10 story hole in WTC 7

[Grizzly Bear]

Pages 183 to 187 of NCSTAR 1-9 vol. 1 show the debris damage to WTC 7.

There was NO 10 story hole

<snip>

Shyam Sunder lied in the so called “Debunking“ article in Popular Mechanics Magazine.
"On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out.”


Please review pages 158-160,
as well as the diagram on page 165, and excerpt of which:
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/6954/nistwtc7kj4.png

Key as depicted on the NIST Report:
Green = no visible damage
Yellow = Window glass broken out
Orange = Granite and underlying truss damage
Red = Damage to outer perimeter structural steel
Blue = not visible

Also review page 167, 168, and 173

And review the data accumulated between the comments and diagrams provided and compare it to the floor plan diagram they provided in the pages you pointed to. Did you review them before making your comment?


Then I ask you Chris, if Shyan Sunder depicted fraudulent data regarding the damage to World Trade Center #7, does this as well implicate that firefighter's on-scene have lied? What is your opinion?


So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too.

Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandeis came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
Firehouse Magazine: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. – Capt. Chris Boyle

http://tinyurl.com/e7bzp

Thank Gravy for having brought attention to these:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/accountsofwtc7damage

Or shall the handwaving continue?

[jaydeehess]

Underground? The debris pile cannot be compared to a coalmine fire.
Because you say so?
I am still wondering how you come up with molten metal renaining molten for weeks/months unless sufficiently insulated and, if it was, how you calculate that it was.

How do you explain the molten metal weeks after the collapse?

Not by invoking , magic as you seem to be doing.
Wrong. The beam has the chemical signature of thermate.

Wrong, it contains sulpher and there was plently of sources for that sulpher.

Exactly?
Please. The air supply in a debris pile is far less than in a ventilated room.

Chris, I have a wood stove with two doors on the front that meet in the middle. When I light a fire in it with both doors wide open the fire burns well BUT if I then close only one door, effectively reducing the cross section of the air supply vent to 1/2, the fire roars and burns much more ferociously.
I am sure you can guess why this occurs.

Are we also clear on the liquid slag eutectic mixture as in my example of solder?

[jaydeehess]

Pages 183 to 187 of NCSTAR 1-9 vol. 1 show the debris damage to WTC 7.

There was NO 10 story hole

as described in page 18 of the NIST Appendix L report.
“middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to
the ground”
and fraudulently depicted as “Possible Region of Impact Damage by WTC 1 Debris” on pg 23
and as “Approximate Region of Impact Damage by Large WTC 1 Debris” on pg 31 and 32.

Shyam Sunder lied in the so called “Debunking“ article in Popular Mechanics Magazine.
"On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out.”






You are still argueing Appendix "L"?

The NIST report from a month ago states that structural damage contributed to the speed and fashion of the collapse but states that the fire damage was what caused the collapse.

[Dave Rogers]

Once again, fully ventilated fires burn at 1000ºC for a short time. Oxygen starved fires burn at 500 - 600ºC

You've got one quote from one JREF poster that doesn't necessarily relate to the conditions in the WTC7 rubble pile. How hot do well-insulated, oxygen limited fires burn?

How and under what conditions are the strong bonds in the chemical cage broken? Please give a reputable source.

I found some time to look this one up. Here's a good source that goes into some detail:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lV5p7YN8VeEC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=calcium+sulphate+decomposition+temperature&source=web&ots=iGj9VJi7tp&sig=JfdQ2vEMUSM4OrZ0G1ASIq6-y-s&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result

"At low temperatures the conversion to calcium oxide and sulfur dioxide is low. At 850ºC only 14 mol % of the calcium sulfate is converted to the desired calcium oxide. The remaining calcium sulfate reacted according to reaction (3) to form the unwanted CaS (figure 2). Increasing the temperature improves the conversion of the desired reaction (2). At 1000ºC 73 mol % is converted to calcium oxide. To reach complete conversion to calcium oxide a higher temperature is needed."

The relevant reactions are:

CaSO4 + H2 => CaO + SO2 + H2O (2)
CaSO4 + 4H2 => CaS + 4H2O (3)

So we have the result that at 850ºC, about 14% of the available calcium sulphate can be converted to calcium oxide and sulfur dioxide provided that there's hydrogen available, and that this goes up with temperature to 73% at 1000ºC. There's ample hydrogen available due to oxidation of iron in the presence of water (http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/redox/faq/how-iron-rusts.shtml is a reputable source).

So, we're looking at two competing hypotheses for how the iron was attacked. The first one goes like this:

Iron from the structural elements, and gypsum from the wallboard, was heated close to 1000ºC by well-insulated fires within the WTC7 rubble pile after collapse. Water sprayed on the pile reacted with the iron to form iron oxide and hydrogen. Calcium sulphate from the gypsum wallboard decomposed in the presence of hydrogen to release sulfur dioxide, which reacted with water to form sulfuric acid. This was vaporised at the temperatures in the rubble pile, and was therefore able to attack steel structural members, giving rise to acidic corrosion, thinning members in some cases quite drastically and producing a liquid slag which was a mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide. Since this was a corrosive attack rather than physical melting of the steel members, thinning of cross-sections would be expected from ablation of the surface, and this would be expected to give the almost razor-sharp edges reported. All the materials required for these reactions are known to have been present in the rubble pile, and the only other requirement for them to have taken place in this fashion is the existence of temperatures approaching, but not necessarily as high as, 1000ºC.

Would you like to articulate the thermite hypothesis to a similar level of detail, in particular explaining how thinning of steel members to near-razor sharpness took place?

Dave

[GlennB]

You've got one quote from one JREF poster that doesn't necessarily relate to the conditions in the WTC7 rubble pile. How hot do well-insulated, oxygen limited fires burn?
Dave

Chris has one quote from a JREF poster (me, I think) that indicates the sustainable temperature a smouldering fire can reach. Chris, naturally, chooses this to mean that if a 1000°C blazing fire should be smothered in a building collapse then the temperature of objects within the fire must miraculously drop to this level instantly.

However, so far the idea that the fire must have been smothered at all in the collapse remains purely an assertion by Chris. If such a fire ended up in the upper layers of the pile there could be plenty of room for air to enter.

And he has yet to describe (despite repeated requests) how therm?te could possibly affect the steel members in question in the manner observed.

[Jonnyclueless]

Johnny, gas ovens have built in ventilation for the fire.

Not airtight, air restricted.

You're not getting it.

[jaydeehess]

Chris, post 5002, how does it happen that when I reduce the air channel size by 50% my wood stove burns hotter?

[Christopher7]

Please review pages 158-160,
as well as the diagram on page 165, and excerpt of which:
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/6954/nistwtc7kj4.png

Key as depicted on the NIST Report:
Green = no visible damage
Yellow = Window glass broken out
Orange = Granite and underlying truss damage
Red = Damage to outer perimeter structural steel
Blue = not visible

Also review page 167, 168, and 173

And review the data accumulated between the comments and diagrams provided and compare it to the floor plan diagram they provided in the pages you pointed to. Did you review them before making your comment?I have reviewed all the data you mentioned. Have you reviewed the data on pg 183 - 187 ?

