78A"

Given the two statements in direct conflict with the '10 story gouge' statement, including the damage attributed to the '10 story gouge' in the summary is fraudulent.

Many people have come to believe there was a huge gouge in the middle of WTC 7 after reading that interview because he withheld the other conflicting statements. Had he included them, people would have known the issue was in question.
They could also wait and read the report and see for themselves, there was a huge gouge in it though so not really misleading or dishonest.
Wait 2 years to learn about the two conflicting statements?

Most people will not look up and carefully read the NIST report as i did.
No one here noticed the conflict until i pointed it out.

Not anymore dishonest than truthers who say there was no damage to WTC7 from the collapse of the towersIs that your justification for Shyam Sunder's misleading the public?
Some anonymous person said something equally incorrect.
Good God, that's like saying it's OK to lie about reasons for going to war in the State of the Union speech as long as you keep in under 20 words.

really, so where are the scientists who are shouting about these distortions? are the scientists who did the investigations happy with the distortions? http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=technology&res=9A00E2DD133DF93AA25751C0A9629C8B63

Scientists Say Administration Distorts Facts

By JAMES GLANZ
Published: February 19, 2004
More than 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement yesterday asserting that the Bush administration had systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad.


one thing C7, please quote me all the times that NIST use "implode" compared to "collapse". Please do not fly back to FEMA again it is very dishonest and dare I say it cherrypickingFEMA acknowledged that WTC 7 imploded.
You say my quoting FEMA is dishonest.
Please

When making a point, one uses the statements to support that point.
You call it 'cherry picking'. This just an excuse to ignore the facts.

[BenBurch]

FEMA 5-14
The SSB system had two 6,000 gal. tanks.
[The Silverstein system had two 12,000 gal. tanks: OEM one 6,000 gal tank]

Falling debris may have severed pipes in the SW corner of WTC 7, where the SSB, OEM and Silverstein generator rooms were.

There is no reason to think the double wall supply pipe severed completely at the other end of the building while remaining intact where the damage was.

Then, Einstein, it is up to you to tell me where that 40,000+ gallons of fuel went.

I assert that the battery-backed pumps detected a pressure drop in the day tank system and pumped ALL that fuel onto the floor on 5. This needs to be looked into in the design of future fuel systems in high rise towers. (Personally, I think that NG is a more suitable fuel for such uses, for many obvious reasons.)

And I don't think you can prove otherwise - but even if you could, you cannot otherwise account for 40,000 gallons of fuel. And your argument stands or falls on that one point.

[BenBurch]

Gas explosions usually make houses collapse. The reason is that although the expansion speed is low compared to a HE, the expansion volume is great. ...

A house two blocks from here was destroyed by a NG explosion. It was literally reduced to toothpicks. Bits of it wound up in my alley.

[funk de fino]

The inner area is 1/4 the width of WTC 7 and the outer area is 1/3 the width.
The depth is consistent with what Shyam Sunder told FM.
On page 23 it is labeled "Possible region" and on pages 31 and 32 it's labeled as "Approximate Region".
In the summary, it lists the damage attributed to this 10 story gouge
as:
"Possible components that may have led to the failure of columns 79, 80, and/or 81 include interior columns 69, 72, 75,78, and 78A"

Given the two statements in direct conflict with the '10 story gouge' statement, including the damage attributed to the '10 story gouge' in the summary is fraudulent.


The problem is, they used the 10 story gouge statement in their graphic and ignored two other statements in direct conflict with that statement.


No, you claimed the graphic showed the 10 storey gouge and was misleading. The graphic shows possible or approximate damage and has no height or amount of floors, only width and depth. These width and depth could be supported by the conflicting statements. You have not tied the 10 storey gouge to the graphic and it is not fraudulent. The other two descriptions can be used with the graphic also.

This is what the summary states

The initiating event may have included a number of structural components, though the relative role of impact damage and fire need further investigation. Possible components that may have led to the failure of columns 79, 80, and/or 81 include interior columns 69, 72, 75,
78, and 78A, the east transfer girder (which supports column 78A and frames into transfer truss #2), and adjacent framing and floor systems.

This does not mention a 10 storey gouge as being this initiating event cause

Above it however it states this

The damaged floors are less certain, but reports indicatethey occurred between the ground and up to Floors 15 or 20. The extent of damage, bothstructural and to fireproofing, of core framing is not known,

Wait 2 years to learn about the two conflicting statements?

Why not?

Most people will not look up and carefully read the NIST report as i did.
No one here noticed the conflict until i pointed it out.

They wont read it with the total bias you have showed either.

Is that your justification for Shyam Sunder's misleading the public?
Some anonymous person said something equally incorrect.
Good God, that's like saying it's OK to lie about reasons for going to war in the State of the Union speech as long as you keep in under 20 words.

I dont have to justify anything he says, you howver have to justify calling people criminals without evidence


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=technology&res=9A00E2DD133DF93AA25751C0A9629C8B63

Scientists Say Administration Distorts Facts

By JAMES GLANZ
Published: February 19, 2004
More than 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement yesterday asserting that the Bush administration had systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad.

Derail, this is about WTC7, you are quick enough to jump on anyone else for this. Show us where Bush and his administration have distirted the NIST preliminary report into WTC7. Still no proof that the investigators are shouting to the rooftops about Bush distorting the report?


FEMA acknowledged that WTC 7 imploded.
You say my quoting FEMA is dishonest.
Please

NIST do not at any time say it imploded, this in itself is evidence that it could not have been a CD. These are your standards C7 not mine.

When making a point, one uses the statements to support that point.
You call it 'cherry picking'. This just an excuse to ignore the facts

The fact is NIST do not call it an implosion, they call it a collapse, you knew this but did not quote NIST and only FEMA. Why is that?

[Dave Rogers]

Scientists Say Administration Distorts Facts

By JAMES GLANZ
Published: February 19, 2004
More than 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement yesterday asserting that the Bush administration had systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad.

And yet we scientists are all scared to speak out against the Bush administration about 9-11 for fear of losing our jobs. Right.

Dave

[Christopher7]

Then, Einstein, it is up to you to tell me where that 40,000+ gallons of fuel went.The SSB system had two 6,000 gallon tanks. The fate of the rest of the 40,000 gallons is irrelevant.
It is likely that the fuel pipes for the SSB system were severed or fractured in or near the SW generator room where the debris damage was.

I assert that the battery-backed pumps detected a pressure drop in the day tank system and pumped ALL that fuel onto the floor on 5.In the SW generator room.

[Christopher7]

No, you claimed the graphic showed the 10 storey gouge and was misleading. The graphic shows possible or approximate damage and has no height or amount of floors, only width and depth. These width and depth could be supported by the conflicting statements. You have not tied the 10 storey gouge to the graphic and it is not fraudulent.Wrong
Read my post again.
The inner area is 1/4 the width and the outer area is 1/3 the width.
This is consistent with the '10 story gouge' statement.
The depth is consistent with what Shyam Sunder told FM when he described to '10 story gouge'.
There are NO other accounts of damage 30 to 40 feet deep.

This is what the summary states

This does not mention a 10 storey gouge as being this initiating event causeCorrect
It does list the possible damage to columns 69, 72, 75 78 and 78A, depicted in the graphic of the '10 story gouge' as "Possible components that may have led to the failure of columns 79, 80, and/or 81"

I dont have to justify anything he says,
There is no justification for Shyam Sunder to mislead the public by failing to mention the conflicting statements.

Derail, this is about WTC7, you are quick enough to jump on anyone else for this. Show us where Bush and his administration have distirted the NIST preliminary report into WTC7.
I just did.
NIST included the damage attributed to the '10 story gouge' in the summary and ignored the two statements in direct conflict with the '10 story gouge'.
Bush appointee Shyam Sunder mislead the public by failing to mention the statements that were in conflict with the '10 story gouge' in his interview with FM.

NIST do not at any time say it imploded, this in itself is evidence that it could not have been a CD. Hogwash.
What they did not say is not evidence.
You continue to ignore the video evidence and the clear statement by FEMA

The fact is NIST do not call it an implosion, they call it a collapse, you knew this but did not quote NIST and only FEMA. Why is that?FEMA was more specific.
Although NIST did not use the word 'implosion'. this statement on pg L-33 describes what happens in a building implosion.
"The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building. From aerial photos, the debris visible on top of the pile is mostly façade structure. This failure sequence suggests that the interior of the building collapsed before the exterior."

The timeline states the interior collapsed before the exterior, ................... or does it?
NIST L-27
7.0 - West penthouse and screen wall begin to move downward into building
.... - Movement of entire north face of WTC7 (visible above Floor 21)
7.2 - West end of roof starts to move
7.7 - East end of roof starts to move

The video shows the screenwall and west penthouse collapse about 1/2 second BEFORE the north face.

Who proof reads this stuff?

NIST Final 4-5-05
7.0 North side of west penthouse moves
.... Movement of entire north face of WTC7 (visible above floor 21)

Still missing that 1/2 second.



Implosion means "collapsed in on itself"
This is what WTC 7 did.

[funk de fino]

Implosion means "collapsed in on itself"
This is what WTC 7 did.

Stick to NIST C7, you have been happy enough to until it does not suit you?

NIST do not say implode they say collapse therefore by your standards this is proof that it is not CD

Look up implode and collapse in a selection of dictionary and then come back and tell me the very important diference in most definitions when they are applied to buildings. It is very important and distinct.

I will come back monday and see how you do and we will look at your 10 storey lie again

[BenBurch]

The SSB system had two 6,000 gallon tanks. The fate of the rest of the 40,000 gallons is irrelevant.
It is likely that the fuel pipes for the SSB system were severed or fractured in or near the SW generator room where the debris damage was.

Fool.

46,000 gallons on a flat floor with hallways.

Where do you suppose it's going to go?

Obviously it will stay right where you spilled it, forming walls of fuel at the doorways of that room like some sort of alien living fluid.

That fuel was pumped.

That fuel was pumped into the building.

That fuel Most likely burned and weakened Column 79.

Unless you have some other means of accounting for 46000 gallons of fuel that defies modern physics?

[jaydeehess]

The SSB system had two 6,000 gallon tanks. The fate of the rest of the 40,000 gallons is irrelevant.
It is likely that the fuel pipes for the SSB system were severed or fractured in or near the SW generator room where the debris damage was.

In the SW generator room.

First of all you have no evidence with which to state such a thing unequivocally. It may or may not be more likely that a fracture would occur at the SW end. It is also possible that such a fracture occured at more than one point(which would preclude any trouble with fuel in the outer pipe).

Gee, Chris, it seems that some more in depth investigation of this should be done if at all possible. It is after all quite relevent where that 40,000 gallons of fuel went, if not juts for the determination of how WTC 7's fate came about but in order to make determinations about future construction.

As for a fuel-air explosion. If the fuel was spilled into the open area of the 5th floor then that area is in essence the same as an almost empty fuel tanl. That is the most explosive condition available.

You contend that a fuel cloud would 'flash over'. If that were true diesel fuel would be more useful in heating a steam engine rather than in driving a piston downward. In fact diesel contains more explosive energy than does gasoline which is one reason it is used to power engines on bigger vehicles.

[Christopher7]

Fool.You see in other people what you are yourself.

46,000 gallons on a flat floor with hallways.

Where do you suppose it's going to go?Probably on the first floor seein' is how that where the tanks were.

Obviously it will stay right where you spilled it, forming walls of fuel at the doorways of that room like some sort of alien living fluid.Judy Woods has that one covered.

That fuel was pumped.

That fuel was pumped into the building.
Correct
That fuel Most likely burned and weakened Column 79.
Incorrect
The fuel spill was most likely in the SW generator room, where the debris damage was, not in the opposite corner of the building.
It is extremely unlikely that the diesel fuel spilled in the NE generator room.
There is no evidence to support that hypothesis.
There was no evidence of a fire in that area and no reason to believe there was one.

[Christopher7]

Stick to NIST C7, you have been happy enough to until it does not suit you?Although i have come to know and love that insipid piece of misleading dribble [NIST L] for the little hypothesis busting pearls of fact it contains, i still quote the half baked farce [FEMA 5] and other documents as they also contain valuable data.
Broaden your horizons Funk. Think outside the NIST.

NIST do not say implode they say collapse therefore by your standards this is proof that it is not CDNo

Look up implode and collapse in a selection of dictionary and then come back and tell me the very important diference in most definitions when they are applied to buildings. It is very important and distinct.Words have more than one meaning sometimes.
Implosion has become the vernacular for a controlled demolition that causes a building to collapse mostly within it's original footprint.
NOVA: A common misconception is that you blow buildings up. That's not really the case, is it?
Stacy Loizeaux: No. The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do.

Implode, when used to describe a building collapse, means a controlled demolition because every high rise building that has ever imploded was a controlled demolition.

[funk de fino]

Although i have come to know and love that insipid piece of misleading dribble [NIST L] for the little hypothesis busting pearls of fact it contains, i still quote the half baked farce [FEMA 5] and other documents as they also contain valuable data.
Broaden your horizons Funk. Think outside the NIST.

NIST does not support your implosion so you ignore. Cherrypicking, pure and simple.

No

Yes, exactly the reasoning you have used earlier. It says collapse and does not say implode.

Words have more than one meaning sometimes.
Implosion has become the vernacular for a controlled demolition that causes a building to collapse mostly within it's original footprint.
NOVA: A common misconception is that you blow buildings up. That's not really the case, is it?
Stacy Loizeaux: No. The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do.

Implode, when used to describe a building collapse, means a controlled demolition because every high rise building that has ever imploded was a controlled demolition.

Dictionary definitions please, dont make me go and get them you should be able to tell me the difference between collapse and implode when it comes to buildings. I know why you are avoiding it.

[Christopher7]

NIST does not support your implosion so you ignore.MY implosion?
You cannot assume NIST does not support FEMA's conclusion just because they don't use the word implosion.

NIST L-33
The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building. From aerial photos, the debris visible on top of the pile is mostly façade structure. This failure sequence suggests that the interior of the building collapsed before the exterior.

The videos clearly show the interior falling before the exterior.
When the interior collapses first, the building falls in on itself.

This is a description of a building implosion.

Yes, exactly the reasoning you have used earlier. It says collapse and does not say implode.Are you saying WTC 7 did not implode?

Dictionary definitions please, dont make me go and get them you should be able to tell me the difference between collapse and implode when it comes to buildings. I know why you are avoiding it.Are you calling Stacy Loizeaux a liar?:mad:

Seriously, Sophie

All building implosions are collapses but
not all collapses are implosions.


Again, are you saying WTC 7 did not implode?

[funk de fino]

MY implosion?
You cannot assume NIST does not support FEMA's conclusion just because they don't use the word implosion.

NIST L-33
The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building. From aerial photos, the debris visible on top of the pile is mostly façade structure. This failure sequence suggests that the interior of the building collapsed before the exterior.

The videos clearly show the interior falling before the exterior.
When the interior collapses first, the building falls in on itself.

This is a description of a building implosion.

But NIST describe it as a collapse, this is their conclusion, or are you putting words in their mouth?

Are you saying WTC 7 did not implode?

im·plode (m-pld)
v. im·plod·ed, im·plod·ing, im·plodes
v.intr.
To collapse inward violently.
v.tr.
1. To cause to collapse inward violently.
2. To demolish (a building) by causing to collapse inward

col·lapse (k-lps)
v. col·lapsed, col·laps·ing, col·laps·es
v.intr.
1. To fall down or inward suddenly; cave in.
2. To break down suddenly in strength or health and thereby cease to function: a monarchy that collapsed.
3. To fold compactly: chairs that collapse for storage.
v.tr.
To cause to fold, break down, or fall down or inward.
n.
1. The act of falling down or inward, as from loss of supports.
2. An abrupt failure of function, strength, or health; a breakdown.
3. An abrupt loss of perceived value or of effect: the collapse of popular respect for the integrity of world leaders

As you can see these descriptions are interchangable in general. Collapse and implode both mean to fall down and can both be used. However implode is generally used in CD and you have no proof of CD therefore collapse is the correct term. Note the use of demolish in implode definition that it not used in collapse.

By all means use implode if it tickles you but unless you find evidence of CD you could also use collapse.

Are you calling Stacy Loizeaux a liar?:mad:

Seriously, Sophie

Show me where I did this. Did Stacy say WTC7 was a CD?

All building implosions are collapses but
not all collapses are implosions.

See above definition, the WTC7 was a collapse inward.

Again, are you saying WTC 7 did not implode?

Are you saying it did not collapse? I say it collapsed and so do NIST.

[Dave Rogers]

Implode, when used to describe a building collapse, means a controlled demolition because every high rise building that has ever imploded was a controlled demolition.

We've seen a lot of Creationist arguments and techniques adopted by the truth movement, so I suppose it was only a matter of time before someone resorted to the ontological argument.

Dave

[Christopher7]

But NIST describe it as a collapse,
An implosion IS a collapse of a particular kind.
this is their conclusion, or are you putting words in their mouth? Are you removing the word implosion from FEMA's mouth?

As you can see these descriptions are interchangable in general. Collapse and implode both mean to fall down and can both be used. However implode is generally used in CDExactly
No high rise building has ever imploded that was not a CD.

and you have no proof of CD therefore collapse is the correct term.
Implode means 'fall in on itself' and that's what WTC 7 did.
It fell in on itself and mostly straight down, leaving a debris pile mostly within the original footprint of the building.
This can only happen by design.
It is a fine art.
It cannot happen by chance.

Millions of people consider this to be proof.
At very least, it is clear evidence of a controlled demolition.



By all means use implode if it tickles you but unless you find evidence of CD you could also use collapse.Which ever word you use, WTC 7 fell in on it self a manner and speed consistent with a professional building implosion.

Show me where I did this. That was satire mate ;)
Did Stacy say WTC7 was a CD?Possibly, i don't know. :rolleyes:

[funk de fino]

An implosion IS a collapse of a particular kind.
Yes, a particular kind and you have no proof it was this type of implosion

I note you completely ignore the definitons I gave you. Collapse is the correct definition to use unless you have direct proof it was CD.

Are you removing the word implosion from FEMA's mouth?

No, I am using the experts own words, you seem to dislike using them and revert to cherrypicking again. Why are NIST investigating this collapse?

Exactly
No high rise building has ever imploded that was not a CD.

Poor reasoning C7, just because something has not happened before it is impossible? I have seen CD that do not use explosives and do not bring down the building into its own footprint, in fact, very far from its own footprint. By your reasoning this could not be CD?

Implode means 'fall in on itself' and that's what WTC 7 did.
It fell in on itself and mostly straight down, leaving a debris pile mostly within the original footprint of the building.
This can only happen by design.
It is a fine art.
It cannot happen by chance.

The building did not collapse that day by chance unless you say it was chance that it was hit and damaged by debris and then became involved with fire that was not fought. You are making grand claims again about only with design and have nothing to prove it.

Millions of people consider this to be proof.
At very least, it is clear evidence of a controlled demolition

Oh, really, millions? Where are they? Were they at GZ this year? Only a few thousand deluded fools with no ability to use reasoning and logic believe this.

The only evidence is that the building collapsed inward and downward.


Which ever word you use, WTC 7 fell in on it self a manner and speed consistent with a professional building implosion.

What professional company would have carried out this world record demolition then C7? (Using silent explosives remember)

There are surely only 2 or 3 people who could have taken on a task of this magnitude?


That was satire mate ;)
Possibly, i don't know. :rolleyes:

Loizeaux say its CD or not? If so, who do they think could have done it?

[BenBurch]

That fuel was pumped onto the fifth floor and most likely flooded that floor with fuel, from end to end.

It then absolutely burned there and you are in serious denial...

[contra]

I just viewed a conspiracy video about bombs also being planted at the WTC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc&feature=related

With all the eyewitness reports, wrong information and general panic of the days events (the video is totally made up of the news from that day) were these interesting bits of information.

Audio of a reporter with firefighters saying that they were staring at a burning building.
They then talk about the WTC building that has had the front of it removed, rumbling then a chunk lands in the street.

A reporter talking about explosions and being at west broadway...

They have videos of reporters who were in a WTC that heard explosions and were told to remove due to threat it would collapse (at around 1030 am)

These all sounds like news reports of WTC 7 damage.

[Christopher7]

Yes, a particular kind and you have no proof it was this type of implosion.

I note you completely ignore the definitons I gave you. Collapse is the correct definition to use unless you have direct proof it was CD.

No, I am using the experts own words, you seem to dislike using them and revert to cherrypicking again.
You argue endlessly about definitions of words.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

WTC 7 collapsed in on itself and landed mostly in it's own footprint.
It is extremely difficult to get a building to fall in on itself and land mostly in it's own footprint.
Only a few companies can do it.
It cannot happen by chance.

The building did not collapse that day by chance unless you say it was chance that it was hit and damaged by debris and then became involved with fire that was not fought.The debris damage was to the south west face and would not cause the building to fall in on itself starting at the east end.