There is no 10 story gouge as described on pg 18 of NIST Apx. L


Then I ask you Chris, if Shyan Sunder depicted fraudulent data regarding the damage to World Trade Center #7, does this as well implicate that firefighter's on-scene have lied? What is your opinion?The firefighters were describing the damage shown on pg 183 - 187.
None of them said there was a gouge "floor 10 to the ground".

[Jonnyclueless]

So the pictures of the huge gash in the building is a fake Chris?

[Christopher7]

So the pictures of the huge gash in the building is a fake Chris?No

The gash was NOT floor 10 to the ground and it is NOT where the graphics on pg 23, 31 and 32 of the NIST report fraudulently depicted it!

[Jonnyclueless]

You're right, the gash was from the roof to the bottom. Even worse.

But it is amusing how you are trying to use the NIST report to claim there was no hole, and then try to claim the NIST report is fraudulent. Did the fraudulent angle come into play when NIST showed that the damage played no part in the collapse initiation, thus destroying your whole argument?

[jaydeehess]

You're right, the gash was from the roof to the bottom. Even worse.

But it is amusing how you are trying to use the NIST report to claim there was no hole, and then try to claim the NIST report is fraudulent. Did the fraudulent angle come into play when NIST showed that the damage played no part in the collapse initiation, thus destroying your whole argument?


Deja vu

I asked that a few pages back.
Why is Chris still argueing Appendix L, when there is a newer report out that states that although the impact damage did change the fashion of the collapse it did not alter the senario in which the fire damage initiated a global collapse.(the building would only have taken longer to collapse, and twisted differently during collapse had there been no impact damage)

[Christopher7]

You're right, the gash was from the roof to the bottom. Even worse.Wrong!
Look at the debris damage graphics on pg 183 -187
The damage stops at the 5th floor.
All the damage is well west of center [column 22]

But it is amusing how you are trying to use the NIST report to claim there was no hole, and then try to claim the NIST report is fraudulent.NCSTAR 1-9 debunks NIST Apx. L

The NCSTAR 1-9 report shows the debris damage.
There is no gouge as described on pg 18 and depicted on pg 23, 31 and 32 of NIST Apx. L

The debris damage:
"middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground"
described on pg 18 and depicted on pg 23, 31 and 32 of NIST Apx. L
DID NOT EXIST!

Those graphics were FRAUDULENT and Shyam Sunder LIED when he said: "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."

[Jonnyclueless]

Wrong!
Look at the debris damage graphics on pg 183 -187
The damage stops at the 5th floor.
All the damage is well west of center [column 22]

NCSTAR 1-9 debunks NIST Apx. L

The NCSTAR 1-9 report shows the debris damage.
There is no gouge as described on pg 18 and depicted on pg 23, 31 and 32 of NIST Apx. L

The debris damage:
"middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground"
described on pg 18 and depicted on pg 23, 31 and 32 of NIST Apx. L
DID NOT EXIST!

Those graphics were FRAUDULENT and Shyam Sunder LIED when he said: "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."

There's video of the far side showing the gash from roof to floor. You can't deny that. And no the graphics are not fraudulent. It's a pretty desperate attempt on your part considering that the damage had nothing to do with the collapse and therefore completely shoots down your conspiracy theories.

BTW, any luck finding any physical evidence to support your CD?

[Christopher7]

There's video of the far side showing the gash from roof to floor.Wrong!

The video shows a gash from the roof to about floor 25.

And no the graphics are not fraudulent.This graphic is FRAUDULENT!

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

The damage in the area designated "Approximate Region of Impact Damage by Large WTC1 Debris"
DID NOT EXIST!

[Jonnyclueless]

Ah, so the gash is much bigger than the one you claim doesn't exist.

This is just sad...The jig is up and the NIST report destroyed your conspiracy theories. Face it, get over it, move on. In all this time you have yet to provide a single piece of physical evidence to support the crackpot theories. Are you just looking for attention now?

And the video shows a gash going well below floor 25, stop lying.

[Christopher7]

Ah, so the gash is much bigger than the one you claim doesn't exist. Wrong!

The gash from the floor 43 to floor 25 was not even included in the final graphic on pg 187 because it was between two columns and therefore insignificant.


The huge gouge that Shyam Sunder described as;

"On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."

was NOT included in the Final Draft because:

IT DID NOT EXIST! HE WAS LYING!



And the video shows a gash going well below floor 25Wrong again.

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/6950/copyofupperfloorsdamageww3.jpg

Here's a composite of screen captures from the video. The 30th floor is just above the red ABC News Live Coverage banner. Everything below floor 27 is obscured by smoke.

[Dave Rogers]

I take it, Chris, that you accept that the erosion of the steel was due to corrosion from high temperature in a sulfur-rich atmosphere now, because you've chosen to talk about something else?

It would appear that NIST's initial estimates of the structural damage to WTC7 were qualitatively inaccurate, as photographs and their own revised estimates show that the damage was in other places, although actually more extensive than their original 10-storey estimate. Your own picture shows a gash starting at roof level and extending, by your own admission, at least down to floor 27. Therefore, I think we can indeed say that a 10-storey gash didn't exist, just a 20+ storey gash. As for whether Sunder was lying, you are, in typical conspiracist fashion, excluding the possibility that initial estimates can be wrong. Sunder may well have stated his best estimate at the time, an estimate that has been revised on more thorough study. This is one of the problems with taking an evidence-based, rather than a belief-based, approach to analysis of events. We can't just make stuff up then interpret the evidence to fit it, as you can; if we find out we're wrong, we have to admit it.

So there's your victory: NIST's initial estimate of the damage was incorrect, and they've effectively admitted it was incorrect by using a revised estimate of the damage in the final report and in their collapse calculations. Since you don't want to talk about steel corrosion any more, can we close this thread now?

Dave

[Christopher7]

I take it, Chris, that you accept that the erosion of the steel was due to corrosion from high temperature in a sulfur-rich atmosphere now, because you've chosen to talk about something else?I decided to get off that merry-go-round.

It would appear that NIST's initial estimates of the structural damage to WTC7 were qualitatively inaccurate, as photographs and their own revised estimates show that the damage was in other placesCorrect.

And Shyam Sunder LIED about where the damage was and how extensive it was.

although actually more extensive than their original 10-storey estimate. Not by a long shot.

There is NO damage any where near as extensive as:

"On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."



Your own picture shows a gash starting at roof level and extending, by your own admission, at least down to floor 27. Therefore, I think we can indeed say that a 10-storey gash didn't exist, just a 20+ storey gash.A 20 story hole is NOT a 10 story hole and vise versa.

The 20 story hole is the one Capt. Boyle was talking about. It was at the top of the building, not at the bottom, and it was NOT:

"On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."


As for whether Sunder was lying, you are, in typical conspiracist fashion, excluding the possibility that initial estimates can be wrong. Sunder may well have stated his best estimate at the time, an estimate that has been revised on more thorough study.There was NO 10 STORY GOUGE 1/3 THE WIDTH at all!

The graphic on pg 23, 31 and 32 FRADULENTLY included this non existent damage and Shyam Sunder LIED about it in Popular Mechanics Magazine!

[Dave Rogers]

I decided to get off that merry-go-round.

For a merry-go-round, it seemed to progress surprisingly linearly to a conclusion backed by evidence. Your only decision so far seems to have been to ignore that evidence, which I will therefore continue to take as an admission that you have nothing to add.

The graphic on pg 23, 31 and 32 FRADULENTLY included this non existent damage and Shyam Sunder LIED about it in Popular Mechanics Magazine!


From Miriam-Webster:
1 a: deceit (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deceit) , trickery (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trickery) ; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b: an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trick)

Can you please present your evidence that Shyam Sunder intentionally, rather than mistakenly, mis-stated the damage to WTC7? Presumably you have evidence, since you're sufficiently certain of your claim to state it in enlarged bold capitals.

Dave

[Christopher7]

Can you please present your evidence that Shyam Sunder intentionally, rather than mistakenly, mis-stated the damage to WTC7?

DaveThe evidence has already been presented. Shyam Sunder did not mis-state the damage, He lied about there being extensive damage where there was none.

"On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."

There was NO damage as extensive or where he said it was.
His statement is consistent with the damage depicted on pg 23, 31 and 32 of the NIST Apx. L report as "Approximate Region of Impact Damage by Large WTC1 Debris".
There was NO such damage.

He LIED! NIST LIED!

[Dave Rogers]

He LIED! NIST LIED!

This is a three-year-old child's argument. Rather than repeating your claim with bolding and exclamation marks, could you please present evidence that NIST was deliberately presenting an assessment of damage that they knew to be incorrect with intent to deceive, rather than presenting a preliminary and inaccurate assessment of damage that was to be revised later through a prolonged and careful study of all the evidence available?

Dave

[funk de fino]

Except the Appendix L states this quite clearly.

Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. 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 the ground

− large debris hole near center of the south face around Floor 14

− 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

− from inside the building at the 8th or 9th Floor elevator lobby, where two elevator cars were ejected from their shafts and landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft, the visible portion of the south wall was gone with more light visible from the west side possibly indicating damage extending to the west

Then it goes onto to state on the graphics.

"possible region of impact damage from debris"

It has two distinct areas of colour on this graphic depicting the conflicting reports.

then on page 35 it states for the graphic "Approximate region of impact damage by large WTC1 debris"

This also has two shades for the differing descriptions. They are stating what the reported and possible and approximate damage was as they knew it at that time.

"On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

I have bolded the important parts of this C7. Also this was not long after the Appendix L was published. He reported what had been reported as approximate damage by others.

Have they changed their view now they have done more thorough and more in depth study? Yes they have.

This is not lying and not fraudulent. There is only one fraud at work here.

[Christopher7]

Except the Appendix L states this quite clearly.
Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. 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 the ground
In direct conflict with that statement are these two statements on the same page.
No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed

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 intactThen it goes onto to state on the graphics.
"possible region of impact damage from debris"

It has two distinct areas of colour on this graphic depicting the conflicting reports.Wrong! The inner area is 1/4 the width of WTC 7 and the outer area is 1/3 the width. Both areas refer to the same 10 story gouge report, not the conflicting reports of "no heavy debris in the lobby area" or "the atrium glass still was intact".

This is not lying and not fraudulent. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."

Making this statement as if it were a fact is LYING!

There were two statements on the same page that were in direct conflict with that statement. Shyam Sunder did not mention these conflicting reports in his interview. That is willful deception, LYING!

He also LIED when he said there was "a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours."

[Grizzly Bear]

He also LIED when he said there was "[/SIZE]a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours."[/SIZE]
You're once again barfing out material that's a product of a then incomplete investigation.


In direct conflict with that statement are these two statements on the same page.

When I read the comment in context:

Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts are mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:


[grizzly add-on: It then proceeds to list some of the conflicting accounts]

− middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground

− large debris hole near center of the south face around Floor 14

− 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

− from inside the building at the 8th or 9th Floor elevator lobby, where two elevator cars were ejected from their shafts and landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft, the visible portion of the south wall was gone with more light visible from the west side possibly indicating damage extending to the west

In other words, it was elaborating on some of the reports they were finding conflicting accounts on. It doesn't look like any preliminary conclusion. Stop cherry-picking, it's incredibly disengenuous

There were two statements on the same page that were in direct conflict with that statement. Shyam Sunder did not mention these conflicting reports in his interview. That is willful deception, LYING!

Your response is a product of a combination of false dilemma and cherry-picking. Your credibility continues falling at free fall speed, and I thought it couldn't get any lower...

[funk de fino]

In direct conflict with that statement are these two statements on the same page.
Wrong! The inner area is 1/4 the width of WTC 7 and the outer area is 1/3 the width. Both areas refer to the same 10 story gouge report, not the conflicting reports of "no heavy debris in the lobby area" or "the atrium glass still was intact".

"On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."

Making this statement as if it were a fact is LYING!

There were two statements on the same page that were in direct conflict with that statement. Shyam Sunder did not mention these conflicting reports in his interview. That is willful deception, LYING!

He also LIED when he said there was "a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours."

Chris

You are leaving out info from my post. is this deliberate?

The NIST appendix L covers all possible reported damage. the graphics represent all the possible regione of damage from a view above. It shows the 1/4 to 1/3 damage in two areas.



- middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground


− 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

Two slightly similar reports, both marked on the graphic from the plan view.

Barry Jennings also said the lobby area looked like king kong had trashed it and he would have neem one of the last guys to leave?

Sunder is reporting the possible areas of damage to Pop Mechanics as they assessed it from reports at the time. This is not a lie no matter how much you stamp your feet.

NIST report them as approximate and possible. Not lies. Stop stamping your feet about a preliminary report and get back to the final one and give us your concerns.

I hope it does not hark back to your fake photos and super duper silent CD explosive again. Or maybe you will flip flop into thermite again? remember when you used photos to judge times in your fake photos claims? What margin of error were you using? You now find it to your liking to attack NIST for using margin of error for timings?

Hypocrite and fraudulent.

[funk de fino]

He also LIED when he said there was "a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours."

except he did not say that C7

this is what is in the article

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."


I have bolded the parts Pop mechs have added to this piece. Sunder actual words are in direct quotes and what you posted is not in his quotes. onky what they have written

Therefore this is not a lie by Sunder and you have deliberately cherrypicked it hoping no-one would notice.

You have shown yourself up to the lurkers again pal

Fraud indeed C7

[Christopher7]

except he did not say that C7
this is what is in the article
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

Are you saying that the editors of PM are lying?

There were NO fires on the fifth floor at any time. Someone is lying!

Shyam Sunder is talking about a diesel fuel fire on the fifth floor.

Shyam Sunder is LYING!

[Jonnyclueless]

Ling would be taking a preliminary report that was based on early speculation and the trying to present it as if it was the final report.

I would say Christopher7 is the liar here. Or perhaps Chris could point out where in teh final WTC 7 report it says that the fuel lines were feeding the fire.

[funk de fino]

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

Are you saying that the editors of PM are lying?

I cannot possibly say. Why do you not ask them?

There were NO fires on the fifth floor at any time. Someone is lying!

Someone maybe made a whoopsie

ETA - Running away from the previous post?

Shyam Sunder is talking about a diesel fuel fire on the fifth floor.
Shyam Sunder is LYING!