The only evidence is that the building collapsed inward and downward.at a speed and manner consistent with a professional building implosion.

What professional company would have carried out this world record demolition then C7? I don't know.

I do know that the US military invented controlled demolition and no doubt has state of the art equipment.

[Disbelief]

I do know that the US military invented controlled demolition and no doubt has state of the art equipment.

Where do you get this? What I have found is that it predates the US military and has little/nothing to do with military in general. Why would those responsible for bringing down huge buildings (like demo companies), which the US military does not do with CDs, not have state of the art. JMarshall should be able to answer better, but the US military would have equipment capable of doing the job and nothing more. Try serving and tell me everything is state of the art.

[phunk]

It is extremely difficult to get a building to fall in on itself and land mostly in it's own footprint.

No, it's not. What's difficult is doing that without damaging surrounding buildings, which is not what happened on 9/11. All of the surrounding buildings were heavily damaged.

[funk de fino]

I do know that the US military invented controlled demolition and no doubt has state of the art equipment.

Complete rubbish

So now members of the US army are responsible for this collapse? They are now the world record holders in building demolition?

i have snipped the rest because i am fed up with you snipping out questions that are inconvenient to you so will only look at this one huge mistake you have made

Is it possible to have a controlled demolition without explosives and purposely not landing the building in its own footprint?

and did the US army invent this?

[Christopher7]

So now members of the US army are responsible for this collapse? They are now the world record holders in building demolition?

What part of "I don't know." don't you understand?


Is it possible to have a controlled demolition without explosives:D

and purposely not landing the building in its own footprint?:boggled:

[Blender Head]

Wiki's frontpage has WTC 7 as its featured article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

[Christopher7]

Wiki's frontpage has WTC 7 as its featured article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_PageI was just looking at that
The author is LYING !
"The original 7 World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11 due to the combined effect of structural and fire damage."

NIST said it "appears possible"

[funk de fino]

:D

:boggled:

Are you too scared to answer? You dont know do you? I do.

I also know the US army did not invent CD, you are incorrect in a large way.

Care to admit your mistake?

Come on mr expert in CD, answer the above?

[funk de fino]

I was just looking at that
The author is LYING !
"The original 7 World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11 due to the combined effect of structural and fire damage."

NIST said it "appears possible"

I note your lack of use of the Implosion word in this instance? The author at least got that correct.

[Dave Rogers]

What part of "I don't know." don't you understand?


The part where you don't use it more often.

Dave

[Christopher7]

Is it possible to have a controlled demolition without explosives
and purposely not landing the building in its own footprint?
Are you too scared to answer? You dont know do you? I do. Your question was funny.
[answer: no and no]

I also know the US army did not invent CD, you are incorrect in a large way.
Care to admit your mistake?I could be wrong on that one.
The Army started with bridges in WWII and continued to develop the art.
Do you know of anything that predates that?


BTW
WTC 7 collapsed in on itself and landed mostly in it's own footprint.

It is extremely difficult to get a building to fall in on itself and land mostly in it's own footprint.

Only a few companies can do it.

It cannot happen by chance.

[Christopher7]

The part where you don't use it more often.

Dave:D

[funk de fino]

Your question was funny.
[answer: no and no]

No and No to what? The first question or just the second?

I'll repeat. A straight No will do?

Is it possible to have a controlled demolition without explosives
and purposely not landing the building in its own footprint?




I could be wrong on that one.
The Army started with bridges in WWII and continued to develop the art.
Do you know of anything that predates that?

Controlled demolition has been ongoing for years prior to that and you should know it before making grand claims. I suspect you are being one dimensional in your CD thinking.

BTW
WTC 7 collapsed in on itself and landed mostly in it's own footprint.

It is extremely difficult to get a building to fall in on itself and land mostly in it's own footprint.

Only a few companies can do it.

It cannot happen by chance.

BTW if it hadnt landed mostly in its own footprint would it still be a CD?

If its really that difficult especially with one of the biggest and tallest ever jobs, who could have done it? Not the Army, they do not have the experience. Therefore it leaves you one option. It must have been one of the top three or so companies in the US. So which one?

[jaydeehess]

The only reason given for the supposed implosion was to avoid too much damage to non-WTC buildings.

So what I am getting here is that if TPTB could make the building drop anywhere they wanted to then the most logical thing to have done would have been to drop it towards the south. That would not only have it moving in the direction of the most debris damage but also make sure that it only impacts WTC 5(or is it 6?) accross the street, a building that would already be damaged beyond any hope of repair.

Surely the supposed planners do not give a ding about any further loss of life. After all they just killed thousands in the towers.

[Christopher7]

The only reason given for the supposed implosion was to avoid too much damage to non-WTC buildings.

So what I am getting here is that if TPTB could make the building drop anywhere they wanted to then the most logical thing to have done would have been to drop it towards the south. That would not only have it moving in the direction of the most debris damage but also make sure that it only impacts WTC 5(or is it 6?) accross the street, a building that would already be damaged beyond any hope of repair.

Surely the supposed planners do not give a ding about any further loss of life. After all they just killed thousands in the towers.Reverse logic

I can't figure out how they did it, therefore it couldn't be a CD.

I can't figure out why they did it, therefore it couldn't be a CD.

I can't figure out why they made it fall straight down instead of over, therefore it couldn't be a CD.

[Christopher7]

No and No to what? The first question or just the second?

I'll repeat. A straight No will do?No


Controlled demolition has been ongoing for years prior to that Source?

BTW if it hadnt landed mostly in its own footprint would it still be a CD?
Yes

If its really that difficult especially with one of the biggest and tallest ever jobs, who could have done it? Not the Army, they do not have the experience. What makes you think they don't?

Therefore it leaves you one option. It must have been one of the top three or so companies in the US. So which one?I don't know.

[funk de fino]

No

Fred Dibnah, no explosives, outside the footprint, on purpose

Source? Wheres yours for the fact the Army invented it?

The history page at Implosion world is my source but I think you already knew that (you did point me there before)

Yes

So if it has similarities to a CD it is a CD and if it has things different from a CD it is still a CD. I guess you have all bases covered there eh?

What makes you think they don't?

Why dont you ask them? I think you know the answer though.

I don't know.

You're nothing if not predictable

[Dave Rogers]

Reverse logic

I can't figure out how they did it, therefore it couldn't be a CD.

I can't figure out why they did it, therefore it couldn't be a CD.

I can't figure out why they made it fall straight down instead of over, therefore it couldn't be a CD.

I can't figure out how the fire made the columns fail, therefore it must be a CD.

I can't figure out why the collapse started in the eastern half of the building, therefore it must be a CD.

I can't figure out why the building fell straight down instead of falling over, therefore it must be a CD.

Any of that look familiar?

Dave

[jaydeehess]

I can't figure out how the fire made the columns fail, therefore it must be a CD.

I can't figure out why the collapse started in the eastern half of the building, therefore it must be a CD.

I can't figure out why the building fell straight down instead of falling over, therefore it must be a CD.

Any of that look familiar?

Dave


Dave is quite correct Christopher, you cannot simply apply that logic only to one side of the arguement.

Now the first two subjects are engineering based and given enough information such matters could, in theory, be figured out.

The last one though does not require an engineering analysis. It is a strictly logic based arguement. If one assumes a giant conspiracy of extreme sabotage and treason one must also expect an extreme amount of planning that would include, as one of its basic items, a course of action that would preclude suspicion that this was a highly treasonous act.

Such a plan would not have any condition concerning the limiting of causualties. It would be highly illogical to expect that the planners were prepared to kill thousands in the towers but only the towers (as far as the actions in Manhattan are concerned) while desiring to limit them anywhere outside of the WTC complex.

While it is also illogical to expect that the planners would desire to limit collateral damage outside the WTC complex this has been given as the reason for the implosion of WTC 7 largely into its own footprint. It is barely within the realm of possibility that this was indeed a consideration.

However, now one has to wonder why the building would be brought down into itself rather than to the south and onto the wreckage of the previously destroyed buildings. Certainly dropping the building to the south would be more likely to ensure less collateral damage to surrounding buildings other than those already damaged beyond repair..

Secondly it would also add to the supposed cover-up by having the building fall towards the original impact damaged side.

So it defies logic to assume that the planners deliberatly dropped the building into itself as it would be counter productive to the 'plan'.

[twinstead]

This thread has blown a 10 story hole in my brain

[jaydeehess]

This thread has blown a 10 story hole in my brain

Big brained braggart.:D

[twinstead]

Big brained braggart.:D

Well, not to toot my own horn, but I forgot to mention it could survive a 10 story gouge with no ill-effects. ;)

[jaydeehess]

Well, not to toot my own horn, but I forgot to mention it could survive a 10 story gouge with no ill-effects. ;)

You mean aside from that minor forgetfullness...........:D

[GStan]

I don't want to let this thread end! I have been a conspiracy buff for a long time, and I have been reading about 9/11 for the past year, but I just discovered the JREF about 3 weeks ago.

I have used my available leisure time over the past couple of weeks to read virtually all 4000+ posts in this thread. Given the ‘progress’ that has been made, I’m unsure as to whether I should be proud of myself for that or embarrassed about it. Regardless, I have enjoyed the thought-provoking and mostly-civil debate that is often difficult to find elsewhere on the web.

I just wanted to comment that I believe Chris7 is an intelligent skilled debater, staying, for the most part, on the original thread points, choosing words carefully, making a fairly convincing argument. (Except for the ‘fake NIST photo’ debacle.) I think you would make a fine criminal defense lawyer, in that, to be successful, one would not be required to prove anything definitively in the defendant's favor, but rather only to cast enough reasonable doubt of the evidence to get the defendant set free.

Your three primary points from your original post (paraphrasing): there is no 10 story gouge in the south face, no evidence of debris damage in the area of the initiating event and no evidence of diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event (AIE) are completely accurate and cannot be disputed. It is an indisputable fact that there are conflicting descriptions of the dimensions of the south face damage. It is an indisputable fact that there is no known direct evidence of structural damage to the AIE. It is an indisputable fact that there is no known direct evidence of a diesel fire in the AIE. You’ve won the debate on these three points. Congratulations.

However, the conclusions you have chosen to draw from these statements (debris damage and fuel fires did not contribute to the collapse) are not sufficiently supported. The additional assumptions that must be made are too great. Evidence, with respect to damage and fires, is either that which has been observed and reported by witnesses or that which has been documented in photos and videos. To make the leap from “no evidence of debris damage or fire in AIE” to “definitively no debris damage or fire in AIE” you must assume that ALL of the debris damage and fire is KNOWN and that NONE of it is UNKNOWN. You must assume that ALL of the debris damage and fire progression was observed, reported and documented and that NO DAMAGE OR FIRE went undetected by the witnesses and cameras. A 110 story building falling onto a 47 story building is not an event that would produce predictable results. It is a random and chaotic event. Your assumption that the entirety of the damage and fire progression is observed and known is an unreasonable assumption. I accept your analysis that NIST does not/will not have sufficient evidence to irrefutably prove the DD/F hypothesis, but I reject your conclusions based on your unreasonable assumptions. While the evidence for DD/F is admittedly somewhat hampered by unknowns, there is no evidence at all for CD.

Looking forward to continuing this and other debate topics.

[jaydeehess]

welcome GStan and a nice post. However I would dispute some of your points.(would you expect otherwise;) )

Your three primary points from your original post (paraphrasing): there is no 10 story gouge in the south face, no evidence of debris damage in the area of the initiating event and no evidence of diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event (AIE) are completely accurate and cannot be disputed.

Actually the non-existance of the 10 storey hole can be disputed.

It is an indisputable fact that there are conflicting descriptions of the dimensions of the south face damage.

,,, and that is one reason why it can.

It is an indisputable fact that there is no known direct evidence of structural damage to the AIE.

Except that the elevator cars were ejected and could very well be relatively close to the (as you put it) AIE and be indicative of impact damge to the core of the building. That makes it less than "indisputable".

It is an indisputable fact that there is no known direct evidence of a diesel fire in the AIE.

Once again we know that there were several thousand gallons of liquid fuel missing and that fuel had a path to the AIE which makes the no diesel fire contention at the very least, slightly less than "indisputable".

[GStan]

JDH
Thank you for the reply. I have read through this entire thread and I have found you to be one of the most coherent and logically grounded thinkers in the forum. With that in mind, I can't believe that in only my second post ever, I am going to disagree with you in support of Christopher.

The point I was trying to make, which I sure was not lost on you, was that agreement with Christopher's three primary issues identified in the NIST report need not be necessarily in conflict with the DD/F hypothesis. It is merely an acknowlegement of a lack of verified/verifiable evidence in certain areas.

I don't know how to put previous post quotes in yet, so I'll just restate. With respect to the debris damage, you and I are in agreement that the ejected elevator cars could very well have damaged or be an indication of damage to the core columns in the AIE, however, their is no report that someone actually observed column damage. This is consistent with Christopher's analysis of the NIST report, yet not necessarily inconsistent with a DD/F hypothesis. It may be just splitting hairs, but a careless reader could easily see "no evidence of core column damage" and misconstrue it as "evidence that there was no core column damage." There is simply no evidence in either direction.

As for the fuel fires, I think Chris's "no evidence of AIE diesel fires" is technically 100% correct. You and I agree that a diesel line runs through the AIE and could have fractured in that area. But no one actually observed that to be the case. Again, hairsplitting, but you'll come to find that I can be bit anal about details from time to time.

As far as the gouge goes, I am conceding to Chris that the dimensions from the NIST report that he pointed out as inaccurate, are probably inaccurate, based on conflicting descriptions. Again, you and I agree that there was still a biga$$ hole somewhere near the center of the south face.

Thanks again for the welcome.

Do JREF newbies get formally hazed/initiated?

[jaydeehess]

I don't know how to put previous post quotes in yet,

Use the "post reply" button rather than the quick post, you'll see buttons appear that will allow you to insert a cut n' paste from somewhere else in quotes or a link to another url

You can also hit the button on someone's post that sayes "quote" and the reply you create will contain that previous post in quotes.

My main point of contention is C7's statements that such and such simply cannot be. I am sure you have seen my railing against his definitive statements.

Do JREF newbies get formally hazed/initiated?

Not unless the say sumtin stoopid. You ain't done so thus far. You might get jumped if you do though.:D

[GT/CS]

GStan, you keep using "DD/F hypothesis". I find that to be an interesting choice of words. Do you consider it to be only a hypothesis and not reality?

Why do you think the building fell?

Was it:
Debris damage?
Fire?
Inadequate design?
Poor construction?
CD?
Any or all of the above?

[GStan]

Duplicate, deleted.

[GStan]

GStan, you keep using "DD/F hypothesis". I find that to be an interesting choice of words. Do you consider it to be only a hypothesis and not reality?

I noticed in reading this thread that that term has been used a few times by Christopher. My personal belief is that DD/F is what actually doomed the building, but as a critical thinker and debater I want to hold myself to the same standards of logic/assumptions/evidence/burden of proof/etc. that I am going to hold Chris or any other CT to. Thus, I just think it's prudent for now to call it a hypothesis.

Why do you think the building fell?

Was it:
Debris damage?
Fire?
Inadequate design?
Poor construction?
CD?
Any or all of the above?

I have no relevant technical expertise on which to base a guess. (And I'm grateful for the free education I've received from a few of the obviously competent technical JREF members.) From a layman's perspective, IMHO, I think there was probably more debris damage to the building than could be observed by those on the scene and that the overall structural integrity was sufficiently weakened and compromised that it was doomed by fire, diesel or no diesel, simply because the fires were not fought at all. I have ruled nothing out, however. I don't think it is impossible that it was a CD. I could be convinced that it was, but I haven't seen any evidence at all that it happened that way.

[Christopher7]

Fred Dibnah, no explosives, outside the footprint, on purposeNiel Bush, in the elevator shafts and mechanical rooms, with C4!

Wheres yours for the fact the Army invented it?Who cares?
You do love to go off on tangents.

So if it has similarities to a CD it is a CD and if it has things different from a CD it is still a CD. I guess you have all bases covered there eh?
You got it Buba.
Seriously, Not all implosions go exactly to plan.
Hudson's building was 439' tall and had a much larger footprint, yet some damage was done to a nearby Tramway.
WTC 7 was 576' tall and only 140' front to back.
It fell in on itself and landed mostly in it's own footprint.
The north wall buckled out and creamed 30 W. Broadway. So what?

Damage to surrounding buildings was not a consideration.

[Christopher7]

I can't figure out how the fire made the columns fail, therefore it must be a CD.

I can't figure out why the collapse started in the eastern half of the building, therefore it must be a CD.

I can't figure out why the building fell straight down instead of falling over, therefore it must be a CD.

Any of that look familiar?

DaveNo

[Sporanox]

I have no relevant technical expertise on which to base a guess. (And I'm grateful for the free education I've received from a few of the obviously competent technical JREF members.) From a layman's perspective, IMHO, I think there was probably more debris damage to the building than could be observed by those on the scene and that the overall structural integrity was sufficiently weakened and compromised that it was doomed by fire, diesel or no diesel, simply because the fires were not fought at all. I have ruled nothing out, however. I don't think it is impossible that it was a CD. I could be convinced that it was, but I haven't seen any evidence at all that it happened that way.

Against a CD...

Lack of explosive sounds...

Lack of motive...

And of course, as you mentioned, lack of evidence...

-Sporanox

[funk de fino]

Niel Bush, in the elevator shafts and mechanical rooms, with C4!

You were wrong then?

Who cares?
You do love to go off on tangents.

You make a claim that is false and you say I'm off on a tangent?

You got it Buba.
Seriously, Not all implosions go exactly to plan.
Hudson's building was 439' tall and had a much larger footprint, yet some damage was done to a nearby Tramway.
WTC 7 was 576' tall and only 140' front to back.
It fell in on itself and landed mostly in it's own footprint.
The north wall buckled out and creamed 30 W. Broadway. So what?

Damage to surrounding buildings was not a consideration.

So basically whatever evidence is presented, because it looks like a CD you will always think it was. Way to go critical boy!

[Christopher7]

I don't want to let this thread end! I have been a conspiracy buff for a long time, and I have been reading about 9/11 for the past year, but I just discovered the JREF about 3 weeks ago.

I have used my available leisure time over the past couple of weeks to read virtually all 4000+ posts in this thread. Given the ‘progress’ that has been made, I’m unsure as to whether I should be proud of myself for that or embarrassed about it. Regardless, I have enjoyed the thought-provoking and mostly-civil debate that is often difficult to find elsewhere on the web.

I just wanted to comment that I believe Chris7 is an intelligent skilled debater, staying, for the most part, on the original thread points, choosing words carefully, making a fairly convincing argument.

<snip>

Looking forward to continuing this and other debate topics.Thank you for your kind words.

To make the leap from “no evidence of debris damage or [diesel fuel] fire in AIE” to “definitively no debris damage or [diesel fuel] fire in AIE” you must assume that ALL of the debris damage and fire is KNOWN and that NONE of it is UNKNOWN.It impossible to prove a negative so that argument doesn't hold up.
NIST interviewed over 100 witnesses and they have photos of the south east side of WTC 7.
If there was significant damage there, they would have published the photos.
The fact that they published photos of every other side and angle except the south east side, is evidence of a cover up. [to anyone not in denial]

There is no reason to think there was a diesel fuel fire in the NE generator room or mechanical room.
There is clear evidence that there was not.
The 5th & 6th floors had ventilation louvers. These would only be closed in a blizzard, if then.

Diesel fuel fires produce a lot of heavy black smoke.
There was no sign of smoke in or near the NE generator room or mechanical room at any time.

[Miragememories]

I don't want to let this thread end! I have been a conspiracy buff for a long time, and I have been reading about 9/11 for the past year, but I just discovered the JREF about 3 weeks ago.

I have used my available leisure time over the past couple of weeks to read virtually all 4000+ posts in this thread. Given the ‘progress’ that has been made, I’m unsure as to whether I should be proud of myself for that or embarrassed about it. Regardless, I have enjoyed the thought-provoking and mostly-civil debate that is often difficult to find elsewhere on the web.

I just wanted to comment that I believe Chris7 is an intelligent skilled debater, staying, for the most part, on the original thread points, choosing words carefully, making a fairly convincing argument. (Except for the ‘fake NIST photo’ debacle.) I think you would make a fine criminal defense lawyer, in that, to be successful, one would not be required to prove anything definitively in the defendant's favor, but rather only to cast enough reasonable doubt of the evidence to get the defendant set free.

Your three primary points from your original post (paraphrasing): there is no 10 story gouge in the south face, no evidence of debris damage in the area of the initiating event and no evidence of diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event (AIE) are completely accurate and cannot be disputed. It is an indisputable fact that there are conflicting descriptions of the dimensions of the south face damage. It is an indisputable fact that there is no known direct evidence of structural damage to the AIE. It is an indisputable fact that there is no known direct evidence of a diesel fire in the AIE. You’ve won the debate on these three points. Congratulations.