No he is not talking about floor 5. His words do not say that. PM have inserted something into his statement that makes it look like he could be but this is incorrect. The bolded part above is not his words. He is talking about the diesel fueling the fires in general and this is in keeping with the working hypothesis at the time.

he is not lying but someone is in this thread

[Christopher7]

I cannot possibly say. Why do you not ask them?Right

No he is not talking about floor 5. His words do not say that. PM have inserted something into his statement that makes it look like he could be but this is incorrect. The bolded part above is not his words. He is talking about the diesel fueling the fires in general and this is in keeping with the working hypothesis at the time.Wrong. He told PM that there was a 7 hour fire on the 5th floor! Just because they did not quote him exactly doesn't change anything.
The only place in the east end of WTC 7 where diesel fires could occur was the generator room in the north east corner of floor 5.
There were NO FIRES ON THE 5TH FLOOR AT ANY TIME.

He was LYING!


Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

[Jonnyclueless]

Christopher, can you show us specifically where you got the quote from? The Date should be of the most importance.

[Christopher7]

Christopher, can you show us specifically where you got the quote from? The Date should be of the most importance.Yes, here is the URL:

Popular Mechanics March 2005
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5


Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

Shyam is clearly talking about the pressurized fuel line feeding a fire on floor 5.
PM got their information from Sunder.

The diesel fuel fires on floor 5 were the "working hypothesis" at the time.

NIST Final 4-5-05 pg 38
"This finding allows for the possibility, though not conclusively, that the fuel may have contributed to a
fire on Floor 5."



Shyam Sunder LIED when he told PM Magazine there was a fire on the fifth floor and that it lasted for up to 7 hours.

[funk de fino]

"There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says."Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel for a long period of time."

I've taken out all other quotes that are not Sunders words. None of this contradicts the working hypothesis of the time.

Show me the lie you claimed by cherrypicking and lying. If you cant you are a liar C7

[Jonnyclueless]

Here's the most important part Chris:

"Published in the March 2005 issue."

This was part of the preliminary report. This was not a lie, this was their initial hypothesis. To present this as the current hypothesis is an outright LIE. Not a misunderstanding, or cherry picking. And outright dishonest LIE. How do you expect people to think you're looking for "truth" when you sit here and LIE?

[Christopher7]

I've taken out all other quotes that are not Sunders words. None of this contradicts the working hypothesis of the time.Exactly, the working hypothesis was "[diesel] fuel may have contributed to a fire on Floor 5."

Show me the lie

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

Shyam Sunder is the lead investigator.

PM got their information from him.



“a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours”



This is a lie!
There was NO fire on floor 5 at any time.

Either Shyam Sunder is LYING or the editors of PM are LYING and Shyam Sunder did not correct them.

[Christopher7]

Deja vu

I asked that a few pages back.
Why is Chris still argueing Appendix L, when there is a newer report out that states that although the impact damage did change the fashion of the collapse it did not alter the senario in which the fire damage initiated a global collapse.(the building would only have taken longer to collapse, and twisted differently during collapse had there been no impact damage)The problem isn't what effect the 10 story gouge would have, it's the fact that it did not exist and Shyam Sunder said that it did exist.
He LIED.

Shyam Sunder did NOT mention that there were two statements in direct conflict with the 10 story gouge.
He did NOT say "possible damage", he stated it as a fact.

NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

Shyam Sunder LIED about there being 10 story gouge that scooped out a large portion of the front of the building.

He flat out LIED twice in the same article.

[Jonnyclueless]

So Christopher's response is getting caught in a lie is to continue with the same lie? Wow, just wow.

[Grizzly Bear]

The problem isn't what effect the 10 story gouge would have, it's the fact that it did not exist and Shyam Sunder said that it did exist.
He LIED.

Shyam Sunder did NOT mention that there were two statements in direct conflict with the 10 story gouge.
He did NOT say "possible damage", he stated it as a fact.


First off, try reading their publications in context rather than blow off something as a claim in sheer dishonest cherry picking. II don't think the context was so hard to understand, why is it so difficult for you? Here it is agains:

When I read the comment in context:

Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. 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 the ground

− large debris hole near center of the south face around Floor 14

− 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

− from inside the building at the 8th or 9th Floor elevator lobby, where two elevator cars were ejected from their shafts and landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft, the visible portion of the south wall was gone with more light visible from the west side possibly indicating damage extending to the west


Because you have such a hard time honestly putting things in context I've put the important point in red, italicized, underlined letters. The above describes conflicting accounts, based on the information they had available at the time. Stop your dishonest cherry picking and strawmen claims already...


[/SIZE][/FONT]Shyam Sunder LIED about there being 10 story gouge that scooped out a large portion of the front of the building.
Or he could have been reporting based on information he had at the time. He's certainly not lying about the upper corner damage, as it's well documented. Again why are we using material that's several years old?


He flat out LIED twice in the same article.


The only liar I see here is you. You dishonestly cherry-picked a listing of conflicting damage accounts and claimed that Sunder was claiming it as his own, and you believe that everything posted in a preliminary investigation is a culmination of final conclusions made by these people before a more complete 3 year investigation.

Working hypotheses doesn't seem to be an important key word to you..... ever

[Christopher7]

First off, try reading their publications in context rather than blow off something as a claim in sheer dishonest cherry picking.The LIE was in context with the rest of the section.
"FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner."

By your definition, pointing out any fact is cherrypicking.

Call it what you like, it is still a FACT that Shyam Sunder and/or the editors of Popular Mechanics Magazine were LYING!


NIST Apx. L pg 18
Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. 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 the ground

− large debris hole near center of the south face around Floor 14
[This is does not conflict with the 10 story gouge.]

− 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
[This is in conflict with the 10 story gouge.]

− from inside the building at the 8th or 9th Floor elevator lobby, where two elevator cars were ejected from their shafts and landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft, the visible portion of the south wall was gone with more light visible from the west side possibly indicating damage extending to the west
[This is not in conflict with the 10 story gouge.]

The above describes conflicting accounts, based on the information they had available at the time.
You neglected to include:

• No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed
[This is direct conflict with the 10 story gouge.]

Or he could have been reporting based on information he had at the time. Shyam Sunder and PM Magazine stated this non-existent damage as a FACT! They did not mention the two statements on the same page that were in direct conflict with the 10 story gouge.

He's certainly not lying about the upper corner damage, as it's well documented.True

Again why are we using material that's several years old? Because Shyam Sunder and/or PM Magazine LIED about there being a gouge that scooped out a huge section of the south face [floor 10 to the ground] and fire on the fifth floor.

[Grizzly Bear]

By your definition, pointing out any fact is cherrypicking.

Hardly my standard. You completely missed the point of what they were making that list for, I told you, and you completely blew right over it... again, for at least the second, if not third time. I underlined it in bold underlined italics and you still didn't see it or chose not to pay any attention to it. I can't help you if you continue to outright demonstrate your utter ignorance of context.


[/B]NIST Apx. L pg 18
Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. 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 the ground

− large debris hole near center of the south face around Floor 14
[This is does not conflict with the 10 story gouge.]

− 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
[This is in conflict with the 10 story gouge.]

− from inside the building at the 8th or 9th Floor elevator lobby, where two elevator cars were ejected from their shafts and landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft, the visible portion of the south wall was gone with more light visible from the west side possibly indicating damage extending to the west
[This is not in conflict with the 10 story gouge.]

You neglected to include:

• No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed
[This is direct conflict with the 10 story gouge.]

You glided right over this: "Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts are mostly consistent, ************there are some conflicting descriptions************:"

I cannot highlight it any better than that unless you prefer gigantic bold italicized underline letters with sprinkles and pudding on top. How do you miss this kind of context? :confused:


Shyam Sunder and PM Magazine stated this non-existent damage as a FACT! They did not mention the two statements on the same page that were in direct conflict with the 10 story gouge.

Uh... I gotta ask again... do you even remotely consider the probability that working hypotheses and knowns can change when a more in-depth investigation is carried out? That as new information is discovered in such an investigation hypothesis or for that matter facts thought to have been known at one point can be eliminated or confirmed?

I'd like to be on record here... This is why I am asking you regarding of your use of a several year old document. If what they had then was a working hypothesis, would it be expected that as issues are resolved with preliminary info as a more in-depth investigation is conducted? So far based on your answer this seems to be an impossibilty...

The rest was essentially a repeat of you other comment and te same question I asked above applies.

[Christopher7]

************there are some conflicting descriptions************:"

How do you miss this kind of context? :confused:You are the one missing the point.

NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."

Shyam Sunder and the editors of PM DID NOT mention that "there are some conflicting descriptions"

They stated the damage as a FACT!

The damage did not exist.

They LIED!

[Jonnyclueless]

And Christopher is still LYING by taking information from an early preliminary report and presenting it as if it were current. Why does Chris have to lie so much?

[Christopher7]

And Christopher is still LYING by taking information from an early preliminary report and presenting it as if it were current. Why does Chris have to lie so much?You incessantly misquote me and then call me a liar.

This is your way of denying the fact that Shyam Sunder and/or the editors of PM Magazine LIED about the 10 story gouge and fire on the fifth floor.

[funk de fino]

Exactly, the working hypothesis was "[diesel] fuel may have contributed to a fire on Floor 5."



Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

Shyam Sunder is the lead investigator.

PM got their information from him.



“a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours”



This is a lie!
There was NO fire on floor 5 at any time.

Either Shyam Sunder is LYING or the editors of PM are LYING and Shyam Sunder did not correct them.


So, now you have gone from claiming Sunder is lying to Sunder or Pop mechs are lying? Progress I suppose.

You have still to show where Sunder lied in that paragraph. None of his actual words in that paragraph are lies.

Now Pop Mechs cannot be lying as they are reporting what they have been told by investigators based on the knowledge they had at that time.

No-one is lying. Subsequent invesigations have clarified the reports of damage and fires and the latest report relects this.

If we take C7 approach to this then the firefighters who made the reports were all lying also.

If someone tells you that your neighbours and his wife have split, and you repeat it to someone, but then find out later that it was a mistake, were you lying?

[funk de fino]

You are the one missing the point.

NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."

Shyam Sunder and the editors of PM DID NOT mention that "there are some conflicting descriptions"

They stated the damage as a FACT!

The damage did not exist.

They LIED!


At the time all they had to go on were some of these reports. Some of the conflicting reports were also similar in that they all described large areas of damage. These are marked in the Appendix L as approximate areas of debri damage and Sunder himself uses the words "about" and "approximately"

Why are the areas of approximate damage on the graphics in differing shades C7?

This is not a lie however much you want to cry about it. It seems that you would rather attack an article published mere months after the Appendix L was published rather than focus on the new report.

[jaydeehess]

Chris, no one LIED.
They stated the situation as they understood it to be at that point in the investigation.

That is why they use such wording as "approximate", "possible" and "working hypothysis".

Sunder and PM forgetting to include "possible" into every sentence is forgivable given that they were not testifying in a courtroom.

Now I ask yet again, why are you argueing a years old preliminary report when the recent report states that the impact damage contributed only to the fashion of the collapse but that he building would have collapsed due to fire induced stresses and damage even if there were no impact damage?

I also ask again why my woodstove burns faster and releases more heat when I reduce the air flow opening by 50%?

[Christopher7]

Chris, no one LIED.Yes they did!
They stated as facts, without any qualification, that there was a gouge that scooped out a huge section of the south face and that there was a fire on floor 5.

Both of these statements were NOT TRUE!

They stated the situation as they understood it to be at that point in the investigation. There was absolutely NO basis for stating there was a fire on floor 5 that lasted up to 7 hours.

That was a LIE!

That is why they use such wording as "approximate", "possible" and "working hypothysis".They did NOT use those qualifiers in the Popular Mechanics so called "Debunking" article. Shyam Sunder and PM Magazine stated the damage as a FACT!

Sunder and PM forgetting to include "possible" into every sentence is forgivable given that they were not testifying in a courtroom.No it is not!

Shyam Sunder is the lead investigator. His unqualified statement about the debris damage when there were 2 conflicting statements, and the unqualified statement that there was a fire on floor 5 despite the FACT there was absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support that statement, are inexcusable.

If such statements would not stand in a courtroom then why are you willing to accept them from the WTC 7 lead investigator, in Popular Mechanics Magazine? Is he not required to tell the truth all the time, no mater what the venue?

Now I ask yet again, why are you argueing a years old preliminary report when the recent report states that the impact damage contributed only to the fashion of the collapse but that he building would have collapsed due to fire induced stresses and damage even if there were no impact damage?I'm not arguing the Apx. L report, I'm pointing out the FACT that Shyam Sunder and/or the editors of PM Magazine LIED about the 10 story gouge and fire on the fifth floor.


I also ask again why my woodstove burns faster and releases more heat when I reduce the air flow opening by 50%?Subject shift.

[Jonnyclueless]

You incessantly misquote me and then call me a liar.

This is your way of denying the fact that Shyam Sunder and/or the editors of PM Magazine LIED about the 10 story gouge and fire on the fifth floor.

I didn't misquote you, YOU did. I provided an exact quote of what you said. The only one here who has lied is YOU. And you have consistently LIED throughout this thread. The most recent one being you taking a quote from a preliminary report done before the investigation and presenting it as current. A LIE doesn't get any worse than that. You knew full well what you were doing when you told that LIE.

These idiotic libel attempts are just because you know very well that you don't have a single ounce of evidence to support the crackpot controlled demolition claims. And since no one bought into your fib bout it being impossible for the fires to have burned after the collapse probably chaps your ass.

[Grizzly Bear]

Yes they did!
They stated as facts, without any qualification
Learn the difference between a preliminary report and a full investigation tiger. If you are unable to distinguish the two, then your argument is a lost cause, end of story. I don't know what's worse, you taking the content completely out of context or you calling foul by the very virtue that information was consolidated as the investigation became more in-depth.

Both of these statements were NOT TRUE!
They were listing the observations that were provided to them, and they explicitly stated that they were conflicting accounts. They listed the accounts to provide clarity. You've deliberately construed the listing as final conclusions from NIST when they are not.



They did NOT use those qualifiers in the Popular Mechanics so called "Debunking" article. Shyam Sunder and PM Magazine stated the damage as a FACT!

Hurricane Andrew was classified a category 4 hurricane when it hit Homestead in 1992. After post analysis ten years later it was reclassified to a category 5. Were meteorologists lying when they classifed it as a cat 4 hurricane in '92, or were they working off information they had at the time?

You apparently deny that the reports undergo the same changes when information is investigated in greater detail. If you can't distinguish between the preliminary and final report then stop embarrassing yourself.