However, the conclusions you have chosen to draw from these statements (debris damage and fuel fires did not contribute to the collapse) are not sufficiently supported. The additional assumptions that must be made are too great. Evidence, with respect to damage and fires, is either that which has been observed and reported by witnesses or that which has been documented in photos and videos. To make the leap from “no evidence of debris damage or fire in AIE” to “definitively no debris damage or fire in AIE” you must assume that ALL of the debris damage and fire is KNOWN and that NONE of it is UNKNOWN. You must assume that ALL of the debris damage and fire progression was observed, reported and documented and that NO DAMAGE OR FIRE went undetected by the witnesses and cameras. A 110 story building falling onto a 47 story building is not an event that would produce predictable results. It is a random and chaotic event. Your assumption that the entirety of the damage and fire progression is observed and known is an unreasonable assumption. I accept your analysis that NIST does not/will not have sufficient evidence to irrefutably prove the DD/F hypothesis, but I reject your conclusions based on your unreasonable assumptions. While the evidence for DD/F is admittedly somewhat hampered by unknowns, there is no evidence at all for CD.

Looking forward to continuing this and other debate topics.

Another lawyer saying "yes but!"

We all know once a mind is made up it becomes a matter of selecting any argument that feels comfortable.

I reject your argument as based solely on a desire to believe that which you wish to believe.

MM

[cloudshipsrule]

The fact that they published photos of every other side and angle except the south east side, is evidence of a cover up. [to anyone not in denial]

Or, it could simply be evidence that current camera technologies prohibit individuals from taking photographs of objects which are on the back side of a heavy layer of black/gray smoke.

Take your pick.

[twinstead]

I reject your argument as based solely on a desire to believe that which you wish to believe.


I find this more than a little ironic.

[Randy Mott]

You folks keep missing a simple point. Every NY Fire Department supervisor on the site of WTC7 concluded that it was likely to collapse before any of the alleged CT "events" took place. You can go over descriptions or accounts of witnesses, etc. but it basically does not contradict the EMPIRICAL FACT that the Fire Dept. drew this conclusion from information that they had at the time.

This means that they all had to be "in on it" if the collapse was not from the attributed causes- damage due to the towers falling. All of these veterans fire fighters who saw their colleagues die in the towers that day had to be lying about WTC7.

The chances of that occurring and being a realistic premise? Right around zero.

Randy

[cloudshipsrule]

Randy,

That has been brought up numerous times, and simply ignored by the movement. It makes perfect sense to me, and is simply one of many factors which lead me to conclude the towers fell because a friggin' airliner laden with fuel slammed into them at hundreds of miles an hour.

I think the problem is that some individuals think this was some trivial collision, like a bug on the windshield of a moving vehicle. They've no idea the scale of the transfer of energy which occured during those impacts.

[GStan]

We all know once a mind is made up it becomes a matter of selecting any argument that feels comfortable.

I reject your argument as based solely on a desire to believe that which you wish to believe.

MM

MM
Thanks so much for that invaluable contribution to this debate.;)
The next time you leave the house, do yourself a favor. Purchase a mirror.
Then stare into it and repeat the above sentences until the truth sinks in.

[jaydeehess]

Seriously, Not all implosions go exactly to plan.
Hudson's building was 439' tall and had a much larger footprint, yet some damage was done to a nearby Tramway.
WTC 7 was 576' tall and only 140' front to back.
It fell in on itself and landed mostly in it's own footprint.
The north wall buckled out and creamed 30 W. Broadway. So what?

Damage to surrounding buildings was not a consideration.


If damage to surrounding buildings was not a consideration Chris, then there was absolutly no reason to attempt to implode the structure. We also know for a fact that if this was a vast conspiracy that the perpetrators also had no concern whatsoever as to the loss of life which this would bring on.

So the only concern the supposed perpetrators would have in bringing down WTC 7 would be to make it look as likely as possible that the debris damage and fires were responsible for the collapse. According to you, a collapse starting in the core of the building is as far as one can get from a DD/F caused collapse and thus the absolute worst way to address the only concern the perpetrators would have had in the destruction of WTC 7.
According to your contentions the best way to have destroyed WTC 7 would have been to have it fall to the south and east.

Damn these perpetrators for being both very, very good at what they do and very,very bad at what they do.:rolleyes:

[Christopher7]

You folks keep missing a simple point. Every NY Fire Department supervisor on the site of WTC7 concluded that it was likely to collapse before any of the alleged CT "events" took place. You can go over descriptions or accounts of witnesses, etc. but it basically does not contradict the EMPIRICAL FACT that the Fire Dept. drew this conclusion from information that they had at the time.


RandyEvidently you have been misled by "Gravy's list" as so many have.

Of the 60 quotes in Gravy's list, only a few said they thought WTC 7 was going to fall.
The rest heard it thru the grapevine.

Chiefs Fellini and Hayden thought WTC 7 was going to fall.
Chief Nigro based his opinion on what Fellini and Hayden had told him.

Gravy failed to mention Chief Norman:
"I looked at 7 World Trade Center. There was smoke showing, but not a lot and I’m saying that isn’t going to fall."

[Christopher7]

Or, it could simply be evidence that current camera technologies prohibit individuals from taking photographs of objects which are on the back side of a heavy layer of black/gray smoke.

Take your pick.
From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:
• No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby areas
• No signs of fire or smoke were reported below the 6th Floor from the exterior, stairwells or
lobby areas

Looking from the southeast corner of the south face:
• Fire seen on Floor 14 (corrected to 12 in Final 4-5-05) on south face; the face above the fire was covered with smoke
• Fire on Floor 14 moved towards the east face

The area below the 12th floor was not obscured by smoke.
As the fire progressed toward the east, different parts of the SE face would be visible.

So why not publish a couple photos of the SE face along with all the others?

[Christopher7]

Randy,

That has been brought up numerous times, and simply ignored by the movement. It makes perfect sense to me, and is simply one of many factors which lead me to conclude the towers fell because a friggin' airliner laden with fuel slammed into them at hundreds of miles an hour.

I think the problem is that some individuals think this was some trivial collision, like a bug on the windshield of a moving vehicle. They've no idea the scale of the transfer of energy which occured during those impacts.We are talking about WTC 7.

[Christopher7]

If damage to surrounding buildings was not a consideration Chris, then there was absolutly no reason to attempt to implode the structure. Reply here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3210473#post3210473

[Christopher7]

Not unless the say sumtin stoopid. You ain't done so thus far. You might get jumped if you do though.:D :D
Welcome to the forum

[Christopher7]

I noticed in reading this thread that that term has been used a few times by Christopher. My personal belief is that DD/F is what actually doomed the building, but as a critical thinker and debater I want to hold myself to the same standards of logic/assumptions/evidence/burden of proof/etc. that I am going to hold Chris or any other CT to. Thus, I just think it's prudent for now to call it a hypothesis. It is also factually correct.
NIST L-50
L.3.5 Summary of Working Collapse Hypothesis
The working collapse hypothesis has been developed around four phases of the collapse that were
observed in photographic and videographic records: the initiating event, a vertical progression at the east
side of the building, and a horizontal progression from the east to west side of the building, leading to
global collapse.

From an analysis of the observed collapse sequence, the following general sequence of events
appears possible:


I think there was probably more debris damage to the building than could be observed by those on the scene and that the overall structural integrity was sufficiently weakened and compromised that it was doomed by fire,That is speculation based on an assumption that there was more damage and that damage weakened the overall structure.

diesel or no diesel, simply because the fires were not fought at all.I've heard this one a lot.
A fire burning out of control burns just as hot as one that not being fought.

The fires in the AIE were as follows:

NIST L 22–26
11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:
fire on floor 22 on south side
fire on floor 12 burned west to east across the south side
[NIST did not publish any photos of the SE face]
[there were no other fires reported in the east half of the south side]

2:00 to 2:30 p.m.: fires on floors 11 and 12 at SE corner, progressing north
http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/7555/e40rv.jpg

About 3:00 p.m., fires on floors 7 and 12 near the center of the north face
The fire on floor 12 spread in both directions, eventually reaching the NE corner
http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/346/11kp0.jpg
http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/3849/copyofnorthfacekj6.png

Sometime later, fires on floors 8 and 13
Fire on floor 8 eventually burned to NE corner and moved to east face
http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/337/copyof3kt0.jpg

Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires floors 7, 8, 9 and 11 near the middle of the north face.
The fire on floor 12 had burned out by this time
[NIST did not publish this photo]


The south west corner had fires on nearly every floor.
The smoke [screen] obscures the south face.

These fires had nothing to do with the implosion that began at the other end of the building.
http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/6830/wtc7southwest4vc6.jpg

[GStan]

Evidently you have been misled by "Gravy's list" as so many have.

Of the 60 quotes in Gravy's list, only a few said they thought WTC 7 was going to fall.
The rest heard it thru the grapevine.

Mislead? Do you have a more comprehensive list of firefighter quotes? Some said they thought it would fall and others, even if they were only told it would fall, expressed no objections or otherwised questioned that assessment. Only one, out of all those firefighters, expressed any sentiment that it wasn't in danger of collapse.

Chiefs Fellini and Hayden thought WTC 7 was going to fall.
Chief Nigro based his opinion on what Fellini and Hayden had told him.

Gravy failed to mention Chief Norman:
"I looked at 7 World Trade Center. There was smoke showing, but not a lot and I’m saying that isn’t going to fall."

Does he now think there was foul play involved?

[GStan]

Thank you for your kind words.

It impossible to prove a negative so that argument doesn't hold up.

I am in agreement with you that no one observed definitive damage to the core columns or any hard evidence of a diesel line break in the AIE. You just can't make the leap from no one observing it to definitively stating that those conditions were impossible, even if they were improbable. I would even concede that based on the visible damage to the exterior of the south face that it was an unlikely probability. However, based on the absence of hard evidence, you can only speculate that it did not happen, which fits your collapse hypothesis, but stating it definitively does not hold up.

NIST interviewed over 100 witnesses and they have photos of the south east side of WTC 7.
If there was significant damage there, they would have published the photos.
The fact that they published photos of every other side and angle except the south east side, is evidence of a cover up. [to anyone not in denial]

I think I remember from earlier in this thread that you have been in touch with NIST. (Sorry if I'm not recalling correctly) Did you ask them why they have not released those photos?

There is no reason to think there was a diesel fuel fire in the NE generator room or mechanical room.
There is clear evidence that there was not.
The 5th & 6th floors had ventilation louvers. These would only be closed in a blizzard, if then.

Diesel fuel fires produce a lot of heavy black smoke.
There was no sign of smoke in or near the NE generator room or mechanical room at any time.

I'm sure you've seen the photos of the south face that show what looks like black smoke coming out of the entire face of the building. Something happened to the missing diesel fuel, most likely it burned. There were plenty of holes in the building, and even a fire in the AIE, however unlikely, does not have to send smoke out of those louvers. It could have been coming out of any of those holes near the initiating event.

[Christopher7]

Mislead? Do you have a more comprehensive list of firefighter quotes? Some said they thought it would fall and others, even if they were only told it would fall, expressed no objections or otherwised questioned that assessment. Only one, out of all those firefighters, expressed any sentiment that it wasn't in danger of collapse.The firefighters did not consult a structural engineer.
Their only experience with high rise collapses was the Trade Towers.
It is therefore, not surprising that some thought WTC 7 might fall.


Does he now think there was foul play involved?I don't know

[GStan]

The firefighters did not consult a structural engineer.
Their only experience with high rise collapses was the Trade Towers.

It is FDNY policy for senior on-scene firefighters to consult a structural engineer during a fire? Are you implying that they should? Firefighters are trained to assess building damage and make an educated guess as to the structural integrity of the building. They are trained to do so to protect the lives of the men serving under them.

It is therefore, not surprising that some thought WTC 7 might fall.


A 110 story building significantly damaged WTC7 at multiple visible locations on the south face. They were not able to fight the ensuing fires. The building was reported by those on site to be creaking, groaning, bulging, leaning, dropping debris, and fires were reported on nearly every floor. It is therefore, not surprising that some thought WTC 7 might fall.

[GStan]

There is no reason to think there was a diesel fuel fire in the NE generator room or mechanical room.
There is clear evidence that there was not.
The 5th & 6th floors had ventilation louvers. These would only be closed in a blizzard, if then.

Diesel fuel fires produce a lot of heavy black smoke.
There was no sign of smoke in or near the NE generator room or mechanical room at any time.

This presumes that the smoke will definitely exit in precisely the area of the fire. That is not necessarily the case. Here is a photo favorite among the truth movement (sorry, just a couple more posts, then I can URL):

hxxp://img223.imageshack.us/img223/4300/copyof3zn0.jpg

There are clearly fires burning near the open windows. Where is all the smoke going? The picture is a bit hazy, as there may be a small amount of smoke exiting the building through the broken windows. But nowhere near the amount coming from the other side of the building. Nowhere near the amount that would be expected IMO if that were the only path for the smoke to exit the building. The bulk of the smoke from these fires is coming out of the building somewhere else. A fire, diesel or no diesel, does not have to send smoke out the NE gen room louvres. A lack of smoke coming through the louvres does not rule out the possibility of a diesel fed fire in the AIE.

[funk de fino]

They have been most helpful in providing websites containing data that proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, WTC 7 did NOT collapse due to DD/F.

C7, is this you at LCF?

Please show me this (bolded part) as I cannot see it on here?

Showing off to the morons over there? I thought better of you to be honest. Not much action on your posts though considering they are probably the biggest most active nest of CT numpties? 12 replies to 5 threads in the last 30 days?

That movement is in its death throes

[T.A.M.]

Interesting article I found telling the story of a man who worked in WTC7 and was there when both towers were hit...

http://www.september11archive.com/Viewer.aspx?img=27413829_clean&firstvisit=true&src=search&currentResult=2&currentPage=10

TAM:)

[LashL]

The firefighters did not consult a structural engineer.

How do you know?

It is FDNY policy for senior on-scene firefighters to consult a structural engineer during a fire?

I am sure that it is not FDNY policy to consult with structural engineers during every fire event, but the events of 9/11 were, of course, no ordinary fire event, and there were consultations with engineers from the Department of Buildings that day.

As I understand it, a number of city agencies sent representatives to 7WTC to convene at the OEM but 7WTC was being evacuated, so they convened in the lobby. This included engineers from the Dept. of Buildings, and it was one of those engineers who issued the warning that the structural damage to the twin towers was immense, that the stability of both buildings was compromised, and that they were in danger of imminent collapse. An EMT named Richard Zarillo was tasked with making his way over to the FDNY command center on West Street to pass that warning on to Chief Ganci. The warning was delivered to Chief Ganci by Mr. Zarillo mere moments before the south tower collapsed.

Therefore, I think it is reasonable to assume (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) that the Building Dept. engineers would continue to do the job that they were there to do - i.e. assess the structural integrity of the buildings that were damaged and on fire.

Firefighters are trained to assess building damage and make an educated guess as to the structural integrity of the building. They are trained to do so to protect the lives of the men serving under them.


Yes, they receive extensive, ongoing training to assess damage and structural integrity, and they take it very, very seriously because their lives and the lives of others depend on it.


P.S. Welcome to the sub-forum, GStan. ::w2:

[Christopher7]

It is FDNY policy for senior on-scene firefighters to consult a structural engineer during a fire? Are you implying that they should? Firefighters are trained to assess building damage and make an educated guess as to the structural integrity of the building. They are trained to do so to protect the lives of the men serving under them.Firefighters consulted a structural engineer at the Meridian Plaza before ordering a withdrawal of firefighters because of a possible collapse.
No high rise building, other than the Trade Towers had ever collapsed due to fire. That was their only frame of reference and their decision to pull the firefighters was reasonable and prudent.
However, they were NOT qualified to make a structural assessment and their belief that WTC 7 would collapse is not evidence that debris damage and fire actually caused the collapse.

A 110 story building significantly damaged WTC7 at multiple visible locations on the south face. They were not able to fight the ensuing fires. The building was reported by those on site to be creaking, groaning, bulging, leaning, dropping debris, and fires were reported on nearly every floor. It is therefore, not surprising that some thought WTC 7 might fall.Agreed

[GStan]

Firefighters consulted a structural engineer at the Meridian Plaza before ordering a withdrawal of firefighters because of a possible collapse.
No high rise building, other than the Trade Towers had ever collapsed due to fire.

Dare I ask if this is an acknowledgement on your part that the Towers were brought down by damage and fire? Or are you simply stating that that would have been the firefighters' interpretation of it?

That was their only frame of reference and their decision to pull the firefighters was reasonable and prudent.

Agreed that it was reasonable and prudent. But I disagree that they had no other frame of reference. They have experience/training fighting fires where the structural integrity of the building may be in doubt. I concede that their experience assessing structural integrity would not have been on structures anywhere near the size of WTC7.

However, they were NOT qualified to make a structural assessment and their belief that WTC 7 would collapse is not evidence that debris damage and fire actually caused the collapse.

They are qualified to make such an assessment. They are trained to make such assessments to keep their men out of harm's way. Their assessments may not be as informed as a structural engineer's, but they do have at least the basic training to give an educated guess.

Forgive my ignorance here, but do we know for a fact that an SE was not consulted on WTC7? Or is there simply no report that this occured? Please share if you already have this info, otherwise I'll go do some research on it.

I also agree with you that their belief is not hard evidence that DD/F actually caused the collapse. However, the fact there was enough damage and fire to give firefighters the impression that it could collapse is circumstantial evidence that supports the DD/F hypothesis. If it is discovered that one of the senior firefighters did communicate with an SE on WTC7, would you agree that that would constitute more than just circumstantial evidence for the DD/F hypothesis?

[Christopher7]

This presumes that the smoke will definitely exit in precisely the area of the fire. That is not necessarily the case.
Fire = expanding gases. Smoke would definitely be coming out of the louvers if there was a fire in the NE generator room or the mechanical room.

http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/7392/copyofe5asn4.png


There are clearly fires burning near the open windows. Where is all the smoke going? The picture is a bit hazy, as there may be a small amount of smoke exiting the building through the broken windows.Those were fairly clean burning office fires. Fire does not go one way and smoke another.

But nowhere near the amount coming from the other side of the building.The smoke at the other end of the building is highly suspicious. The fires progressed vertically and produced a lot of smoke while the other fires progressed horizontally and produced very little smoke.
Fire is random and that smoke screen is too perfect.

Nowhere near the amount that would be expected IMO if that were the only path for the smoke to exit the building. The bulk of the smoke from these fires is coming out of the building somewhere else.
A fire, diesel or no diesel, does not have to send smoke out the NE gen room louvres. A lack of smoke coming through the louvres does not rule out the possibility of a diesel fed fire in the AIE.Diesel fuel fires make a lot of heavy black smoke and there is no way some it wouldn't be coming out of the louvers. There was no damage to that area so the only other possible place for the smoke to go would be out the mechanical room door and it is unlikely that it would have been left open. Even if it was, some smoke would be coming out of the louvers.

[LashL]

Ahem, Chris7, please address post #4130. You claimed that the firefighters did not consult structural engineers on 9/11 and then skated past my post questioning that assertion on your part.

The firefighters did not consult a structural engineer.

How do you know?


It is FDNY policy for senior on-scene firefighters to consult a structural engineer during a fire?

I am sure that it is not FDNY policy to consult with structural engineers during every fire event, but the events of 9/11 were, of course, no ordinary fire event, and there were consultations with engineers from the Department of Buildings that day.

As I understand it, a number of city agencies sent representatives to 7WTC to convene at the OEM but 7WTC was being evacuated, so they convened in the lobby. This included engineers from the Dept. of Buildings, and it was one of those engineers who issued the warning that the structural damage to the twin towers was immense, that the stability of both buildings was compromised, and that they were in danger of imminent collapse. An EMT named Richard Zarillo was tasked with making his way over to the FDNY command center on West Street to pass that warning on to Chief Ganci. The warning was delivered to Chief Ganci by Mr. Zarillo mere moments before the south tower collapsed.

Therefore, I think it is reasonable to assume (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) that the Building Dept. engineers would continue to do the job that they were there to do - i.e. assess the structural integrity of the buildings that were damaged and on fire.

[Christopher7]

Dare I ask if this is an acknowledgement on your part that the Towers were brought down by damage and fire? No
Or are you simply stating that that would have been the firefighters' interpretation of it?Right

Agreed that it was reasonable and prudent. But I disagree that they had no other frame of reference. They have experience/training fighting fires where the structural integrity of the building may be in doubt. I concede that their experience assessing structural integrity would not have been on structures anywhere near the size of WTC7.
They are qualified to make such an assessment. They are trained to make such assessments to keep their men out of harm's way. Their assessments may not be as informed as a structural engineer's, but they do have at least the basic training to give an educated guess.An educated guess by an unqualified person does not = evidence.