I'm not arguing the Apx. L report, I'm pointing out the FACT that Shyam Sunder and/or the editors of PM Magazine LIED about the 10 story gouge and fire on the fifth floor.


No, you're effectively claiming that preliminary findings are always final and that information can never change. You've effectively demonstrated this multiple times.

[jaydeehess]

Yes they did!
They stated as facts, without any qualification, that there was a gouge that scooped out a huge section of the south face and that there was a fire on floor 5.

Both of these statements were NOT TRUE!

Subjects that were clearly designated as preliminary hypothyses, not as bald fact. The fact that you see this as a lie to misleadcomes as no surprise to me as you also considered the mere mention of liquid fuel fires to be a deliberate attempt to mislead the public.

There was absolutely NO basis for stating there was a fire on floor 5 that lasted up to 7 hours.

That was a LIE![

That was a preliminary hypothesis.

They did NOT use those qualifiers in the Popular Mechanics so called "Debunking" article. Shyam Sunder and PM Magazine stated the damage as a FACT!

It was based upon the preliminary hypothesis!

No it is not!

Yep, it is!

Shyam Sunder is the lead investigator. His unqualified statement about the debris damage when there were 2 conflicting statements, and the unqualified statement that there was a fire on floor 5 despite the FACT there was absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support that statement, are inexcusable.

If such statements would not stand in a courtroom then why are you willing to accept them from the WTC 7 lead investigator, in Popular Mechanics Magazine? Is he not required to tell the truth all the time, no mater what the venue?

A preliminary hypothesis would not be used in a courtroom in the first place. However, in a popular press article concerning the present state of an investigation it is perfectly acceptable. Would have preferred that NIST have remained completely silent on the investigation between Sept 01 and August of this year?


I'm not arguing the Apx. L report, I'm pointing out the FACT that Shyam Sunder and/or the editors of PM Magazine LIED about the 10 story gouge and fire on the fifth floor.

Which are indeed preliminary, working hypotheses contained in Appendix "L"!


Subject shift.

Actually I started asking this question when the subject was the supposition that open air fires must burn hotter than air restricted fires, thus my use of the phrase, "I also ask again ....".

[Christopher7]

Subjects that were clearly designated as preliminary hypothyses, not as bald fact. Wrong!

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

The fire was stated as a FACT 3 times.
The hypothesis part was that diesel fuel contributed to the fire.

[funk de fino]

Wrong!

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

The fire was stated as a FACT 3 times.
The hypothesis part was that diesel fuel contributed to the fire.



Pop Mechs were mistaken then because none of those words by Sunder say anything you say they do. Retract your claim that he lied. You did use a quote that did not use his words to try and accuse him. Sunder never once says fire in the above paragraph.

If I am told my neighbours have split up and then repeat this to someone else. Then I find out it is not true. Was I lying or mistaken?

[Christopher7]

Pop Mechs were mistaken then because none of those words by Sunder say anything you say they do.
PM Magazine didn't get their information from the tooth fairy, they got it from Shyam Sunder.

Shyam Sunder is the lead investigator. He told PM that there was a fire on the fifth floor.

[funk de fino]

PM Magazine didn't get their information from the tooth fairy, they got it from Shyam Sunder.

Shyam Sunder is the lead investigator. He told PM that there was a fire on the fifth floor.

Proof? You do not know what Sunder told them. You would have to ask them first before calling the man a liar by using something he never said in the article

If I am told my neighbours have split up and then repeat this to someone else. Then I find out it is not true. Was I lying or mistaken?

[Christopher7]

Proof? You do not know what Sunder told them. You would have to ask them first before calling the man a liar by using something he never said in the articleThe article was published in March 2005.

Shyam Sunder told PM that there was a fire on floor 5 because it was an vital part of the working hypothesis.

NIST Collapse Final April,5 2005 Part IICpg 38 - 39

The two 6,000 gallon tanks supplying the 5th floor generators through a pressurized piping system were always kept full for emergencies and were full that day.
This finding allows for the possibility, though not conclusively, that the fuel may have contributed to a fire on Floor 5.
Critical columns (79, 80, 81) carrying large loads from about 2,000 ft2 of floor area were present on the 5th floor.

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



If I am told my neighbours have split up and then repeat this to someone else. Then I find out it is not true. Was I lying or mistaken?If Shyam Sunder told you that your neighbors had broken up when there was no evidence for that and no reason to believe that, then he was LYING, not you. However, you would owe you neighbors an apology and you would be wise not to believe anything Shyam says about your neighbors in the future lest he make you look like a fool again.

[funk de fino]

If Shyam Sunder told you that your neighbors had broken up when there was no evidence for that and no reason to believe that, then he was LYING, not you. However, you would owe you neighbors an apology and you would be wise not to believe anything Shyam says about your neighbors in the future lest he make you look like a fool again.


What if Shyam Sunder believed it was a possibility at the time?

[funk de fino]

The article was published in March 2005.

Shyam Sunder told PM that there was a fire on floor 5 because it was an vital part of the working hypothesis.

NIST Collapse Final April,5 2005 Part IICpg 38 - 39

The two 6,000 gallon tanks supplying the 5th floor generators through a pressurized piping system were always kept full for emergencies and were full that day.
This finding allows for the possibility, though not conclusively, that the fuel may have contributed to a fire on Floor 5.
Critical columns (79, 80, 81) carrying large loads from about 2,000 ft2 of floor area were present on the 5th floor.

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


When was it written and when did they contact Sunder?

I have yet to see Shyam Sunders words or confirmation from Pop mechs that he told them there was a fire on floor 5. Only your cherry picking fraud that was not actually his words.

[Christopher7]

What if Shyam Sunder believed it was a possibility at the time?There was NO reason for him to believe there was a fire on the fifth floor. In fact, there was indisputable proof* that even if there was a fire on the fifth floor it would not have been a factor in the collapse. The whole diesel fuel fire hypothesis was a farce from the get go.

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

In the Final draft, they finally admitted [10 times] to what i have been saying for over a year.
As an investigator, Shyam Sunder is incompetent at best.

1-A pg 26 [64]

An under-ventilated fire, in which the air handling system was turned off, but the louvers wereopen. Result: Smoke would have exhausted through the east louvers, and the imagery showed no such effluent.

Pg 44 [82]
The worst-case scenarios

associated with fires being fed by the ruptured fuel lines, (b) would have

produced large amounts of visible smoke that would have emanated from the exhaust louvers.No such smoke discharge was observed.

Pg 85 [47]

Simulation of hypothetical, worst-case fire scenarios on these floors showed that pool fires, associated with ruptured diesel fuel lines, (c) would have exhausted smoke from the exhaust louvers, which was not observed.

The absence of diesel fuel fires on Floor 5 was consistent with the information from interviews that sometime after 1:00 p.m., OEM and FDNY staff climbed the east stairway of WTC 7 and did not see much damage on Floors 4, 5, or 6 from their viewing location. They made no mention of fire, heat or smoke.

1-9 vol 1 pg 355 [399]

Simulations showed that pool fires associated with ruptured diesel fuel lines . . . . (c) would have exhausted smoke from the exhaust louvers, in conflict with the photographic evidence which showed none.