Forgive my ignorance here, but do we know for a fact that an SE was not consulted on WTC7? Or is there simply no report that this occured? Please share if you already have this info, otherwise I'll go do some research on it.There is no mention of anyone consulting a structural engineer in any of the firefighters testimony.

I also agree with you that their belief is not hard evidence that DD/F actually caused the collapse. However, the fact there was enough damage and fire to give firefighters the impression that it could collapse is circumstantial evidence that supports the DD/F hypothesis.No

If it is discovered that one of the senior firefighters did communicate with an SE on WTC7, would you agree that that would constitute more than just circumstantial evidence for the DD/F hypothesis?No, the damage was to the SW side and the collapse began in the east central part.
They cleared everybody back 600' because they thought it might fall over, not straight down.

[Christopher7]

How do you know?
I am sure that it is not FDNY policy to consult with structural engineers during every fire event, but the events of 9/11 were, of course, no ordinary fire event, and there were consultations with engineers from the Department of Buildings that day.

As I understand it, a number of city agencies sent representatives to 7WTC to convene at the OEM but 7WTC was being evacuated, so they convened in the lobby. This included engineers from the Dept. of Buildings, and it was one of those engineers who issued the warning that the structural damage to the twin towers was immense, that the stability of both buildings was compromised, and that they were in danger of imminent collapse. An EMT named Richard Zarillo was tasked with making his way over to the FDNY command center on West Street to pass that warning on to Chief Ganci. The warning was delivered to Chief Ganci by Mr. Zarillo mere moments before the south tower collapsed.

Therefore, I think it is reasonable to assume (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) that the Building Dept. engineers would continue to do the job that they were there to do - i.e. assess the structural integrity of the buildings that were damaged and on fire.
P.S. Welcome to the sub-forum, GStan. ::w2:Good point

The decision to pull everyone back was made around 1:00 p.m.
At that time, there were no fires on the east and north sides and only at the south corner of the west side.
A structural engineer might consider the possibility of a partial collapse but since there was no apparent damage to the core except for where the elevator cars were ejected, it isn't even reasonable to assume WTC 7 would fall over, much less straight down.
Chief Norman:
I looked at 7 World Trade Center. There was smoke showing, but not a lot and I’m saying that isn’t going to fall.

I never expected it to fall the way it did as quickly as it did, 7.

[LashL]

Good point... [followed by evasion and obfuscation that does not even remotely respond adequately to the questions and points raised that directly refute your assertions]

Nice attempted evasion, Chris.

Now, how about answering my questions and points directly instead of trying to skate all around them in hopes that nobody notices? Start with the first question, which you have avoided entirely:

The firefighters did not consult a structural engineer.
How do you know?



Once you answer that, we can move on to the next point.

[LashL]

An educated guess by an unqualified person does not = evidence.

:i:


ETA: And an uneducated guess by an unqualified person, such as yourself, most certainly does not = evidence.

[Christopher7]

Nice attempted evasion, Chris.

Now, how about answering my questions and points directly instead of trying to skate all around them in hopes that nobody notices? Start with the first question, which you have avoided entirely:
Once you answer that, we can move on to the next point.What part of "good point" don't you understand?
I acknowledged that there may have been structural engineers present even though Chief Nigro did not mention them.

[LashL]

What part of "good point" don't you understand?
I acknowledged that there may have been structural engineers present even though Chief Nigro did not mention them.

No, Chris. You don't get off the hook that easily.

You previously stated categorically (in your post #4125) that the firefighters did not consult with any structural engineers. Now, in light of my subsequent posts, it appears that you are admitting that you were wrong about that but you haven't yet said so directly.

If you are conceding that firefighters did, in fact, consult with structural engineers, please say so directly rather than circumspectly so that the record is clear.

Are you conceding that the firefighters did consult with structural engineers and are you conceding that your previous assertion to the contrary was wrong, or aren't you?

It is important for the record to be clear (and free of the tap dancing that you appear to be doing).

[Christopher7]

No, Chris. You don't get off the hook that easily.

You previously stated categorically (in your post #4125) that the firefighters did not consult with any structural engineers. Now, in light of my subsequent posts, it appears that you are admitting that you were wrong about that but you haven't yet said so directly.
Fire Chief Daniel Nigro explains their decision-making process, saying, “A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone.” [Fire Engineering, 9/2002 (http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=ARCHI&ARTICLE_ID=158400&VERSION_NUM=1)]

If you are conceding that firefighters did, in fact, consult with structural engineers, please say so directly rather than circumspectly so that the record is clear.If Chief Nigro had consulted with structural engineers, he would have said so.
Although your point was well taken, there is nothing to support your conclusion.

Like all the other arguments to support DD/F, it's just inference and innuendo., nothing solid.

[GStan]

Fire = expanding gases. Smoke would definitely be coming out of the louvers if there was a fire in the NE generator room or the mechanical room.

By your own standards of evidence, you are not qualified to make this educated guess.

Those were fairly clean burning office fires. Fire does not go one way and smoke another.

By your own standards of evidence, you are not qualified to make this educated guess.

The smoke at the other end of the building is highly suspicious. The fires progressed vertically and produced a lot of smoke while the other fires progressed horizontally and produced very little smoke.
Fire is random and that smoke screen is too perfect.

By your own standards of evidence, you are not qualified to make this educated guess.

Diesel fuel fires make a lot of heavy black smoke and there is no way some it wouldn't be coming out of the louvers.

You have no idea if smoke came out of those louvres. You have a few snapshots that show a few points in time when smoke was not observed exiting the louvres. The building burned for 7 hours. Is there a 7 hour video of the louvres that I am not aware of that prove they were free of smoke for the duration? After 1PM, the area was cleared to a radius of 600 feet. So there is probably almost no video or direct observation by witnesses of the louvres after that time. You do not have enough evidence to state definitively that those louvres were free of smoke for the duration of the day.

There was no damage to that area

Again, you don't know this definitively. A lack of evidence of damage does not equal no damage.

so the only other possible place for the smoke to go would be out the mechanical room door and it is unlikely that it would have been left open. Even if it was, some smoke would be coming out of the louvers.

By your own standards of evidence, you are not qualified to make this educated guess. And again, you have snapshots that show the louvres for about 3 seconds in time out of a 7 hour fire. While it is convenient for your theory to conclude that that 3 seconds is representative of the entire 7 hours, it does not make it so.

[funk de fino]

Come on C7, is that you over on LC showing off to the kiddies?

If so please show me where you have demonstrated the below on this forum

proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, WTC 7 did NOT collapse due to DD/F.

[GStan]

<snip>

An educated guess by an unqualified person does not = evidence.

Will you be applying this standard of evidence to all of the witnesses or just the ones who don't support your theory? I agree that an educated guess by an unqualified person does not equal evidence. But we may just have to agree to disagree about the firefighters. They are qualified to assess the structural integrity of buildings to protect their men. Your dispute of that point is willfully obtuse. Do you realize that not all of the evidence is going to point in one direction for any of these theories and that it is ok to concede a point when evidence points in another direction without disproving your theory? The fact that firefighters on site thought the building could collapse is evidence of the DD/F, but its not proof. Its just one piece of evidence that falls in line with that theory. If you want to conduct an open-minded pursuit of truth, you'll acknowledge that. Sticking your fingers in your ears and stating that firefighters are not qualified to assess building damage makes you look ignorant and discredits other points of your argument which may have merit. From what I have seen, there is very little evidence to support a 9/11 conspiracy that extends beyond Al Qeida. Is this why so many truthers never, ever concede a debate point? Is it because there is such precious little concrete evidence upon which the theories rest, that any point conceded seems like a major defeat? Your approach to most of this thread gave me the impression that you were more intelligent than the average truther, yet you are doing your best to prove me wrong.

<snip> No, the damage was to the SW side and the collapse began in the east central part.

There was damage to the center of the south face. It is visibly verified, in stills posted on this very thread, from the roof extending down at least 25 floors, possibly more, but not documented in photo or video. There was also damage, verified and reported by firefighters to the center of south face near the ground floors. The reports varied as to the extent of that damage, but all accounts put it at roughly the center of the south face, fairly close to the initiating event. To disregard the damage as being only to the SW is simply wrong, and you have read and seen enough to know it is wrong.

They cleared everybody back 600' because they thought it might fall over, not straight down.

They pulled them back that far because it was prudent to keep men out of harm's way. They did not know how it would fall, only that it was structurally vulnerable to possible collapse. They sensibly prepared for a damage area with a radius somewhat beyond the height of the building.

[Dave Rogers]

They pulled them back that far because it was prudent to keep men out of harm's way. They did not know how it would fall, only that it was structurally in vulnerable to collapse. They sensibly prepared for a damage area with a radius somewhat beyond the height of the building.

IIRC they simply used a standard formula - when a structure is expected to collapse, set up a collapse perimeter distant by 1.5 times the height of the structure. If they'd expected it to fall symmetrically into its own footprint they might have decided to stay a bit closer ;).

Dave

[achtung circus]

You have no idea if smoke came out of those louvres. You have a few snapshots that show a few points in time when smoke was not observed exiting the louvres. The building burned for 7 hours. Is there a 7 hour video of the louvres that I am not aware of that prove they were free of smoke for the duration? After 1PM, the area was cleared to a radius of 600 feet. So there is probably almost no video or direct observation by witnesses of the louvres after that time. You do not have enough evidence to state definitively that those louvres were free of smoke for the duration of the day.

By your own standards of evidence, you are not qualified to make this educated guess. And again, you have snapshots that show the louvres for about 3 seconds in time out of a 7 hour fire. While it is convenient for your theory to conclude that that 3 seconds is representative of the entire 7 hours, it does not make it so.

I have no idea which individual louver serves which purpose in the photos posted, but consider this:

Different louvers have different purposes.

They may be for exhaust, fresh air intake, combustion air intake, they may be attached to ductwork or ventilate a space.

They may include motorized dampers to adjust airflow, those dampers may be normally open or normally closed, meaning they assume a default position in the event of power loss.

Louvers may also include fire dampers which slam shut when a fusible link rated to a setpoint temperature fails.

Presence or absence of smoke at any one time will be affected by these factors, as well as fire conditions.

[GStan]

Good point

The decision to pull everyone back was made around 1:00 p.m.
At that time, there were no fires on the east and north sides and only at the south corner of the west side.
A structural engineer might consider the possibility of a partial collapse but since there was no apparent damage to the core except for where the elevator cars were ejected, it isn't even reasonable to assume WTC 7 would fall over, much less straight down.
Chief Norman:
I looked at 7 World Trade Center. There was smoke showing, but not a lot and I’m saying that isn’t going to fall.

I never expected it to fall the way it did as quickly as it did, 7.

Wow, that quote by Chief Norman is quite damning to the DD/F hypothesis. Too bad it cannot be used as evidence since, by your own standards, an educated guess by an unqualified person does NOT equal evidence. Or does that standard not apply to unqualified guesses that might refute DD/F or support CD? Are you willing to retract your assertion that firefighters are not qualified to make an assessment of a building's structural integrity?

[Christopher7]

By your own standards of evidence, you are not qualified to make this educated guess.There's a big difference between predicting a building will fall and saying smoke would be coming out of the louvers or the smoke would not go in a different direction than the fire or the SW corner fires were very suspicious.

You have no idea if smoke came out of those louvres. You have a few snapshots that show a few points in time when smoke was not observed exiting the louvres. The building burned for 7 hours. Is there a 7 hour video of the louvres that I am not aware of that prove they were free of smoke for the duration? After 1PM, the area was cleared to a radius of 600 feet. So there is probably almost no video or direct observation by witnesses of the louvres after that time. You do not have enough evidence to state definitively that those louvres were free of smoke for the duration of the day.Yes i do.
The fire time line in NIST L covers 11:30 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
There were NO reports of fire on the 5th or 6th floor in the east half of WTC 7 at any time.


Again, you don't know this definitively. A lack of evidence of damage does not equal no damage.
Yes it does.

[Christopher7]

I agree that an educated guess by an unqualified person does not equal evidence. But we may just have to agree to disagree about the firefighters. They are qualified to assess the structural integrity of buildings to protect their men.Firefighters are not structural engineers. They are not qualified to say a steel framed high rise building is building in danger of collapse. At the Meridian Plaza a structural engineer thought there was a possibility of collapse but the building did not collapse.
In both cases, someone thinking that a building may collapse is not evidence of anything.

There was damage to the center of the south face. It is visibly verified, in stills posted on this very thread, from the roof extending down at least 25 floors, possibly more, but not documented in photo or video.That damage was west of center between columns 5 and 6 [W. Smith#]

There was also damage, verified and reported by firefighters to the center of south face near the ground floors. The reports varied as to the extent of that damage, but all accounts put it at roughly the center of the south face, fairly close to the initiating event.NIST L-18
debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact
[damage starting above the 4th floor. No mention of a gouge or hole]

NIST L-36
I3.1 Perimeter Moment Frame Arrests Failure Progression: Analysis of the global
structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged
areas. A progression of column failure to adjacent columns would have been arrested by
the vierendeel action of the perimeter moment frame, which could span across a sizeable
opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame.

They pulled them back that far because it was prudent to keep men out of harm's way. They did not know how it would fall, only that it was structurally vulnerable to possible collapse.They did not KNOW that, they were just being prudent.

[Christopher7]

I have no idea which individual louver serves which purpose in the photos posted, but consider this:
Different louvers have different purposes.
They may be for exhaust, fresh air intake, combustion air intake, they may be attached to ductwork or ventilate a space.
They may include motorized dampers to adjust airflow, those dampers may be normally open or normally closed, meaning they assume a default position in the event of power loss.
Louvers may also include fire dampers which slam shut when a fusible link rated to a setpoint temperature fails.
Presence or absence of smoke at any one time will be affected by these factors, as well as fire conditions.Good point
However
If all the louvers were closed, a diesel fuel fire would not have sufficient air flow to burn hot enough to weaken a column weighing over 4 tons per floor.
FEMA 5-29
Given open louvers and other sources for entry of air, it is, therefore, probable that a fuel oil spill fire would have found sufficient air for combustion.

There is NO evidence of fire at any time in the NE generator or mechanical rooms and NO reason to think there was a fire there.

Your insistence that there 'could have been' a fire there is just wishful thinking based on NOTHING.

[Christopher7]

Wow, that quote by Chief Norman is quite damning to the DD/F hypothesis. Too bad it cannot be used as evidence since, by your own standards, an educated guess by an unqualified person does NOT equal evidence. Or does that standard not apply to unqualified guesses that might refute DD/F or support CD? Are you willing to retract your assertion that firefighters are not qualified to make an assessment of a building's structural integrity?No
Chief Norman's opinion only demonstrates that not all the fire chiefs thought WTC 7 would collapse.

[GStan]

There's a big difference between predicting a building will fall and saying smoke would be coming out of the louvers or the smoke would not go in a different direction than the fire or the SW corner fires were very suspicious.

Yes, but they are all things firefighters are trained to pay attention to. None of the firefighters found anything suspicious in the fires, the smoke or the decision to pull back because the building's integrity was in doubt. If they had noticed something suspicious, they would have mentioned it, as you like to say.

Yes i do.
The fire time line in NIST L covers 11:30 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
There were NO reports of fire on the 5th or 6th floor in the east half of WTC 7 at any time.

The operative words there being NO REPORTS. That does not mean definitively that there were no fires. I'm not saying there were fires there or debris damage there. It just means that there is a lack of evidence. You can't definitively state that the area remained free from fire or damage because there is not enough evidence to make that definitive statement. There are a couple of photos of the area and the firefighter observations which have proven to be somewhat varied about both the fires and the damage.

[QUOTE]Yes it does.

No it does not. And no matter how many times you repeat it, it will still not be true.

[LashL]

Fire Chief Daniel Nigro explains their decision-making process, saying, “A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone.” [Fire Engineering, 9/2002 (http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=ARCHI&ARTICLE_ID=158400&VERSION_NUM=1)]


So, are you now willing to accept Chief Nigro as a reliable source and are you now willing to accept what he says as accurate? Please, let's be very clear on this. Are you accepting Chief Nigro, and the people with whom he spoke, as legitimate and credible sources of information or aren't you?

Please answer that question specifically and directly.

If Chief Nigro had consulted with structural engineers, he would have said so.

Upon what basis do you make that claim? The same basis upon which you earlier stated categorically that "the firefighters did not consult a structural engineer", which you have now resiled from? Or some other basis?

Although your point was well taken, there is nothing to support your conclusion.

There is, actually, but let's leave that aside for the moment. What you really mean is that you are not personally aware of structural engineers having discussions with members of the FDNY about the status of the building(s), isn't that so?

Like all the other arguments to support DD/F, it's just inference and innuendo., nothing solid.

That is, quite frankly, nonsense, but let's not let that detract us from the current discussion for the moment.

[Christopher7]

Yes, but they are all things firefighters are trained to pay attention to. None of the firefighters found anything suspicious in the fires, the smoke or the decision to pull back because the building's integrity was in doubt. If they had noticed something suspicious, they would have mentioned it, as you like to say.Good point.
With all due respect to the firefighters, i find the fires at the south west corner suspicious.
These fires burned in the same place for over 3 hours.
The other fires moved horizontally as they consumed all the available fuel and moved on.
The fire on floor 12 appeared near the center of north face at about 3:00 p.m., progressed to the NE corner and burned itself out by 4:45 p.m.

The fire time line in NIST L covers 11:30 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
There were NO reports of fire on the 5th or 6th floor in the east half of WTC 7 at any time.

The operative words there being NO REPORTS. That does not mean definitively that there were no fires. I'm not saying there were fires there or debris damage there. It just means that there is a lack of evidence. You can't definitively state that the area remained free from fire or damage because there is not enough evidence to make that definitive statement. There are a couple of photos of the area and the firefighter observations which have proven to be somewhat varied about both the fires and the damage.FEMA, and then NIST, had two years to establish the fire time line and progression.
The time line and progression of the fires is documented with observations and photos.
The times are approximate but the fact remains:
There were NO reports of smoke or fire in or near the NE generator room.
It is impossible to prove a negative, however:
It can be said, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there were no fires in the NE generator or mechanical rooms.

[Miragememories]

So, are you now willing to accept Chief Nigro as a reliable source and are you now willing to accept what he says as accurate? Please, let's be very clear on this. Are you accepting Chief Nigro, and the people with whom he spoke, as legitimate and credible sources of information or aren't you?

Please answer that question specifically and directly.



Upon what basis do you make that claim? The same basis upon which you earlier stated categorically that "the firefighters did not consult a structural engineer", which you have now resiled from? Or some other basis?



There is, actually, but let's leave that aside for the moment. What you really mean is that you are not personally aware of structural engineers having discussions with members of the FDNY about the status of the building(s), isn't that so?



That is, quite frankly, nonsense, but let's not let that detract us from the current discussion for the moment.

"Your honor I object!"

"The lawyer for the Official Conspiracy Theory is badgering the witness and going off topic as well."

"Her question has been answered."

MM

[Christopher7]

So, are you now willing to accept Chief Nigro as a reliable source and are you now willing to accept what he says as accurate? Please, let's be very clear on this. Are you accepting Chief Nigro, and the people with whom he spoke, as legitimate and credible sources of information or aren't you?
Please answer that question specifically and directly.Chief Nigro and the firefighters he consulted are credible sources of information, but their assessment does not qualify as evidence of anything.
Their only frame of reference was the collapse of the Trade Towers in which they had lost hundreds of their brothers.
They were acting with an abundance of caution.

If Chief Nigro had consulted with structural engineers, he would have said so.
Upon what basis do you make that claim? The same basis upon which you earlier stated categorically that "the firefighters did not consult a structural engineer", which you have now resiled from? Or some other basis?
My statement stands as is. It is a reasonable, logical conclusion.

Although your point was well taken, there is nothing to support your conclusion.
There is, actually, but let's leave that aside for the moment.
What you really mean is that you are not personally aware of structural engineers having discussions with members of the FDNY about the status of the building(s), isn't that so?Chief Nigro's statement about the decision to pull everyone back is clear and unambiguous. He consulted with firefighters and not structural engineers.
You have only your personal incredulity and the fact that it is impossible to prove a negative.

At the Meridian Plaza, they did consult with a structural engineer and he said the building might collapse. It did not collapse. Even when a structural engineer says a building might collapse, it is NOT EVIDENCE of anything, only an opinion based on limited information.

When firefighters die, Chiefs act with an abundance of caution to prevent further loss of life.
Chief Hayden summed it up rather eloquently:
""**** 'em all. Let 'em burn. Just tell the guys to keep looking for guys. Just keep looking for the brothers."

Like all the other arguments to support DD/F, it's just inference and innuendo., nothing solid.That is, quite frankly, nonsense,On the contrary, the fire chief's assessment, like all the other reasons for believing WTC 7 collapsed due to DD/F, is supposition.

but let's not let that detract us from the current discussion for the moment.The current discussion is about the fire chief's assessment.