1-9 vol 2 diesel fuel pg 371 [33]

Result: The FDS simulation showed that the natural flow from the fire plume would have been out of the louvered openings on the east side of the building in a very short time. Significant plumes of smoke would have been seen emerging from the building within a few minutes of ignition, contradicting the visual evidence.

Pg 373 [35]

A broad range of hypothetical, extreme fires on the 5th floor did not produce a fire scenario that was consistent with the visual evidence that would have threatened the load bearing capacity of Columns 79, 80, or 81.

pg 386 [48]

these fires would have exhausted smoke from the exhaust louvers. No such

emanation was observed.
Pg 605 [267]
Additionally, such fires would have produced large amounts of visible smoke that would have emanated from the exhaust louvers; however, no such smoke discharge was observed.

Pg 610 [272]

fires being fed by the ruptured fuel lines . . . . would have produced large amounts of visible smoke that would have emanated from the exhaust louvers. No such smoke discharge was observed.

Pg 613 [275]

fire scenarios on these floors showed that pool fires, associated with ruptured diesel fuel lines, . . . . would have exhausted smoke from the exhaust louvers, which was not observed.

[funk de fino]

There was NO reason for him to believe there was a fire on the fifth floor. In fact, there was indisputable proof* that even if there was a fire on the fifth floor it would not have been a factor in the collapse. The whole diesel fuel fire hypothesis was a farce from the get go.

So now you go back to the new report? They were carrying out an investigation. They were in the early stages. They had some theories and hypothesis. They have reported them in preliminary reports.

Even in the later presentations it says that although the fuel did not contribute to the collapse it may still have fed fires. The possibility had to be investigated.

It since appears that there initial thoughts were wrong and they have refined and corrected the report for the final draft. This is what happens.

This is not lying. You cherry picked a report and tried to pass it off as Sunders words and that he was a liar. You are being fraudulent here C7.

[Christopher7]

So now you go back to the new report? Limit thyself not to any one report my friend, but avail thyself to ALL the information.


They were carrying out an investigation. They were in the early stages. They had some theories and hypothesis. They have reported them in preliminary reports. By 4-5-05 they hand been investigating WTC 7 for about 3 years. In all that time they failed to see that the photo on pg 26 of the FEMA report rendered the diesel fuel fire hypothesis moot.

Even in the later presentations it says that although the fuel did not contribute to the collapse it may still have fed fires. The possibility had to be investigated.Not until December of 2007 did they finally admit their error.

It since appears that there initial thoughts were wrong and they have refined and corrected the report for the final draft. This is what happens.
This is not lying. It is LYING when the lead investigator makes statements in a national publication and in an official report that have NO basis and are not true.

[funk de fino]

Limit thyself not to any one report my friend, but avail thyself to ALL the information.

That you do not see your failure here is amusing. You pick and choose which report to quote and use to back you up and then you pick and choose which one to say is lying. That you have been reduced to talking about the older reports and investigations in this thread says wonders about your inability to prove the new report wrong when it disproves CD.


By 4-5-05 they hand been investigating WTC 7 for about 3 years. In all that time they failed to see that the photo on pg 26 of the FEMA report rendered the diesel fuel fire hypothesis moot.

I thought they stopped work on WTC7 for the WTC1&2 report? Are you now backing away from your earlier fake photo claims then?

Not until December of 2007 did they finally admit their error.

Now its an error? not a lie? It is the result of further investigations actually C7.

It is LYING when the lead investigator makes statements in a national publication and in an official report that have NO basis and are not true.

Except it is you who is lying when you say he made a statement in a publication claiming this.

[Christopher7]

That you do not see your failure here is amusing. You pick and choose which report to quote and use to back you up and then you pick and choose which one to say is lying. That you have been reduced to talking about the older reports and investigations in this thread says wonders about your inability to prove the new report wrong when it disproves CD.You would like to ignore any fact contained in other reports or publication.

I thought they stopped work on WTC7 for the WTC1&2 report? Are you now backing away from your earlier fake photo claims then?Not relevant to the fire simulation of the fires on floor 12

Now its an error? not a lie? It is the result of further investigations actually C7.The error was wasting time and money on a hypothesis that was irrelevant given the data NIST had.
The LIE was stating as a fact that there was a fire on the fifth floor in a national publication and the 4-5-05 report.

Except it is you who is lying when you say he made a statement in a publication claiming this.My bad. He told PM that there was fire on the fifth floor and they stated it as a fact 3 times.

[funk de fino]

My bad. He told PM that there was fire on the fifth floor and they stated it as a fact 3 times.

Proof

[Christopher7]

ProofYour double standard is laughable. You are willing to forgive Sunder for LYING to PM on the lame excuse that they did not quote him directly. The fact that they repeated what he had told them does not get through your denial filter.
Then you call me a liar if I don't get a response exactly right.
Put it in a sock. Who do you think you are kidding?

It is LYING when the lead investigator makes statements in a national publication and in an official report that have NO basis and are not true.This sentence should read:
It is LYING when the lead investigator makes statements to a national publication and in an official report that have NO basis and are not true.


There is NO basis for the diesel fuel fire hypothesis.

The photo on page 26 of the FEMA report clearly shows that there was no fire in the generator room in the north east corner of floor 5 at 2:10 p.m.

Rooms with diesel engines must have some ventilation all the time to prevent the buildup of toxic and explosive vapors.

As it turns out, there was evidence of fire in the north east generator room at about 4:00 p.m. but it was NOT diesel fuel.
This photo clearly establishes that there were ventilation louvers open all the time as i have previously stated.

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/1255/smokefromfloors56ap8.jpg

The "working hypothesis" that diesel fuel fires contributed to the collapse was a FRAUD!

There is NO evidence supporting that hypothesis. It was pure speculation that ignored the evidence.

There is clear evidence that there was NO fire in the north east generator room at 2:10 p.m.

[Grizzly Bear]

The "working hypothesis" that diesel fuel fires contributed to the collapse was a FRAUD!

There is NO evidence supporting that hypothesis. It was pure speculation that ignored the evidence.


This just about sums up your methodology, thank you for finally answering my question. Strange, science tends to work that way Chris... a working hypothesis was developed on the information they had at the time, for you to assume that they cannot come to a different conclusion after a more thorough investigation shows you utter ignorance... give it a rest... you're using a preliminary report to suggest that they were lying, you twisted the content of parts of the report... Chris it's doesn't get anymore dishonest...

So when they present a theory and it turns out wrong, it's automatically fraud, if they come to a different conclusion after more thorough research it's an automatic lie. Your confirmation bias is utterly through the roof astounding!!!!!! [FACE_PALM] (http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/Tarkus/FacePalm.jpg)

[Bobby]

So at 2:10 there're no fire in the ConEd transformer rooms on the North side of WTC 7, which proves what exactly? Wasn't it the South side of WTC & that suffered most damage from the falling debris of the collapses of WTCs 1 and 2? Does the lack of fires at 2:10 mean that there were no fires in the ConEd rooms later that afternoon (before WTC 7 collapsed, obviously). There's a youtube video of a fireman by a pay phone when a loud explosion is heard, could that have misled the investigators (transformers are incredibly loud when they explode, as anybody within a couple of miles of the FDR and East 14th can attest to when a transformer there blew up a year or so after 9/11).