At about 1:00 p.m., when the decision was made to pull back, there were NO FIRES on the east, north and west sides except for a couple fires at the SW corner.
There was NO reason to think WTC 7 would fall to the west, north or east.
There was NO reason to think WTC 7 would fall to the south due to the damage to the perimeter frame, as the structural engineers at NIST have determined.
NIST L-36
Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas. A progression of column failure to adjacent columns would have been arrested by the vierendeel action of the perimeter moment frame, which could span across a sizable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame.

[funk de fino]

Come on C7, is that you over on LC showing off to the kiddies?


I repeat again C7, for the 3rd time.

Why do you dodge this question?

Please show me where you have proved beyond all reasonable doubt that DD/F did not bring down the building. Its a pretty big claim.

If it not you just let me know so I do not keep badgering you OK?

[MaGZ]

Good point.
With all due respect to the firefighters, i find the fires at the south west corner suspicious.
These fires burned in the same place for over 3 hours.
The other fires moved horizontally as they consumed all the available fuel and moved on.
The fire on floor 12 appeared near the center of north face at about 3:00 p.m., progressed to the NE corner and burned itself out by 4:45 p.m.


FEMA, and then NIST, had two years to establish the fire time line and progression.
The time line and progression of the fires is documented with observations and photos.
The times are approximate but the fact remains:
There were NO reports of smoke or fire in or near the NE generator room.
It is impossible to prove a negative, however:
It can be said, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there were no fires in the NE generator or mechanical rooms.

How did the fires start in WTC 7?

[DGM]

How did the fires start in WTC 7?
Take an axe and tear through your walls without shutting of the gas or electricity and you might get a clue.

[MaGZ]

Take an axe and tear through your walls without shutting of the gas or electricity and you might get a clue.

Using you "axe theory", do you think this happened in one location or multiple locations? What does the photographic evidence and eyewitnesses have to say? Where and when did the fires start?

[DGM]

Using you "axe theory", do you think this happened in one location or multiple locations? What does the photographic evidence and eyewitnesses have to say? Where and when did the fires start?
No one reported a missile strike and no one saw any damage to lead to that conclusion.

[Christopher7]

Using you "axe theory", do you think this happened in one location or multiple locations? What does the photographic evidence and eyewitnesses have to say? Where and when did the fires start?It is not known when the fires started. I have seen the photo of what might have been a fire before the towers fell but that has no bearing on the topic at hand.

This thread is about the total lack of evidence to support the 'DD/F caused the collapse' hypothesis.

[funk de fino]

It is not known when the fires started. I have seen the photo of what might have been a fire before the towers fell but that has no bearing on the topic at hand.

This thread is about the total lack of evidence to support the 'DD/F caused the collapse' hypothesis.


Oh, boy

Please show this photograph please C7? I hope it is not the one I think it is.

There is plenty of evidence to support DD/F, in fact more than there is for your pet theory.

Is that you at LooseChange showing off and making false claims for the kids?

Your being a bit chicken here?

[Christopher7]

Please show me where you have proved beyond all reasonable doubt that DD/F did not bring down the building.


There were fires on several floors, at different times, in the area of the initiating event.
[the failure of core columns 79, 80 and/or 81]

Fires in east half of WTC 7

NIST L-24
11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Looking from the southeast corner to the south face:
Fire on floor 12*, moved toward the east face
[NIST did not publish this photo]

2:00 to 2:30 p.m.
Fire on floors 11 and 12 at southeast corner, progressed to the north
[Louvers = north east generator room]

*corrected to 12 in Final 4-5-05
http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/7392/copyofe5asn4.png

Around 3 p.m., fires were observed on Floors 7 and 12 along the north face.

http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/346/11kp0.jpg

http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/3849/copyofnorthfacekj6.png

Some time later, fires were observed on Floors 8 and 13, with the fire on Floor 8
moving from west to east and the fire on Floor 13 moving from east to west.

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/337/copyof3kt0.jpg

NIST L-26
The fire on Floor 8 continued to move east on the north face, eventually reaching the northeast corner and moving to the east face.

Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face;
Floor 12 was burned out by this time.
[NIST did not publish this photo]


NIST L-38-41
A core column, weighing over 4 tons per floor, would have to be uniformly heated to about 1,000 F on 4 contiguous floors and 2 or 3 floors would have to collapse all around that column, before it could break at 3 splice joints and buckle.

Fires in the Meridian Plaza burned out of control over 8 contiguous floors for 19 hours.
Beams and girders sagged and twisted but they did not collapse.
“Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.”
http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf pg 19 [24 on pg counter]
The columns in WTC 7 were heavier and would take longer to heat up.

There is no evidence of diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.
There is no evidence of debris damage to the area of the initiating event.


The evidence does not support the NIST hypothesis. [set of assumptions]
FEMA and NIST had two years to gather the evidence of debris damage and fires. They interviewed over 100 witnesses and they have photos of every side including the east half of the south face. [which they did not publish]

Therefore it can be said, beyond a reasonable doubt, DD/F did not cause the collapse of WTC 7.

[funk de fino]

There were fires on several floors, at different times, in the area of the initiating event.
[the failure of core columns 79, 80 and/or 81]

Fires in east half of WTC 7

NIST L-24
11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Looking from the southeast corner to the south face:
Fire on floor 12*, moved toward the east face
[NIST did not publish this photo]

2:00 to 2:30 p.m.
Fire on floors 11 and 12 at southeast corner, progressed to the north
[Louvers = north east generator room]

*corrected to 12 in Final 4-5-05
http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/7392/copyofe5asn4.png

Around 3 p.m., fires were observed on Floors 7 and 12 along the north face.

http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/346/11kp0.jpg

http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/3849/copyofnorthfacekj6.png

Some time later, fires were observed on Floors 8 and 13, with the fire on Floor 8
moving from west to east and the fire on Floor 13 moving from east to west.

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/337/copyof3kt0.jpg

NIST L-26
The fire on Floor 8 continued to move east on the north face, eventually reaching the northeast corner and moving to the east face.

Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face;
Floor 12 was burned out by this time.
[NIST did not publish this photo]


NIST L-38-41
A core column, weighing over 4 tons per floor, would have to be uniformly heated to about 1,000 F on 4 contiguous floors and 2 or 3 floors would have to collapse all around that column, before it could break at 3 splice joints and buckle.

Fires in the Meridian Plaza burned out of control over 8 contiguous floors for 19 hours.
Beams and girders sagged and twisted but they did not collapse.
“Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.”
http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf pg 19 [24 on pg counter]
The columns in WTC 7 were heavier and would take longer to heat up.

There is no evidence of diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.
There is no evidence of debris damage to the area of the initiating event.


The evidence does not support the NIST hypothesis. [set of assumptions]
FEMA and NIST had two years to gather the evidence of debris damage and fires. They interviewed over 100 witnesses and they have photos of every side including the east half of the south face. [which they did not publish]

Therefore it can be said, beyond a reasonable doubt, DD/F did not cause the collapse of WTC 7.

Sorry mate, you have proved nothing of the sort. You have shown that at that time NIST or FEMA did not have a full and complete understanding of exactly how the DD/F caused the collapse as we see it, but that it is still the only scenario with any evidence. You have proved nothing and were just grandstanding to a bunch of teenage morons and disturbed people.

Your pet theory has nothing and your allegations of photo fakery and explosions prior to the towers falling are quite frankly deluded.

Please also show me this photo of the pre collapse fires?

[GStan]

<snip>
There is no evidence of diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.
There is no evidence of debris damage to the area of the initiating event.


The evidence does not support the NIST hypothesis. [set of assumptions]
FEMA and NIST had two years to gather the evidence of debris damage and fires. They interviewed over 100 witnesses and they have photos of every side including the east half of the south face. [which they did not publish]

Therefore it can be said, beyond a reasonable doubt, DD/F did not cause the collapse of WTC 7.

Christopher:
I really don’t understand why you are claiming that WTC7 beyond a reasonable doubt, was not brought down by DD/F, when you haven’t even come close to showing that yet. You have obviously read the NIST WTC7 preliminary report and can understand it. You have pointed out successfully that a number of gaps in evidence exist that may have been erroneously assumed to be rock-solid evidence by those in support of the DD/F collapse hypothesis. But you have done nothing by way of illustrating or providing evidence that the DD/F collapse is not the best explanation.

All of the following statements are true (whether you want them to be or not). They all are either evidence of, or at the very least, consistent with a DD/F collapse.

Assumptions:
The initiating event is noted as the initial structural failure which led to the observed collapse of the east penthouse.
NIST assumes that a failure of one of columns 76-81, truss 1 or truss 2, the east transfer girder or some combination thereof, with a possible combination of adjacent framing and floor systems could be considered as possible locations of the initiating event.

Observations:
• WTC7 suffered structural damage from WTC1 collapse
• WTC7 was structurally weakened as a result of this damage
• The southwest corner was gouged out from floors 8 to 18
• A large gouge was observed/documented near the center of the south face extending from the roof down to roughly floor 20.
• Additional damage near the center of the south face was reported, the extent of which is unknown due to inconsistent eyewitness accounts and inability of video documentation because of smoke obstruction.
• Damage east of center of the south face is unlikely based on available evidence, but cannot be completely ruled out based on the opportunity to observe being obscured by smoke for most of the day
• Two elevator cars were reported to have been ejected from their shafts, indicating the possibility of damage to a core column in the area of the initiating event
• It is possible that additional structural failures/damage occurred inside the building and was not observed
• Structural damage in the area of the initiating event is unlikely, based on the available evidence, but, based on the limitations of the available evidence, cannot be ruled out as a possibility.
• Fires began in WTC7 upon the building being hit by WTC1 debris
• No efforts were conducted to fight fires in WTC7
• Fires were reported by witnesses/firefighters on nearly every floor
• Photos/videos verify many (not all) of the eyewitness accounts of fires/fire progression
• Fires were observed in the area of the initiating event on multiple floors
• WTC7 stored a large volume of diesel fuel to operate generators in the building
• It is probable that diesel fuel burned in the building, based on comparisons of the volume of fuel missing from the tanks to the amount of fuel found in the soil samples below the rubble
• Based upon the layout of the generator fuel lines, a diesel fuel fire in the area of the initiating event was possible, but the available evidence suggests that it was unlikely
• Firefighters reported the building to be bulging, leaning, creaking and groaning, and also observed debris falling off the building
• Firefighters placed a transit on the building and confirmed the bulging/leaning
• Senior firefighters on the scene assessed the damage to the building
• Senior firefighters believed that the building’s structural integrity had been compromised and that the building was in danger of collapse (at the time, at least one senior firefighter disagreed with the assessment)
• Senior firefighters established a collapse radius around WTC7 and pulled firefighters outside the possible collapse zone (pulling a number of firefighters away from SAR in the Towers rubble piles)
• The preponderance of firefighters at GZ on 9/11 have not expressed disagreement with the assessment that WTC7 would collapse
• No firefighters who were at GZ on 9/11 and witnessed the WTC7 collapse have expressed belief that WTC7 collapsed by any means other than DD/F
• Demolition workers began to arrive at GZ by roughly 3PM on 9/11
• No demolition workers who were at GZ on 9/11 and witnessed the WTC7 collapse have expressed belief that WTC7 collapsed by any means other than DD/F
• No witnesses to WTC7 collapsed have reported any characteristics of the event that are not consistent with DD/F
• At least one structural engineer has published a report detailing how the observed collapse sequence, theoretically, could have progressed from a single core-column failure
• The report is available online for any experienced structural engineer to either affirm the hypothesis possibility or refute it by showing the errors in either calculations or practical application of principles.

I don’t know why you are saying that there is no evidence for the DD/F. Many of these are direct evidence. Some are just statements that are consistent with DD/F without advancing the case for it. And I’m sure I’m missing some, but this is a good start. Given the volume of unknowns in the case, its prudent for NIST to say “appears possible”; as they will likely never be able to fill in enough of the holes in the evidence to state definitively that this is how it happened. They will be left to determine the probability of legitimate hypotheses, and you haven’t provided nearly enough evidence to show that DD/F is not currently the most likely explanation for the WTC7 events. You’ve barely even shown that there is another explanation worth considering.

Show me the inaccuracies in the statements above. If you wish to continue debate on any of these points, I’m game. (I’m new and haven’t grown nearly as weary of this thread as some of the regulars.) If you agree with all of the above statements, then great; I’ll move over to the C7 and C4 thread and see what kind of comparable list of statements we can come up with in support of the CD hypothesis.

[GStan]

I forgot one in my list of bullet points:

Given appropriate temperature and time conditions, fire can weaken a building's structural steel

[MaGZ]

• Two elevator cars were reported to have been ejected from their shafts, indicating the possibility of damage to a core column in the area of the initiating event



I would like to know how this was possible since the damage done to WTC 7 was by the collapse of WTC 1. The southwest corner was damaged and also a 20 story gouge on the southern face. The elevators were in the center of WTC 7, so how is it possible they could have been ejected from their shafts?

[GStan]

I would like to know how this was possible since the damage done to WTC 7 was by the collapse of WTC 1. The southwest corner was damaged and also a 20 story gouge on the southern face. The elevators were in the center of WTC 7, so how is it possible they could have been ejected from their shafts?

From a technical standpoint, I can't really provide meaningful comment as to how the cars could have been ejected from the shafts. I have read that the cars were ejected both on this forum and in the NIST report. I am assuming the account to be correct. I also know from this forum and NIST that there are reports of additional damage to the center of the south face below floor 14. Due to smoke obstructing the view of the building, the accounts of how much damage was done are inconsistent and no photos (that I am aware of) are available to verify which account is accurate. Could whatever caused that damage have also caused the ejection? I'm not qualified to say. I suppose explosives in the shaft is not an impossibility, (I assume that's what you're hinting at) however given the lack of other corresponding evidence of explosives leads me to believe that debris is the better explanation for the ejection.

[MaGZ]

From a technical standpoint, I can't really provide meaningful comment as to how the cars could have been ejected from the shafts. I have read that the cars were ejected both on this forum and in the NIST report. I am assuming the account to be correct. I also know from this forum and NIST that there are reports of additional damage to the center of the south face below floor 14. Due to smoke obstructing the view of the building, the accounts of how much damage was done are inconsistent and no photos (that I am aware of) are available to verify which account is accurate. Could whatever caused that damage have also caused the ejection? I'm not qualified to say. I suppose explosives in the shaft is not an impossibility, (I assume that's what you're hinting at) however given the lack of other corresponding evidence of explosives leads me to believe that debris is the better explanation for the ejection.

No, I am not hinting at explosives in the elevator shafts. However, I do not want to mislead you since I am one of those who believes WTC 7 was a controlled demolition; strictly to bring down the building in order for the search and rescue efforts to continue in a safe manner. As to the elevators, the only diagram I have seen shows them to be located in the center of WTC 7 and therefor it would be unlikely for them the be damaged in the collapse of WTC 1.

I have suggested previously there may have been service elevators located on the south side of WTC 7. Perhaps these were the elevators that were damaged.

[LashL]

Chief Nigro and the firefighters he consulted are credible sources of information, but their assessment does not qualify as evidence of anything.

That is not correct. The observations and assessments made by Chief Nigro and numerous others on the scene is evidence of the condition of the building at various times over the course of the day. Such evidence, by the way, would be entirely admissible as evidence in court, and their assessments are far more valuable than your assessment, which is made from the comfort of your armchair. Your assessment certainly is not evidence of anything and would certainly not be admissible in court.

Their only frame of reference was the collapse of the Trade Towers in which they had lost hundreds of their brothers.

That is mere handwaving on your part as it completely ignores the many decades of collective firefighting experience and the many decades of collective training in building structures, building safety, fire engineering, fire safety, etc., that the numerous people on the scene possessed.

They were acting with an abundance of caution.

Of course, they were acting cautiously, as they always do and as they are trained to do. Do you know nothing at all about firefighting?

My statement stands as is. It is a reasonable, logical conclusion.

Unfortunately, it lacks anything in the way of evidence to support it.

Chief Nigro's statement about the decision to pull everyone back is clear and unambiguous. He consulted with firefighters and not structural engineers.

While it appears that Chief Nigro did not personally consult with structural engineers at the scene, there is little doubt that structural engineers were on the scene and were consulting with members of the FDNY. You'll note that in my prior post above, I did not say that Chief Nigro personally spoke with structural engineers. I said that there were engineers from the building department on the scene and that it is clear that they were consulting with members of the FDNY. You worded your post carefully in order to make it appear as though I was suggesting that Chief Nigro personally consulted with those structural engineers, when that was not what I said at all. It is apparent that there were structural engineers on the scene and it is clear that they were there for the specific purpose of assessing the integrity of the buildings.


You have only your personal incredulity and the fact that it is impossible to prove a negative.

Wrong. And non sequitur besides.

At the Meridian Plaza, they did consult with a structural engineer and he said the building might collapse. It did not collapse. Even when a structural engineer says a building might collapse, it is NOT EVIDENCE of anything, only an opinion based on limited information.

Irrelevant, and red herring.

When firefighters die, Chiefs act with an abundance of caution to prevent further loss of life.

Transparent appeal to emotion aside, is this supposed to be a startling revelation?

Chief Hayden summed it up rather eloquently:
""**** 'em all. Let 'em burn. Just tell the guys to keep looking for guys. Just keep looking for the brothers."

Again, appeal to emotion aside, what is your point?

On the contrary, the fire chief's assessment, like all the other reasons for believing WTC 7 collapsed due to DD/F, is supposition.

The fire chief's assessment, based as it was upon observation and consultation with others who actually observed the conditions, is vastly superior to yours. Your assessment is uninformed, twelfth-hand, google-fu supposition.

The current discussion is about the fire chief's assessment.

See above. It is about the collective observations, consultations, and assessments of numerous people who were actually on the scene.

At about 1:00 p.m., when the decision was made to pull back, there were NO FIRES on the east, north and west sides except for a couple fires at the SW corner.

Why do you continue to make such bald assertions when you know full well that they are over-stated?

There was NO reason to think WTC 7 would fall to the west, north or east. There was NO reason to think WTC 7 would fall to the south due to the damage to the perimeter frame, as the structural engineers at NIST have determined.


Only if you ignore the views of those on the scene at the time who voiced concerns about the building's integrity, and only if you ignore the views of those on the scene at the time who were concerned that it would fall.

As it turns out, it appears that their concerns were valid, since we all know that the building did ultimately fall, with the east penthouse going first and falling into the building. And we've all seen the photos/video stills of a massive gaping gash on the south side. In the absence of any evidence of pre-planted explosives, in the absence of any plausible means by which to pre-rig the building for a controlled demolition in secrecy, and in the absence of any complicity by the FDNY, how do you get around that?

[funk de fino]

UPDATE

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary_18Dec07-Final.pdf

[GStan]

No, I am not hinting at explosives in the elevator shafts. However, I do not want to mislead you since I am one of those who believes WTC 7 was a controlled demolition; strictly to bring down the building in order for the search and rescue efforts to continue in a safe manner. As to the elevators, the only diagram I have seen shows them to be located in the center of WTC 7 and therefor it would be unlikely for them the be damaged in the collapse of WTC 1.

I have suggested previously there may have been service elevators located on the south side of WTC 7. Perhaps these were the elevators that were damaged.

I can't say your theory is impossible, although the available evidence does not support it. You could make a sound argument from strictly a motive standpoint. The towers have collapsed. All firefighters on scene want to be looking for possible survivors among their fallen brothers in the rubble piles. WTC7 is badly damaged from tower 1 and has been assessed by those on scene to be in danger of collapse. A large portion of the rubble piles lie within the possible collapse radius of WTC7 so the firefighters have to be pulled away from the piles. They are standing around for hours waiting for it to collapse so they can get back to the rescue efforts. Someone has the bright idea, 'hey, why don't we just knock it down ourselves so we can get back to work? its empty, and its a foregone conclusion that it will collapse anyway, come on, we've got men in those piles"

Up to that point, the argument is plausible. But after that, it takes a high speed logical nose dive into the ground. Who would have dared to make that call? On what authority? With how many people was it discussed? What was the plan for hiding and keeping the secret? Why necessarily take the nefarious route of keeping it a secret? Why not contact Silverstein's insurers and say 'look, this is what we are up against, get someone over here now to look at our assessment and approve this plan'? Why not call a congressman or senator or Rudy, who may have been communicating with president and say 'we want to get our men, we can't, we want to do this and not be held liable, protect us?' Who would have put the FDNY at a liability risk for willfully and secretively destroying $750 million worth of private property? Where did the explosives come from? Its illegal to use them anywhere in Manhattan for demolition, so it is unlikely they would be able to get any from the immediate vicinity of GZ. Who went to get, or who brought the charges to the site? Who knew where to place the charges? Who volunteered, or was ordered, to go into a damaged burning building that virtually everyone on site believed would collapse and place the charges? And the most damning questions, even if only one charge was placed (and how could they predict in advance that it would only take one?), why did no one on scene hear the blast or see the blast? and why did the seismic equipment in the area not pick up evidence of the blast? Either everyone on scene who would have heard/seen it was in on it and has kept quite (except Silverstein of course;)), or it did not happen. I'm sticking with option B for now.

By the way, thanks for the info about the elevators. I suppose I had not looked at the building diagrams very closely before. I had previously assumed that the eastern-most elevator bank was in the area of the initiating event, core columns 76-78. In looking again, it appears as though that elevator bank is one set of core columns further west, columns 73-75.

If you want to discuss the firefighter demolition theory in more detail, we should probably begin a new thread, as I know that Christopher likes to keep this one on the topic of debris damage and fire collapse hypothesis.

[GStan]

UPDATE

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary_18Dec07-Final.pdf

Thanks Funk. I wish they would finish up already, as the movement is in dire need of some fresh Official Story documents to poke a few meaningless holes in.

[funk de fino]

Thanks Funk. I wish they would finish up already, as the movement is in dire need of some fresh Official Story documents to poke a few meaningless holes in.

I must warn you, continuing with MaGz will end up in his pathetic missile theory and you really do not want to get into that with a liar like him.

The fact he knows zip about missiles or aircraft or that there were no aircraft near enough and no missiles fired that day does not stop him peddling his filth here.

[GStan]

I must warn you, continuing with MaGz will end up in his pathetic missile theory and you really do not want to get into that with a liar like him.

The fact he knows zip about missiles or aircraft or that there were no aircraft near enough and no missiles fired that day does not stop him peddling his filth here.

Fret not, I've read the missile theories and seen the alleged evidence. There really is nothing to debate. Thanks for the warning none-the-less!

[Christopher7]

Sorry mate, you have proved nothing of the sort. You have shown that at that time NIST or FEMA did not have a full and complete understanding of exactly how the DD/F caused the collapse as we see it, but that it is still the only scenario with any evidence.What evidence?

[LashL]

Gstan, Funk de fino, and others.


There is really no point in continuing this discussion with Christopher7. If you haven't noticed, he has gone the way of Christophera (of 3" rebar on 4' centers fame), and just hangs about watching his pet thread fall off of the the front page and then uses any convenient post as an excuse to resurrect it, without really addressing the content of whatever post he purports to respond to, but instead merely reiterating his pet theory. It is all rather pointless.

I'd suggest putting it aside until the final report on 7WTC comes out next year, since Christopher7 has nothing new to say and hasn't had since he started this thread.



Just a suggestion, of course.

[funk de fino]

What evidence?


The building was in fact badly damaged by debris and on fire for most of the day.

I see you have resorted to bumping your own posts on the diesel fuel theory on the LooseChange forum due to complete and utter lack of replies from the teenagers over there. No action from 15th november till the 20th december on probably the biggest gathering of truthers online. Zero - none - nada.

How sad

On that note I am taking LashL advice and staying out of your ego massaging post until the NIST report comes out.


(Unless you find evidence of explosives or any other method of dropping the building of course - real evidence)

[Christopher7]

Christopher:
I really don’t understand why you are claiming that WTC7 beyond a reasonable doubt, was not brought down by DD/F, when you haven’t even come close to showing that yet. You have obviously read the NIST WTC7 preliminary report and can understand it. You have pointed out successfully that a number of gaps in evidence exist that may have been erroneously assumed to be rock-solid evidence by those in support of the DD/F collapse hypothesis.Thank you.

But you have done nothing by way of illustrating or providing evidence that the DD/F collapse is not the best explanation.You want i should prove a negative now?

All of the following statements are true (whether you want them to be or not). They all are either evidence of, or at the very least, consistent with a DD/F collapse.
Until you you look at each item closely.

Assumptions:
The initiating event is noted as the initial structural failure which led to the observed collapse of the east penthouse.
NIST assumes that a failure of one of columns 76-81, truss 1 or truss 2, the east transfer girder or some combination thereof, with a possible combination of adjacent framing and floor systems could be considered as possible locations of the initiating event.
Observations:
• WTC7 suffered structural damage from WTC1 collapse
• WTC7 was structurally weakened as a result of this damage
• The southwest corner was gouged out from floors 8 to 18
• A large gouge was observed/documented near the center of the south face extending from the roof down to roughly floor 20.
• Additional damage near the center of the south face was reported, the extent of which is unknown due to inconsistent eyewitness accounts and inability of video documentation because of smoke obstruction.
• Damage east of center of the south face is unlikely based on available evidence, but cannot be completely ruled out based on the opportunity to observe being obscured by smoke for most of the day

NIST does not claim the debris damage had any effect on the collapse, only that it probably started the fires.
They now say office fires caused the collapse.
http://nasathermalimages.com/images/NIST_NCST_Advisory_Committee_Meeting_12-18-01.mp3

• Two elevator cars were reported to have been ejected from their shafts, indicating the possibility of damage to a core column in the area of the initiating event

There are NO elevator shafts in the AIE.
The AIE was columns 79, 80 and 81. Trusses 1 & 2 were on the 6th floor.
A blast big enough to eject 2 elevator cars into the hallway north of the elevator shaft on the 8th floor near column 74, would have destroyed the stairwell and killed Michael Hess and Barry Jenkins.
Therefore, the blast that ejected the elevator cars was further west, nowhere near the AIE.

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/3082/wtc7fl8edit3yg8.png

• It is possible that additional structural failures/damage occurred inside the building and was not observed
• Structural damage in the area of the initiating event is unlikely, based on the available evidence, but, based on the limitations of the available evidence, cannot be ruled out as a possibility.

Yes it can, and has been.
NIST says the IE was due to office fires.

• Fires began in WTC7 upon the building being hit by WTC1 debris
• No efforts were conducted to fight fires in WTC7
• Fires were reported by witnesses/firefighters on nearly every floor

At the SW corner

• Photos/videos verify many (not all) of the eyewitness accounts of fires/fire progression
• Fires were observed in the area of the initiating event on multiple floors

8, 11, 12 and 13; at different times

• WTC7 stored a large volume of diesel fuel to operate generators in the building
• It is probable that diesel fuel burned in the building, based on comparisons of the volume of fuel missing from the tanks to the amount of fuel found in the soil samples below the rubble
• Based upon the layout of the generator fuel lines, a diesel fuel fire in the area of the initiating event was possible, but the available evidence suggests that it was unlikely

NIST has given up on the diesel fuel fires, it's time you did.

• Firefighters reported the building to be bulging, leaning, creaking and groaning, and also observed debris falling off the building
• Firefighters placed a transit on the building and confirmed the bulging/leaning

Wrong

A guy who works nearby and a fireman, three blocks away thought the building was leaning.
No one at the scene thought WTC 7 was leaning.
Chief Hayden said there was a bulge in the SW corner.
He did not say it was leaning.
NIST did not say it was leaning.
WTC 7 was NOT leaning!

• Senior firefighters on the scene assessed the damage to the building
• Senior firefighters believed that the building’s structural integrity had been compromised and that the building was in danger of collapse (at the time, at least one senior firefighter disagreed with the assessment)
• Senior firefighters established a collapse radius around WTC7 and pulled firefighters outside the possible collapse zone (pulling a number of firefighters away from SAR in the Towers rubble piles)

Their only frame of reference was the Trade Towers that had just claimed the lives of hundreds of their brothers.
None of them had ever seen a high rise building collapse prior to that.
Their actions were prudent given the circumstances but their caution does not equal evidence.

• The preponderance of firefighters at GZ on 9/11 have not expressed disagreement with the assessment that WTC7 would collapse
• No firefighters who were at GZ on 9/11 and witnessed the WTC7 collapse have expressed belief that WTC7 collapsed by any means other than DD/F
• Demolition workers began to arrive at GZ by roughly 3PM on 9/11
• No demolition workers who were at GZ on 9/11 and witnessed the WTC7 collapse have expressed belief that WTC7 collapsed by any means other than DD/F
• No witnesses to WTC7 collapsed have reported any characteristics of the event that are not consistent with DD/F

None of that is EVIDENCE.

• At least one structural engineer has published a report detailing how the observed collapse sequence, theoretically, could have progressed from a single core-column failure
• The report is available online for any experienced structural engineer to either affirm the hypothesis possibility or refute it by showing the errors in either calculations or practical application of principles.

Actually, he did not give any calculations, only speculation.

There are 229 architects and engineers who believe DD/F did not cause the collapse at http://www.ae911truth.org/


I don’t know why you are saying that there is no evidence for the DD/F.Because there isn't any.

Many of these are direct evidence.Wrong, none of that is evidence.

Some are just statements that are consistent with DD/F without advancing the case for it. And I’m sure I’m missing some, but this is a good start.
You need to learn the difference between inference and evidence.

[Christopher7]

Correction:

The fires on floors 8, 11, 12 and 13 in the AIE is evidence for the office fire hypothesis.

[GT/CS]

Gstan, Funk de fino, and others.


There is really no point in continuing this discussion with Christopher7. If you haven't noticed, he has gone the way of Christophera (of 3" rebar on 4' centers fame), and just hangs about watching his pet thread fall off of the the front page and then uses any convenient post as an excuse to resurrect it, without really addressing the content of whatever post he purports to respond to, but instead merely reiterating his pet theory. It is all rather pointless.

I'd suggest putting it aside until the final report on 7WTC comes out next year, since Christopher7 has nothing new to say and hasn't had since he started this thread.



Just a suggestion, of course.

But, he's such a good source for signature quotes!!!

[DGM]

Chris:
There are NO elevator shafts in the AIE.
The AIE was columns 79, 80 and 81. Trusses 1 & 2 were on the 6th floor.
A blast big enough to eject 2 elevator cars into the hallway north of the elevator shaft on the 8th floor near column 74, would have destroyed the stairwell and killed Michael Hess and Barry Jenkins.
Therefore, the blast that ejected the elevator cars was further west, nowhere near the AIE.

Why would there have to be a blast?
I envision something like a exterior column (from the tower) going through the building like a spear. No blast just damage.

[Christopher7]

Chris:

Why would there have to be a blast?
I envision something like a exterior column (from the tower) going through the building like a spear. No blast just damage.That's one helluva vision.
This 'spear' would have to be traveling horizontally.
If this 'spear' hit the elevator cars with enough force to knock them thru a wall 90' from the front of the building, then it would have missed the core columns.

In any case, column 74 is not in the AIE.

[DGM]

Why horizontal? The towers were not more than twice as tall?

How much force is enough? Do you have a better explaination?(sorry if I missed it)

[Christopher7]

Why horizontal? The towers were not more than twice as tall?

How much force is enough? Do you have a better explaination?(sorry if I missed it)If the spear was falling, it would not penetrate that far into the building nor could it knock 2 elevators sideways thru a wall.

Bankers Trust was 100' closer and it was hit by a section of exterior framework.

That section or sections only penetrated about 30'



Column 74 is NOT in the AIE.

[DGM]

If the spear was falling, it would not penetrate that far into the building.

Bankers Trust was 100' closer and it was hit by a section of exterior framework.

That section or sections only penetrated about 30'
You base this on what?

ETA I'm not sure why your quote is different that your post above.

[Christopher7]

But, he's such a good source for signature quotes!!!Signature this!

NIST Approach Summary 12 18 07
Page 6:

The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires, not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks.

[Christopher7]

You base this on what?

ETA I'm not sure why your quote is different that your post above.Your 'spear' is a pipe dream with nothing to support it.

You continue to ignore the FACT that column 74 is NOT in the AIE.

[DGM]

Your 'spear' is a pipe dream with nothing to support it.

You continue to ignore the FACT that column 74 is NOT in the AIE.
Why did you say there was a "blast"? What is your evidence for this? I was giving you an alternative explanation. I'm addressing your elevator comment,What are you talking about?

[Christopher7]

Why did you say there was a "blast"? What is your evidence for this? I was giving you an alternative explanation. I'm addressing your elevator comment,What are you talking about? 9/1101
Michael Hess: I was part of the emergency management crew on the 23rd floor and when all the power went out on the building, another gentleman and i walked down to the 8th floor where there was an explosion! and we were trapped on the 8th floor. Smoke, thick smoke wrapped(?) around us for about an hour and a half"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6475257160515133665&q=wtc7+new+footage
[start at 6:20. WARNING: audio very loud, turn down volume]


9/11/01
Barry Jenkins "Me and Mr. Hess ..... We made it to the 8th floor. Big explosion!

Blew us back into the 8th floor."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnF--czW0F8&mode=related&search=


Your alternate explanation is a long shot, to say the least.
ETA: Make that impossible.
An elevator probably weighs about a ton. It would take a tremendous amount of horizontal force to bust thru the south wall and another wall, rip 2 elevators loose from their tracks and knock them thru a wall 90' from inside the building.

Since no interior debris damage was mentioned by the firefighters who rescued Michael and Barry, or the firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side, the evidence favors explosion.

[MaGZ]

So, an explosive event occurred on the south side of WTC 7 throwing two elevators out of their shafts and was witnessed by Mr. Hess and Mr. Jennings in an adjacent stairwell.

The time of the explosion was 9:03.

[twinstead]

Since no interior debris damage was mentioned by the firefighters who rescued Michael and Barry, or the firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side, the evidence favors explosion.

You're kidding, right?

At the very MOST this inches the bar, which is miles toward the official account, a slight direction opposite.

The vast preponderance of evidence supports the official account, and you know it. You're an intelligent bloke; use your powers for good...

[Christopher7]

You're kidding, right? No

At the very MOST this inches the bar, which is miles toward the official account, a slight direction opposite.Whatever

The vast preponderance of evidence supports the official account,There were fires on floors 8, 11, 12 and 13 in the AIE.

That's all the evidence there is to support the official hypothesis.

Everything else people have listed here is inference not evidence.

[Christopher7]

So, an explosive event occurred on the south side of WTC 7 throwing two elevators out of their shafts and was witnessed by Mr. Hess and Mr. Jennings in an adjacent stairwell.
The time of the explosion was 9:03.My only concern with all of this is:
the possible damage was NOT in the AIE.

[GT/CS]

So, an explosive event occurred on the south side of WTC 7 throwing two elevators out of their shafts and was witnessed by Mr. Hess and Mr. Jennings in an adjacent stairwell.

The time of the explosion was 9:03.

Oh no, anyone want to guess where he's going with this?

Originally Posted by MaGZ
"WTC 7 began to evacuate shortly after the missile hit the 14th floor. 9:03am"

There goes the neighborhood.

[Christopher7]

This is a very serious topic but there are lighter moments.

Only when we loose our sense of humor are we truly lost.

C7
You can't hang your hat on
"No evidence that it didn't happen"

cloudshiprule
Are you kidding me? You're hanging your whole damn wardrobe on "no evidence that what you say happened happened"


C7
What part of "I don't know." don't you understand?

Dave RogersThe part where you don't use it more often.



HyJinX
Yes. I agree that to me, WTC 7 looks like a CD. Then again, I get danish and donuts mixed up all the time.

C7
A donut is easy to recognize, it's the one with the hole in the middle.

The official story is a donut.

WTC 7 was a CD.

CD's are very recognizable.

*************************************

God is the life force that flows through all living things
We are all one with and inseparable from God
God loves not one of us more than another




Merry Christmas to all.

[maccy]

Merry Christmas Chris!

I'm amazed by your persistence in this thread.

[GT/CS]

Gstan, Funk de fino, and others.


There is really no point in continuing this discussion with Christopher7. If you haven't noticed, he has gone the way of Christophera (of 3" rebar on 4' centers fame), and just hangs about watching his pet thread fall off of the the front page and then uses any convenient post as an excuse to resurrect it, without really addressing the content of whatever post he purports to respond to, but instead merely reiterating his pet theory. It is all rather pointless.

I'd suggest putting it aside until the final report on 7WTC comes out next year, since Christopher7 has nothing new to say and hasn't had since he started this thread.



Just a suggestion, of course.

LashL, after you posted this I've been watching this thread's position and, as usual, you are 100% correct. As soon as it went past the middle of page 2 Chris bumped it.

[twinstead]

This thread has caused a 10 story loss of my brain cells, and I don't have that many to spare.

[Christopher7]

Merry Christmas Chris!

I'm amazed by your persistence in this thread.Merry Christmas to you and yours.

It seems my persistence has had results.

This was my first post on diesel fuel fires:
14th February 2007, 09:01 PM #879 (http://72.32.2.238/forumlive/showpost.php?p=2343993&postcount=879)
"The risers were in one of the two utility shafts in the west end of the building" [FEMA pg 14]
The SSB supply pipe ran behind a wall [on the 5th floor] that is on the north side of the mechanical room.
ie: a few feet north of the northernmost row of core columns.
[about 100' from the front of the building]
this is the only fuel pipe in the east half of WTC 7

post 1883 pg 48
There was no 'gouge floor 10 to the ground in the middle of WTC 7' as described on pg 18 of the NIST report.

post 1884 pg 48
There were no diesel fuel fires or debris damage in the area of the initiating event.

post 2349 pg 59
The damage to the south west part of WTC 7 did not weaken or have a significant structural effect on the area of the initiating event.


NIST now agrees:

NIST Approach Summary 12 18 07
Page 6:

The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires, not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks.

No mention of debris damage.

[GT/CS]

In other words he's going to ignore the effect of a 40,000 gallon diesel fire.

[Miragememories]

In other words he's going to ignore the effect of a 40,000 gallon diesel fire.

It's surprisingly easy to ignore a fire that never took place.

Even NIST now acknowledges the WTC7 fires were not fueled by diesel.

MM

[DGM]

It's surprisingly easy to ignore a fire that never took place.

Even NIST now acknowledges the WTC7 fires were not fueled by diesel.

MM
Your right, They said that the office contents would be plenty.

Good to see your learning.

[Miragememories]

Your right, They said that the office contents would be plenty.

Good to see your learning.

Did they?

I would like to see that clear statement written with the "certainty" with which you attribute it?

NIST, to the best of my knowledge, has yet to argue that the WTC7 office furniture fuel sources "would be plenty" sufficient. If so, I'm sure we wouldn't be waiting until July 2008 for them to say so!

Hope to see you do some learning.

MM

[RedIbis]

Did they?

I would like to see that clear statement written with the "certainty" with which you attribute it?

NIST, to the best of my knowledge, has yet to argue that the WTC7 office furniture fuel sources "would be plenty" sufficient. If so, I'm sure we wouldn't be waiting until July 2008 for them to say so!

Hope to see you do some learning.

MM

Recently, Sunder of NIST has said that the fires in WTC7 were "regular office fires" and has ruled out diesel fuel as the source of the fires.

ETA: Just saw your post above saying the same thing.

[DGM]

Did they?

I would like to see that clear statement written with the "certainty" with which you attribute it?

NIST, to the best of my knowledge, has yet to argue that the WTC7 office furniture fuel sources "would be plenty" sufficient. If so, I'm sure we wouldn't be waiting until July 2008 for them to say so!

Hope to see you do some learning.

MM
Why do you care when the report comes out, you won't actually read it.

Are you saying that NIST has not said that fires and damage caused the collapse?

When are you "truthers" going to do some actual research and produce some results. 6 years and nothing is kind of poor.

[Christopher7]

Why do you care when the report comes out, you won't actually read it.

Are you saying that NIST has not said that fires and damage caused the collapse?

When are you "truthers" going to do some actual research and produce some results. 6 years and nothing is kind of poor.
Thar's right. NIST has NOT said that the normal building fires caused the collapse, it's just a "working hypothesis". [set of assumptions]
I have been doing research and found that there is NO evidence to support debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the AIE.

NIST has acknowledged this to be true in the 12 18 07 report.

That's real research and real results.

In case you missed it:

There were NO diesel fuel fires in or near the area of initiating event that led to the implosion of WTC 7.


FEMA 5-28
[emphasis mine]
"Fuel oil was distributed through the 5th floor in a double-wall iron pipe.
A portion of the piping was 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.

The following is, therefore, a hypothesis based on potential rather than demonstrated fact.
Assume that the distribution piping system was severed and discharged up to 75 gpm onto the 5th floor in the vicinity of Truss 1."

FEMA 5-29
Although there is no physical evidence available, this hypothesis assumes that it is possible that both the inner and outer pipes were severed


Testimony of Dr. S. Shyam Sunder
Acting Director, Building and Fire Research Laboratory

Page 3 [on page counter]
"One possibility being considered in the NIST working hypothesis....impact......may have resulted in fractures in the fuel piping system..........at the valve box would release fuel under pressure that, if ignited,......."
[pipes would have fractured at the south west generator room where the damage was, not the north east generator room at the opposite end of the building]

Pg 180 [11 on pg counter]
"valve box......near generator #1"

Pg 181
"very near column #79"

i.e. in the NE generator room.

[FEMA 5-14]
The north east generator room was in the NE corner of WTC 7 on the 5th floor.
The supply pipe for the generator room was north of the core area, 90 feet from the south side of the building.
All the other diesel tanks, pumps, supply pipes and generators were in the west half of WTC 7.

[FEMA 5-29]
If the generators were running and the intake/cooling fans were on, the louver vents would be open.

http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/7392/copyofe5asn4.png

If there was a fire in this room, smoke would be pouring out through the cooling air exhaust vents.
If the louvers were closed, a fire would not have sufficient oxygen to burn hot enough to be a factor in the collapse.

The whole thing about fuel oil [diesel] causing Truss 1 to fail is an ASSUMPTION based on nothing!

FEMA 5-31
"Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence."

In addition, NIST knew there were no fires in the north east generator room [floor 5].

NIST L-22
From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:
• No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby areas
• No signs of fire or smoke were reported below the 6th Floor from the exterior, stairwells or lobby areas


NIST L-26 [sometime after 3]
• The fire on Floor 8 continued to move east on the north face, eventually reaching the northeast corner and moving to the east face.
Around 4:45 p.m.
Floor 12 was burned out by this time.
[no fire on floor 5 reported]

Yet they list it in their summary.

NIST L-51
2. Fires were observed after the collapse of WTC 1. Fires were observed after 2 pm on Floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13. Fires were not observed on Floor 5, but this may be due to the lack of windows. The presence of a fuel distribution system and the possibility of damage at the south face from WTC 1 debris impact, indicates that fires may have been present on Floor 5.

The debris impact might have caused a fire in the SW generator room but not the NE generator room.

The possibility of diesel fuel fires in or near the NE generator room had been investigated and there is no evidence to support this hypothesis.

The evidence points the other way.

There was NO probability of diesel fuel fires in that area.


Refrences:
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/testimony/TestimonySept8_06.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

********************************************

The damage to the south west part of WTC 7 did not weaken or have a significant effect on the area of the initiating event.


NIST Apx. L pg 36

"If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade."

"Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas. Progression of column failure to adjacent columns would have been arrested by the vierendeel of the perimeter moment frame which could span across a sizeable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame,"

The report then talks about possible damage to core columns and fires in the area of the initiating event.

pg 37

" I2.1 South facade damaged
> I3.1 Perimeter moment frame redistributes loads around damage
> I4.1 Local failure only"

PG 41

"If a group of perimeter columns failed, the perimeter framing above this area would have redistributed its loads, due to the redundancy of the moment frame."

pg 42

" Initiating event scenarios from I4.4 to I4.6
> V1.1 Any perimeter column fails
> V2.1 Collapse does not progress vertically"

The report makes no further mention of the damage to the south face.

They site core damage and fires as the possible causes of the initiating event.

[GStan]

Thank you.

You want i should prove a negative now?

I'll rephrase; you have done nothing by way of illustrating or providing evidence that there is a better explanation than a collapse by DD/F.



Observations:
• WTC7 suffered structural damage from WTC1 collapse
• WTC7 was structurally weakened as a result of this damage
• The southwest corner was gouged out from floors 8 to 18
• A large gouge was observed/documented near the center of the south face extending from the roof down to roughly floor 20.
• Additional damage near the center of the south face was reported, the extent of which is unknown due to inconsistent eyewitness accounts and inability of video documentation because of smoke obstruction.


Since you did not respond to these specifically, I assume that you have no problem with their accuracy. (You need not mention that you give them no weight as evidence; its understood.)

• Damage east of center of the south face is unlikely based on available evidence, but cannot be completely ruled out based on the opportunity to observe being obscured by smoke for most of the day

NIST does not claim the debris damage had any effect on the collapse, only that it probably started the fires.
They now say office fires caused the collapse.
http://nasathermalimages.com/images/NIST_NCST_Advisory_Committee_Meeting_12-18-01.mp3


Are they claiming DD had no effect on the collapse? Or on the initiating event? I'm sure you, me, NIST and most everyone on this forum agrees that based on the available evidence, DD in the area of the hypothesized 'initiating event' is unlikely. However, once the initiating event occurred, the debris damage had certainly made the rest of the structure more vulnerable to collapse than it would have been had there been no DD. If you want to make the case that the damaged WTC7 was as strong as an intact WTC7 in its ability to arrest the global collapse that followed the initiating event, I am willing to listen. While I'm no structural engineer, logically, it seems absurd that a heavily damaged building is as strong as an intact building.

• Two elevator cars were reported to have been ejected from their shafts, indicating the possibility of damage to a core column in the area of the initiating event

There are NO elevator shafts in the AIE.
The AIE was columns 79, 80 and 81. Trusses 1 & 2 were on the 6th floor.
A blast big enough to eject 2 elevator cars into the hallway north of the elevator shaft on the 8th floor near column 74, would have destroyed the stairwell and killed Michael Hess and Barry Jenkins.
Therefore, the blast that ejected the elevator cars was further west, nowhere near the AIE.

The NIST report includes columns 76-81 in the AIE, not just 79-81. However, I will revise my assertion appropriately.

• Two elevator cars were reported to have been ejected from their shafts, indicating the possibility of damage to a core column that was adjacent to, but not in, the hypothesized area of the initiating event

• It is possible that additional structural failures/damage occurred inside the building and was not observed

I assume you have no problem with the accuracy of this. (Again, you need not mention that you give them no weight as evidence; its understood.)

• Structural damage in the area of the initiating event is unlikely, based on the available evidence, but, based on the limitations of the available evidence, cannot be ruled out as a possibility.

Yes it can, and has been.
NIST says the IE was due to office fires.

It has not been ruled out. They are not using it as part of their current working IE hypothesis. Admittedly, it is unlikely. However, inferring that they have completely ruled it out as a possibility is incorrect. Not enough evidence was gathered in either direction to definitively state that there was or was not debris damage in the AIE.

• Fires began in WTC7 upon the building being hit by WTC1 debris
• No efforts were conducted to fight fires in WTC7

Again, I assume you have no problem with these.

• Fires were reported by witnesses/firefighters on nearly every floor

At the SW corner

I revise my assertion to 'fires were reported by witnesses/firefighters on nearly every floor, and the greatest number of reports are in regard to the SW corner.'

• Photos/videos verify many (not all) of the eyewitness accounts of fires/fire progression

Assumed to be fine.

• Fires were observed in the area of the initiating event on multiple floors

8, 11, 12 and 13; at different times

Correction by me, 'fires were observed at different times in the AIE on floors 8, 11, 12, and 13.'

• WTC7 stored a large volume of diesel fuel to operate generators in the building
• It is probable that diesel fuel burned in the building, based on comparisons of the volume of fuel missing from the tanks to the amount of fuel found in the soil samples below the rubble
• Based upon the layout of the generator fuel lines, a diesel fuel fire in the area of the initiating event was possible, but the available evidence suggests that it was unlikely

NIST has given up on the diesel fuel fires, it's time you did.

That's not really enough of an argument to make me revise my assertions. NIST has also stated that they've found no evidence in support of a blast/explosives scenario. Is that enough for you to give up on CD?

• Firefighters reported the building to be bulging, leaning, creaking and groaning, and also observed debris falling off the building

Assumed to be accurate.

• Firefighters placed a transit on the building and confirmed the bulging/leaning

Wrong

A guy who works nearby and a fireman, three blocks away thought the building was leaning.
No one at the scene thought WTC 7 was leaning.
Chief Hayden said there was a bulge in the SW corner.
He did not say it was leaning.
NIST did not say it was leaning.
WTC 7 was NOT leaning!

I don't see the point in arguing this one, so I'll just revise my statement to, 'firefighters placed a transit on the building and confirmed the bulging.'

• Senior firefighters on the scene assessed the damage to the building
• Senior firefighters believed that the building’s structural integrity had been compromised and that the building was in danger of collapse (at the time, at least one senior firefighter disagreed with the assessment)
• Senior firefighters established a collapse radius around WTC7 and pulled firefighters outside the possible collapse zone (pulling a number of firefighters away from SAR in the Towers rubble piles)

Their only frame of reference was the Trade Towers that had just claimed the lives of hundreds of their brothers.
None of them had ever seen a high rise building collapse prior to that.
Their actions were prudent given the circumstances but their caution does not equal evidence.

More agreement that the statements are accurate.

• The preponderance of firefighters at GZ on 9/11 have not expressed disagreement with the assessment that WTC7 would collapse
• No firefighters who were at GZ on 9/11 and witnessed the WTC7 collapse have expressed belief that WTC7 collapsed by any means other than DD/F
• Demolition workers began to arrive at GZ by roughly 3PM on 9/11
• No demolition workers who were at GZ on 9/11 and witnessed the WTC7 collapse have expressed belief that WTC7 collapsed by any means other than DD/F
• No witnesses to WTC7 collapsed have reported any characteristics of the event that are not consistent with DD/F

None of that is EVIDENCE.

...and more agreement as to the accuracy of the statements.

• At least one structural engineer has published a report detailing how the observed collapse sequence, theoretically, could have progressed from a single core-column failure
• The report is available online for any experienced structural engineer to either affirm the hypothesis possibility or refute it by showing the errors in either calculations or practical application of principles.

Actually, he did not give any calculations, only speculation.

I will change to, 'the report is available online for any experienced structural engineer to either affirm the hypothesis possibility or refute it by showing the errors in the practical application of principles used to draw the conclusions.'


Looking back, it seems like you and I agree on most of the points, (considering my revisions) and the only things we really can debate are:
1) Whether or not the building was leaning (and who cares, it doesn't matter for any collapse scenario).
2) The difference between something being unlikely and something being impossible, (i.e. diesel fires and debris damage in the AIE)
3) The weight given to the above facts in determining the most likely collapse scenario. (And I think you are giving pretty much all of them a weight of zero.)

[GStan]

No

Whatever

There were fires on floors 8, 11, 12 and 13 in the AIE.

That's all the evidence there is to support the official hypothesis.

Everything else people have listed here is inference not evidence.

You have discounted virtually all of what is known about the collapse of WTC7 as 'not qualifying as evidence' for the DD/F collapse hypothesis, with the exception of the fire timeline in the AIE. Just hypothetically speaking, what would qualify as evidence in this case?

[GStan]

Christopher, just looking out for you, as I know you would not want to make definitive assertions without proper foundation, and as such, I've revised the assertions for you.

Merry Christmas to you and yours.

It seems my persistence has had results.

This was my first post on diesel fuel fires:
14th February 2007, 09:01 PM #879 (http://72.32.2.238/forumlive/showpost.php?p=2343993&postcount=879)
"The risers were in one of the two utility shafts in the west end of the building" [FEMA pg 14]
The SSB supply pipe ran behind a wall [on the 5th floor] that is on the north side of the mechanical room.
ie: a few feet north of the northernmost row of core columns.
[about 100' from the front of the building]
this is the only fuel pipe in the east half of WTC 7

post 1883 pg 48
There was no 'gouge floor 10 to the ground in the middle of WTC 7' as described on pg 18 of the NIST report.

I know you meant, there was no 'gouge floor 10 to the ground in the middle of WTC 7' as described on pg 18 of the NIST report, yet there was definitely damage to the building in that area. Multiple witnesses have described it, yet inconsistencies in reports and lack of photo evidence due to smoke coverage, make it difficult to determine the exact size of the damage area.'

post 1884 pg 48
There were no diesel fuel fires or debris damage in the area of the initiating event.


This should read, 'based on the available evidence, diesel fuel fires or debris damage in the area of the initiating event are unlikely. You should not be making statements of absolute certainty about events in which the certainty cannot possibly be determined.

post 2349 pg 59
The damage to the south west part of WTC 7 did not weaken or have a significant structural effect on the area of the initiating event.


add, ...despite its obvious effect on the overall structural integrity of the building.

NIST now agrees:

NIST Approach Summary 12 18 07
Page 6:

The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires, not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks.

No mention of debris damage.

Right, they are testing a hypothesis that does not include debris damage and diesel fire in the AIE. You should not infer from that, that they don't believe debris damage and diesel fire did not effect the global collapse that followed the AIE.

[GStan]

<snip>

There were NO diesel fuel fires in or near the area of initiating event that led to the implosion of WTC 7.

It is unlikely. You can even say it was 'highly unlikely' if it makes you feel better. But stating that there were none, when it cannot be proven that there were none, is intellectually dishonest. (And I personally don't think there were any diesel fires in the AIE.) Why do you feel the need to state definitively that these fires were not there, when 'highly unlikely' makes virtually the same argument for you and it is more intellectually honest?

<snip>

The debris impact might have caused a fire in the SW generator room but not the NE generator room.

The possibility of diesel fuel fires in or near the NE generator room had been investigated and there is no evidence to support this hypothesis.

The evidence points the other way.

There was NO probability of diesel fuel fires in that area.

Again, you are weakening the quality of your argument with intellectual dishonesty. Why not say 'low probability' or 'extremely low probability' to give yourself more credibility? Do you understand where terms like 'absolute certainty' and 'absolute impossibility' fit into the world of the physical sciences? They are rarities. While I'm not a scientist, I would bet that those reading this thread would back me up that experimentation almost always results in conclusions that deal in degrees of probability and rarely achieve results that include absolutes. Help me out guys. Do you agree?

[GT/CS]

You have discounted virtually all of what is known about the collapse of WTC7 as 'not qualifying as evidence' for the DD/F collapse hypothesis, with the exception of the fire timeline in the AIE. Just hypothetically speaking, what would qualify as evidence in this case?

Only those items that support his hypothesis.

[Christopher7]

Only those items that support his hypothesis.You chose to nitpick and babble, at length.

It has been over six years.

Based on all the evidence, NIST has concluded that:

The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires,
not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks.

It is perfectly clear in this statement that they have ruled out debris damage and diesel fuel fires as contributing factors in the initiating event that LED TO the implosion of WTC7.

Why can't you accept that?

[Norseman]

You chose to nitpick and babble, at length.

It has been over six years.

Based on all the evidence, NIST has concluded that:

The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires,
not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks.

It is perfectly clear in this statement that they have ruled out debris damage and diesel fuel fires as contributing factors in the initiating event that LED TO the implosion of WTC7.

Why can't you accept that?

Since NIST have given a progress report on their WTC 7 investigation I am going to break my silence in this thread.

Personally I have no problem with accepting NIST's latest refinement of the working hypothesis as presented on page 5 in WTC 7 Technical Approach and Status Summary (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary_18Dec07-Final.pdf).

But the big question here is if you, Christopher 7, accept the complete working hypothesis as presented by NIST, including the fact that:
[/QUOTE]While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, it is evaluating the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.[/QUOTE]

Or are you just cherry picking that bullet point about normal building fires?

[GT/CS]

Ah, so Chris responded to my comment. Ever since he said the diesel pipes couldn't have twisted when I asked him about the concept of a moment arm he's been on ignore.

Chris, what do you mean by, "You chose to nitpick and babble, at length".? Please provide an example.

Oh shoot, sorry, you're on ignore so that won't work. Oh well, go ahead and post the example(s) anyway so the others can see how I nitpick and babble at length.

[Christopher7]

Personally I have no problem with accepting NIST's latest refinement of the working hypothesis as presented on page 5 in WTC 7 Technical Approach and Status Summary (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary_18Dec07-Final.pdf).
<subject shift deleted>
are you just cherry picking that bullet point about normal building fires?Do you understand that the "working hypothesis" is just a set of assumptions that they have not been able to substantiate?

For 7 or 8 months i have been saying that there were no diesel fuel fires in the AIE and the debris damage had no significant structural effect on the AIE.
We debated these issues at length. Few here could accept what the data clearly shows. In November you were still saying that there could have been diesel fuel fires in the AIE despite the FACT that there was no evidence to support that hypothesis.

NIST has now acknowledged that i was right.

They have been analyzing the data for over a year since they started investigating the collapse of WTC7 again.
There was no mention of additional fires in the AIE.
As i have said many times, The fire time line and progression is not going to change.

I have also stated that the fires in the AIE were insufficient to cause a core column weighing over 4 tons per floor to fail.
I have presented evidence to support that statement.

NIST has again postponed the final draft because they still cannot explain how the fires in the AIE could cause a core column to fail.

[Christopher7]

Ah, so Chris responded to my comment. Ever since he said the diesel pipes couldn't have twisted when I asked him about the concept of a moment arm he's been on ignore.

Chris, what do you mean by, "You chose to nitpick and babble, at length".? Please provide an example.

Oh shoot, sorry, you're on ignore so that won't work. Oh well, go ahead and post the example(s) anyway so the others can see how I nitpick and babble at length.My bad, my apologies. It was GStan nitpicking and babbling.

Your point about diesel pipes is now moot because NIST has stated that "fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines" were not a factor in the initiating event that led to the implosion of WTC7.

[Norseman]

My bad, my apologies. It was GStan nitpicking and babbling.

Your point about diesel pipes is now moot because NIST has stated that "fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines" were not a factor in the initiating event that led to the implosion of WTC7.

And your totally unsubstantiated point about controlled demolition C7 is also now moot, and have been so since the day WTC 7 collapsed, since NIST has stated repeatedly that:

NIST has seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7
was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition.
NIST April 5, 2005 (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf)

While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST will estimate the magnitudeof hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements as a result of blast.
NIST December 14, 2006 (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Dec06.pdf)

􀂉Completed hypothetical blast analysis.
􀂉Completed analysis of 5th floor fire scenarios.

NIST December 18, 2007 (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary_18Dec07-Final.pdf)
Did you see this Christopher7. (For new readers: The 5th floor is the floor where the pressurized diesel fuel fire could have occurred. It is also to be noted that blast scenarios also could be caused by naturally occurring backdraft somewhere in the building)

Based on the above work NIST maintains and narrows the cause of the initiating event in their working hypothesis:

•While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, it is evaluating the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led tothe structural failure of one or more critical elements.
•The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires, not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks.
•This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation.

NIST December 18, 2007 (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary_18Dec07-Final.pdf)

This is a two way street C7, you can not cherry pick one of NIST's findings while you totally disregard their findings in other areas, that is disregarding without being able to substantiate your reason for doing so in any reasonable manner.

[Miragememories]

I think we should all give Chris a big hand for his courageous efforts and hard work here.

MM

[Miragememories]

...you can not cherry pick one of NIST's findings while you totally disregard their findings in other areas, that is disregarding without being able to substantiate your reason for doing so in any reasonable manner.

Clearly NIST is loath to declare any official WTC7 findings.

For years, in spite of their government clout and enormous resources, NIST has waffled on the WTC7 report.

Maybe they hope all the distracting spin generated here will solve their problems or allow them to delay indefinitely.

MM

[Miragememories]

You know, one of the things that CTers seem to overlook is the unorthoday structural arrangement of the building, which is explained at some length in the preliminary report, and incorporated some weird and wonderful things such as reuse of pre-existing foundations even though locations weren't optimum.

Do they really overlook this?

You really think it's news to the 9/11 truth movement that at the time, WTC 1 and WTC2 were the tallest buildings in the world and used suspension architecture?

You really think the 9/11 Truth Movement is unaware of the special requirements of WTC7 because of the hydro sub station? That we are unaware of Truss #1, Truss #2 and Truss #3?

And if those "weird and wonderful things such as reuse of pre-existing foundations even though locations weren't optimum" why hasn't NIST or FEMA made a big case out of it?

Well you are wrong Architect so dream up some other topic maybe some research on the fossil count in the bedrock.

MM

[Norseman]

Maybe they hope all the distracting spin generated here will solve their problems or allow them to delay indefinitely.
MM

That I would say is a big self delusion of grandeur if you Miragememories think that NIST's engineers are wasting their time reading what we write here, instead of completing a long and painstaking investigation to get all the details right as far as possible. And they have to get the details right because their findings from the WTC investigation are changing the way large buildings (http://wtc.nist.gov/recommendations/recommendations.htm) are built.

[twinstead]

Wow. What an amazing hoax this 'inside job' is. They are even getting the building codes changed. Beautiful.

Is there no end to the power and influence of the NWO?

[Norseman]

And if those "weird and wonderful things such as reuse of pre-existing foundations even though locations weren't optimum" why hasn't NIST or FEMA made a big case out of it?
MM

Oh yes, NIST is making a big case out of their WTC investigation, including WTC 7, the findings from the investigation are changing the way buildings are built (http://wtc.nist.gov/recommendations/recommendations.htm), as I pointed out to you in my last post Miragememories.

So while you and Christopher 7 are deluding yourself about controlled demolitions that never happened, NIST is working hard to make future buildings safer. But changes in building codes is a long and boring bureaucratic process that is not exactly front page news or prime time television news stuff. But nevertheless the findings from the WTC investigation is a big case within the building industry. And at their December 18th meeting the National Construction Safety Board concluded that the findings from the WTC 7 investigation will have an even greater impact on the building codes than the findings from the WTC 1 and WTC 2 investigation. This is due to the fact that the collapse of WTC 7 was more like a ordinary office fire and did not involve an aircraft impact. (Recording of the meeting (http://origin.eastbaymedia.com/~nist/asx/nist-wtc-121807.asx) at 1:18:23 and the next minutes.)

I would recommend that both you and Christopher7 listen carefully to the whole meeting. The members are concerned with the vulnerability of large floor spans to fire, they are in no way whatsoever concerning themselves with your or Christopher7's self delusional CD ideas. They are working in the real world where the results of their work has a direct impact on the safety of the occupants of existing and future buildings.

[twinstead]

I'm curious as to Chris' response to why experts are bothering to change building codes in response to the NIST and other reports if they are so obviously full of crap.

[GT/CS]

I'm curious as to Chris' response to why experts are bothering to change building codes in response to the NIST and other reports if they are so obviously full of crap.

I'm sure in their minds it's all part of the massive cover-up.

[Miragememories]

That I would say is a big self delusion of grandeur if you Miragememories think that NIST's engineers are wasting their time reading what we write here, instead of completing a long and painstaking investigation to get all the details right as far as possible. And they have to get the details right because their findings from the WTC investigation are changing the way large buildings (http://wtc.nist.gov/recommendations/recommendations.htm) are built.

Meanwhile 7 years later buildings keep going up and NIST with no sense of concern or urgency is supposedly continuing it's "painstaking investigation"..ya right.

MM

[Miragememories]

I'm curious as to Chris' response to why experts are bothering to change building codes in response to the NIST and other reports if they are so obviously full of crap.

I don't believe Chris or anyone else has ever claimed that NIST doesn't continue to have an important role in revising building codes.

MM

[Norseman]

Meanwhile 7 years later buildings keep going up and NIST with no sense of concern or urgency is supposedly continuing it's "painstaking investigation"..ya right.
MM

I will recommend that you take your time to study the below real life investigation Miragememories, at the least read the Pittsburgh Tribune article. NTSB had to work real hard to convince Boeing that something was wrong with their Boeing 737's and that it was necessary to upgrade every Boeing 737 world wide to prevent future accidents. Similarly NTSB have to work hard to convince the industry that code changes are necessary, changes that will make it more expensive to build new buildings. Things like this take time, you can not throw in unlimited manpower and think that the investigation will be completed any faster. You need a team of experts who can work with the case over time and familiarize themselves with every detail to get to the bottom of it. This is real life, and in real life things do take time, and very often far more time than you thought it would when you started, as any one who have worked on large projects know.

And once again NIST is pushing for code changes based upon the findings from the WTC investigation so far, and have been doing so for a long time. And many new buildings (like the new WTC 7) are built with specifications exceeding the current codes because of 9/11. But some time in the future when 9/11 is a distant memory the owners of new buildings will be more concerned with cost than exceeding the codes to be on the safe side, then it will be really necessary to have updated codes in place.

What you and Christopher7 do not understand, is that a proper investigation contains far, far more than just looking at some videos and conclude that it was a CD.

In real investigations it can take several years to pinpoint the cause of the accident. And they have to look at all likely causes and chains of events that can explain the accident. And sometimes they are not even able to find the cause of the accident.

A example of this is Flight 585 that crashed in Colorado Springs in 1991. It took 10 years and one more accident (Flight 427) before a updated and final report from NTSB was adopted that pinpointed the cause. The first report was finished in 1992 with undetermined reason. The NTSB reports on Flight 585 and Flight 427 you will find here (http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/a_Acc2.htm). In the case of Flight 427 NTSB used 5 years on the investigation before the report was finished.

Newspaper articles about the investigation:
The Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/737/part05/)
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/specialreports/flight427/s_247850.html)

And as you should know, after the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. And they started their work in 2002.

[Norseman]

I'm curious as to Chris' response to why experts are bothering to change building codes in response to the NIST and other reports if they are so obviously full of crap.
I don't believe Chris or anyone else has ever claimed that NIST doesn't continue to have an important role in revising building codes.
MM

Neither have any one of us accused you, C7 or anyone else of having claimed that, as far as I know. But why did you choose to comment on NIST's general responsibilities, while you totally avoided twinstead's comment that clearly was written in reference to the NIST WTC investigation and other reports regarding WTC, and especially to you and C7's claims about a inside job controlled demolition of WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 that never happened?

[Christopher7]

And your totally unsubstantiated point about controlled demolition C7 is also now moot, and have been so since the day WTC 7 collapsed, since NIST has stated repeatedly that:

Did you see this Christopher7. (For new readers: The 5th floor is the floor where the pressurized diesel fuel fire could have occurred. It is also to be noted that blast scenarios also could be caused by naturally occurring backdraft somewhere in the building)

Based on the above work NIST maintains and narrows the cause of the initiating event in their working hypothesis:

NIST December 18, 2007 (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary_18Dec07-Final.pdf)

This is a two way street C7, you can not cherry pick one of NIST's findings while you totally disregard their findings in other areas, that is disregarding without being able to substantiate your reason for doing so in any reasonable manner.Not so.

I can accept that which i know to be true and reject that which i know to be false.
I have previously listed the facts that show there were no diesel fuel fires in the area of the AIE, and the facts showing that debris damage did not have a significant structural effect on the AIE.

NIST has now come to the same conclusion using those same facts.
The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires,
not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks.

I accept their conclusion because i already knew it was true.

I do not accept their denial that WTC7 looks like a CD.
CD discussed here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3293996#post3293996

This thread is about the lack of evidence to support the NIST hypothesis [set of assumptions] that DD/F caused the collapse of WTC7.

After 106 pages of debate, it turns out that i was right about:

The debris damage did not have a significant effect on the initiating event that led to the implosion of WTC7.

There were no diesel fuel fires in the AIE.


That leaves "normal building fires".

There were fires on several floors, at different times, in the area of the initiating event.
[the failure of core columns 79, 80 and/or 81]

Fires in east half of WTC 7

NIST L-24
11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Looking from the southeast corner to the south face:
Fire on floor 12*, moved toward the east face
[NIST did not publish this photo]

2:00 to 2:30 p.m.
Fire on floors 11 and 12 at southeast corner, progressed to the north
[Louvers = north east generator room]

*corrected to 12 in Final 4-5-05
http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/7392/copyofe5asn4.png

NIST L-24
Around 3 p.m., fires were observed on Floors 7 and 12 along the north face.

http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/346/11kp0.jpg

http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/3849/copyofnorthfacekj6.png

Some time later, fires were observed on Floors 8 and 13, with the fire on Floor 8
moving from west to east and the fire on Floor 13 moving from east to west.

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/337/copyof3kt0.jpg

NIST L-26

The fire on Floor 8 continued to move east on the north face, eventually reaching the
northeast corner and moving to the east face.

Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8*, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face;
Floor 12 was burned out by this time.
[NIST did not publish this photo]

*The fire on Floor 8 had already burned that part out.

NIST L-38-41
A core column, weighing over 4 tons per floor, would have to be uniformly heated to about 1,000 F on 4 contiguous floors and 2 or 3 floors would have to collapse all around that column, before it could break at 3 splice joints and buckle.

Fires in the Meridian Plaza burned out of control over 8 contiguous floors for 19 hours.
Beams and girders sagged and twisted but they did not collapse.
“Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.”
http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf pg 19 [24 on pg counter]
The columns in WTC 7 were heavier and would take longer to heat up.

[GStan]

My bad, my apologies. It was GStan nitpicking and babbling.

Your point about diesel pipes is now moot because NIST has stated that "fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines" were not a factor in the initiating event that led to the implosion of WTC7.

I presented you with a list of factual statements consistent with a collapse by debris and fire damage. I even clarified some based on your comments. Given how many such statements can be made in the case for dd/f and how few can be stated in support of CD, I'm not surprised that you chose not to respond to my revised list; nor am I surprised that you dismissed it as nitpicking and babbling. I don't care if you believe 7 was a CD; it is certainly not impossible, but you are being willfully ignorant in your continued failure to acknowledge that the evidence for debris damage and fire is far greater than that for CD. There is nothing inherently wrong with believing that 7 was a CD, but implying that the evidence favors it is intellectually dishonest.

BTW, some more 'nitpicking'. Why, in your statement above about NIST, is "fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines" the only part in quotes? Nevermind, I already know. It because NIST has never made the statement "fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines were not a factor in the initiating event that led to the implosion of WTC7." Nor did they even imply that statement. If they have, please show where. Otherwise, please stop manipulating their words and misinterpreting their work. They have removed diesel fuel fires from their working hypothesis of the initiating event cause because there is not enough evidence to support it. They are trying to prove a hypothesis that is supported by the evidence. Since the evidence does not support the diesel fire, they are not including it in the working hypothesis. This does not mean that you can definitively state, as you love to do, that were no diesel fires. NIST has stated also that they found no evidence of blasts or explosives and they are not including that in their working hypothesis. By your logic, shouldn't that be twisted to mean that definitively, there were no blasts or explosives? No. You have persisted in mangling NIST. Your argument could just as honestly and persuasively be made by stating that "evidence suggests that a diesel fire in the area of the initiating event is possible, yet highly unlikely." Its accurate and honest. The fact that you continue to extrapolate unfounded assumptions and overstate your case is transparent, and shows everyone that the argument you are making is baseless, pathetic and weak.

[Christopher7]

I presented you with a list of factual statements consistent with a collapse by debris and fire damage. I even clarified some based on your comments. Given how many such statements can be made in the case for dd/f and how few can be stated in support of CD, I'm not surprised that you chose not to respond to my revised list; nor am I surprised that you dismissed it as nitpicking and babbling. I don't care if you believe 7 was a CD; it is certainly not impossible, but you are being willfully ignorant in your continued failure to acknowledge that the evidence for debris damage and fire is far greater than that for CD. The only evidence for DD/F is the fires in the AIE.

BTW, some more 'nitpicking'. Why, in your statement above about NIST, is "fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines" the only part in quotes? Nevermind, I already know. It because NIST has never made the statement "fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines were not a factor in the initiating event that led to the implosion of WTC7." Nor did they even imply that statement. If they have, please show where. Otherwise, please stop manipulating their words and misinterpreting their work. They have removed diesel fuel fires from their working hypothesis of the initiating event cause because there is not enough evidence to support it. They are trying to prove a hypothesis that is supported by the evidence. Since the evidence does not support the diesel fire, they are not including it in the working hypothesis. This does not mean that you can definitively state, as you love to do, that were no diesel fires.

Your argument could just as honestly and persuasively be made by stating that "evidence suggests that a diesel fire in the area of the initiating event is possible, yet highly unlikely." Its accurate and honest.Why can't you accept reality?

There is no evidence to support DFF in the AIE and there is no reason to think there were DFF in the AIE.

NIST has concluded that DFF were NOT a factor in the IE.

It's impossible to prove a negative and evidently, that's what it will take for you to admit that there were NO DDF in the AIE.

[jaydeehess]

I think we should all give Chris a big hand for his courageous efforts and hard work here.

MM

What you do with your hands is your business MM.

Meanwhile 7 years later buildings keep going up and NIST with no sense of concern or urgency is supposedly continuing it's "painstaking investigation"..ya right.



yeah, we know how much stock you put into actually doing any research there MM.

[Miragememories]

yeah, we know how much stock you put into actually doing any research there MM.

Ouch.

Coming from such a respected, heavy duty, read world wide, researcher such as yourself jaydeehess that really cuts me to the quick.

MM

[jaydeehess]

Ouch.

Coming from such a respected, heavy duty, read world wide, researcher such as yourself jaydeehess that really cuts me to the quick.

MM

Ever find any evidence of that stairwell in WTC 7 that has windows that allow a view of the towers MM?

Ever find any evidence of missile strikes, like eyewitnesses or missile parts, MM?

Ever decide what type of air-to-air missile that might have enough explosive in it to actually cause anything more than superficial damage to a steel building, MM?

No, I thought not. Just throwing out wild speculations and to hell with any research right MM?

On the other hand you were refering to the researchers at NIST who do take the time and make to great effort to research what they are investigating(yeah they have a budget to do so, its kinda required), not me in the post I quoted. How apropos that you respond with a sarcastic snip at me. not

[jaydeehess]

NIST has concluded that DFF were NOT a factor in the IE.



Really?
The way I read it is that , given the lack of evidence of a deisel fuel fire in the area of initial failure, they are going with an office contents fires senario.

That's a far cry from them stating that they conclude that there definitely was no deisel fuel fire. Yeah, I know, its a distinction that you just cannot comprehend, just cannot fit into your world. Much like the concept of 'up' in a 2-d universe.

[GStan]

The only evidence for DD/F is the fires in the AIE.

Correction, the only available hard evidence for the collapse initiating event is the fires in the area of the initiating event.

I suppose there is some merit in making a distinction in the argument between the initiating event and the subsequent global collapse progression. I agree that the only hard evidence for the initiating event is fires in that area. As far as the global collapse progression, all of the other observed fires and damage would definitely have played some role.

Why can't you accept reality?

There is no evidence to support DFF in the AIE and there is no reason to think there were DFF in the AIE.

Accept reality? I agree that no evidence was discovered in support of a diesel fire in the AIE, AND that I don't believe that there was one there. What am I not accepting? No evidence suggests dff in the aie. I don't believe in a dff in the aie. I'm not going to make the unprovable, fallacious, dishonest leap to claim that dff in the aie is impossible, as you have done. Your persistance in doing so shows a weak argument and poor logical/critical thinking skills.

NIST has concluded that DFF were NOT a factor in the IE.

It's impossible to prove a negative and evidently, that's what it will take for you to admit that there were NO DDF in the AIE.

You love stating that it is impossible to prove a negative. You have repeated it a number of times in this thread. SO WHY DO YOU CONTINUOUSLY INSIST THAT THE NEGATIVE HAS BEEN PROVEN? Why do feel the need to claim that 'there were no DFF in the AIE' when
1) that cannot possibly be proven,
2) it is a dishonest assertion, and
3) stating that DFF in the AIE was 'highly improbable' will serve the same purpose in the argument you are making.

[Christopher7]

Really?
The way I read it is that , given the lack of evidence of a deisel fuel fire in the area of initial failure, they are going with an office contents fires senario. Right

That's a far cry from them stating that they conclude that there definitely was no deisel fuel fire.I disagree.

There is NO evidence of DFF in the AIE.

There never was any reason to think there was a DFF in the AIE.

At any rate, the working hypothesis has excluded DFF.

The office fires were on floors 8, 11, 12 and 13 in the AIE.

[jaydeehess]

Right

I disagree.
color me suprised

There is NO evidence of DFF in the AIE.

Which is what FEMA said in the first place and all parties made clear was of a lesser probability. So where is your beef?

There never was any reason to think there was a DFF in the AIE.

Ahhh, there it is and you are wrong! There was deisel fuel in the AIE and the clean up showed a large missing amount of fuel. Therefore it was imperitive to consider the possibility.

At any rate, the working hypothesis has excluded DFF.

Actually they have not excluded the possibility. They have chosen to investigate a hypothysis that does not include deisel fuel fire on floor 5 because at this time there is (and yes likely never will be) enough evidence that such a fire existed. Once again the disticntion , in all probability, escapes you.

The office fires were on floors 8, 11, 12 and 13 in the AIE.

Hmmm, 3 consecutive floors and another separted by only two floors. Is that supposed to be new to anyone here?

[Christopher7]

color me suprised
:shocked:

There is NO evidence of DFF in the AIE.
Which is what FEMA said in the first place and all parties made clear was of a lesser probability. So where is your beef?
The 'beef' was their inclusion in the summary of something for which there was no evidence.
The 'beef' is settled.

There never was any reason to think there was a DFF in the AIE.
Ahhh, there it is and you are wrong! There was deisel fuel in the AIEDFF = diesel fuel FIRE.

and the clean up showed a large missing amount of fuel. Therefore it was imperitive to consider the possibility.Right

Actually they have not excluded the possibility.They have been studying the evidence for over a year since they started up again. It's fair to say that they have ruled out diesel fuel fires in the AIE.

The office fires were on floors 8, 11, 12 and 13 in the AIE.Hmmm, 3 consecutive floors and another separted by only two floors. Is that supposed to be new to anyone here?No
Gotta crash now but i'll have more to say on that later.

Have a great 2008 jaydeehess.
:)

[jaydeehess]

:shocked:


The 'beef' was their inclusion in the summary of something for which there was no evidence.
The 'beef' is settled.

You never had a beef then. No one ever said there WAS a DFF in the AIE, only that there was a possiblity of one. That possibility was investigated and no evidence of a DFF was found and therefore NIST, being reasonable and prudent does not include such a thing in their working hypothysis, neither did they include it in the hypothysis in the prelim report of several years ago.

Your ONLY teeny point of contention is that they mentioned the possibility at all and therefore it makes you who is imprudent and insincere in wanting an investigation into this collapse.


DFF = diesel fuel FIRE.

Yeah, so? I said that there was diesel fuel in the AIE so the possibility of a DFF needed to be included. A point you agree with Therefore it was imperitive to consider the possibility. Right


They have been studying the evidence for over a year since they started up again. It's fair to say that they have ruled out diesel fuel fires in the AIE.

They have put a finer point on the probability of one, to the extent that to include it in the working hypothysis of the cause of the initial failure would be contra-indicated.

[pomeroo]

I'm still looking for a fantasist or two with the stones to face Mark and Arthur Scheuerman in a 'Hardfire' debate. There must be somebody!

[Christopher7]

You never had a beef then. No one ever said there WAS a DFF in the AIE, only that there was a possiblity of one. That possibility was investigated and no evidence of a DFF was found and therefore NIST, being reasonable and prudent does not include such a thing in their working hypothysis, neither did they include it in the hypothysis in the prelim report of several years ago.It was their inclusion in the summary of something for which there was NO evidence:
"The presence of a fuel distribution system and the possibility of damage at
the south face from WTC 1 debris impact, indicates that fires may have been present on Floor 5."

Yeah, so? I said that there was diesel fuel in the AIE so the possibility of a DFF needed to be included. A point you agree with No, it needed to be investigated, not included in the summary.

They have put a finer point on the probability of one, to the extent that to include it in the working hypothysis of the cause of the initial failure would be contra-indicated.That finer point being:
NIST 12-18-07
page 6
The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires, not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks.

[Christopher7]

I'm still looking for a fantasist or two with the stones to face Mark and Arthur Scheuerman in a 'Hardfire' debate. There must be somebody!Who are they [journalists?] and where do they debate?

[funk de fino]

C7

This is what page 6 of the latest update states

An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

This is what you have posted

The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires, not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks.

Your quote is in relation to the overall hypothesis. What it states is that the fires they are talking about in the AIE are normal office fires only not diesel fueled fires. This does not mean that debris damage is no longer part of the overall working hypothesis as you have seemed to claim.

Do you agree?

It states that diesel fuel was not a factor in the fires in the initiating event. This does not preclude diesel fires in other areas. Do you agree?

[Christopher7]

C7
Your quote is in relation to the overall hypothesis. What it states is that the fires they are talking about in the AIE are normal office fires only not diesel fueled fires. This does not mean that debris damage is no longer part of the overall working hypothesis as you have seemed to claim.

Do you agree?No
The hypothesis you listed is a year old.
This is the new hypothesis
NIST 12-18-07
page 6
"The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires, not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks.

They did NOT say "initial local failure caused by normal building fires and debris damage."

The debris damage is no longer a part of the working hypothesis period.
The working hypothesis is an initiating event, leading to global collapse.

It states that diesel fuel was not a factor in the fires in the initiating event. This does not preclude diesel fires in other areas. Do you agree?Yes.

[funk de fino]

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is restated here:

��An initial local failureoccurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

��Vertical progressionof the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse,and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

��Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progressionof 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.

C7, this is what the slide in the update says. Or are you disagreeing this is in the update on page 6?

Your later quote is in relation to this current working hypothesis. It means that the fires that they think caused the initiating event were not fueled by diesel. This does not mean debris damage are no longer being thought of as a possible event cause. Your quote is not the overall current working hypothesis it is a clarification of the fuel for the fires that are part of the overall hypothesis.

Your use of this quote is wrong.

[jaydeehess]

Yeah, so? I said that there was diesel fuel in the AIE so the possibility of a DFF needed to be included. A point you agree with
No, it needed to be investigated, not included in the summary.

So it needed to be investigated but not mentioned in the report or at the very least not mentioned at all in the summary. Sort of a hush-hush investigation, "if we find something then we'll talk about it".


Riiight, I can see it now. Had NIST severely under reported on diesel fuel fire possibilities and then found that there was evidence of such a fire and the "truth movers" would cry foul, "why did you not say much about it before?"

You readily admit, it seems, that there was a possibility of such a fire and that it required investigation and at the same time you are stating that it should not have been in the prelim report's summary as a "possibility".

How can you hold two mutually opposed opinions at the same time Chris?