The still does not prove there were no fires in the transformer rooms, look at the direction the smoke is blowing. If there were fires in the ConEd rooms it's quite possible that air feeding them was passing in through the louvres, with the smoke exiting from the south side of WTC 7. Perhaps this formed part of the working hypothesis before the investigation was underway. Who knows? Why would suggesting that as a possibility make the proponent a liar?

[Christopher7]

. . . a working hypothesis was developed on the information they had at the time,They had this information at the time:

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


There were no reports or photographs of fire on floor 5 at the time.

There was NO reason to think there was a fire on floor 5.

The above photo proves beyond all doubt that there was NO fire on floor 5 at about 2:10 p.m.

Any room containing diesel engines would have to be ventilated and any fire would vent smoke through those vents.

Shyam Sunder and the team of "experts" at NIST failed to recognize this self evident fact and after 3 years of "investigation" and based their working hypothesis on diesel fuel fires that weakened column 79 and caused it to fail.

The "diesel fuel fire on floor 5 hypothesis" was baseless speculation!

In FACT, it was contrary to the information they had at the time.

Including it in an official government scientific document claiming to be an investigation or in PM Magazine was fraudulent.

[Bobby]

That photo shows there was not fire emerging from windows on the 12 floor of the east side of WTC 7, it certainly does not prove "beyond all doubt that there was NO fire on floor 12 at about 2:10 p.m.". But there are some on what's that, the 10th or 11th floor?

As for the lower floors (where there are louvres), why can say if there's a fire there? Do forest fires spread in the direction of the supply of air or away from it? From the picture in your post, the difference between the upper and lower floors of WTC 7 was that the fires in upper floors would not have an access to an external air supply until the fires grew hot enough to shatter the windows, i.e the upper floors were shielded from external air movements whereas the lower floors were not.

[Christopher7]

So at 2:10 there're no fire in the ConEd transformer rooms on the North side of WTC 7, which proves what exactly? Nothing.
FYI
The supply line did NOT run through the ConEd transformer room. [see FEMA Ch 5 pg 14-15 and NCSTAR 1-9 vol.2 pg 169]

The room where the diesel fuel fires were supposed to have weakened column 79 was the generator room in the north east corner of the 5th floor. [see NIST L pg 38-40]
This room would have been ventilated and smoke from any fire would have escaped through those vents.

The "diesel fuel fire on floor 5 hypothesis" was baseless speculation!

[Bobby]

Nothing.
FYI
The supply line did NOT run through the ConEd transformer room. [see FEMA Ch 5 pg 14-15 and NCSTAR 1-9 vol.2 pg 169]

The room where the diesel fuel fires were supposed to have weakened column 79 was the generator room in the north east corner of the 5th floor. [see NIST L pg 38-40]
This room would have been ventilated and smoke from any fire would have escaped through those vents.

The "diesel fuel fire on floor 5 hypothesis" was baseless speculation!

You know for a fact that there was no fire on the 5th floor? In a ventilated room the smoke from any fires would travel in which direction? Towards the oncoming airflow or away from it? Was the external airflow from the north, south, east, west or anywhere in between (here's a clue, in what direction did the smoke blow from WTCs 1 and 2? Towards the East Village, Greenwich Village, Brooklyn, Staten Island or Jersey City)

[Christopher7]

My bad!
Excuse me! I meant to say no fire on the 5th floor.
Thank you for the correction.

Correction made to post #5068

[Christopher7]

You know for a fact that there was no fire on the 5th floor? In a ventilated room the smoke from any fires would travel in which direction? Towards the oncoming airflow or away from it? Was the external airflow from the north, south, east, west or anywhere in between The smoke vented from the east side as would be expected with a breeze blowing from the north west to the south east.
Its presence clearly proves that the north east generator room was ventilated was would be necessary. Any diesel fire in this room would have vented black smoke.

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/1255/smokefromfloors56ap8.jpg

[Grizzly Bear]

Nothing.
FYI
The supply line did NOT run through the ConEd transformer room. [see FEMA Ch 5 pg 14-15 and NCSTAR 1-9 vol.2 pg 169]

The room where the diesel fuel fires were supposed to have weakened column 79 was the generator room in the north east corner of the 5th floor. [see NIST L pg 38-40]
This room would have been ventilated and smoke from any fire would have escaped through those vents.

The "diesel fuel fire on floor 5 hypothesis" was baseless speculation!
Christopher7.... I suggest you read this....

"As for fuel fires, the team found that they could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to fail a critical column, and/or would have produced “large amounts of visible smoke” from Floors 5 and 6, which was not observed."

Taken directly from NIST's summary page (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html) for the WTC 7 final report.

Why have you not mentioned this?


You know for a fact that there was no fire on the 5th floor? In a ventilated room the smoke from any fires would travel in which direction? Towards the oncoming airflow or away from it? Was the external airflow from the north, south, east, west or anywhere in between (here's a clue, in what direction did the smoke blow from WTCs 1 and 2? Towards the East Village, Greenwich Village, Brooklyn, Staten Island or Jersey City)
Unfortunately the crux of chris's argument is using a document which was based on preliminary hypotheses. While fires could have been ignited on the 5th floor, based on NIST's conclusion they would not have been sustained long enough to contribute to the weakening of the internal structure. :)

Christopher's error lies in assuming that preliminary hypotheses are final conclusions...

[Bobby]

What're the chances of the following comment in NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf making any difference to the twoofers insistence of a controlled demolition of WTC 7?

The window breakage would have allowed the sound of a blast to propagate outward from the building. NLAWS, a validated acoustic wave propagation software program, was used to predict the propagation of the sound of the hypothetical blasts. The calculations showed that all the hypothetical blast scenarios and the charge sizes would have broadcast significant sound levels from all of the building faces. For instance, if propagation were unobstructed by the other buildings, the sound level emanating from the WTC 7 perimeter openings would have been approximately 130 dB to 140 dB at a distance of 1km (0.6 mile) from WTC 7. This sound level is consistent with standing next to a jet plane engine and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert. The sound from such a blast in an urban setting would have been reflected and channeled down streets with minimum attenuation. The hard building exteriors would have acted as nearly perfect reflectors, with little to no absorption. The sound would have been attenuated behind buildings, but this would also have generated multiple echoes. These echoes could have extended the time period over which the sound could have been detected and could possible have had an additive effect if multiple in-phase reflections met. However, the soundtracks from videos being recorded at the time of the collapse did not contain any sound as intense as would have accompanied such a blast (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 5). Therefore, the Investigation Team concluded that there was no demolition-type blast that would have been intense enough to lead to the collapse of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001.

I always thought it was suspect that on pretty much all the twoofer sites any video of the collapse of WTC 7 is not accompanied by a sound track of the events. Could it be that removing the live sound is an attempt to mislead the gullible? Shocking.

[jaydeehess]

The article was published in March 2005.

Shyam Sunder told PM that there was a fire on floor 5 because it was an vital part of the working hypothesis.


Apparently you are incorrect and you illustrate it in your own posts.

At the time of the preliminary report a deisel fuel fire was part of the over all working hypothysis. It was not a vital part of it and this is illustrated quite succiently by the fact that it was not a factor included in the recent report.

What part of "preliminary" and "working hypothysis" do you have trouble in understanding that they are not being put forth as absolute gospel fact?


BTW, did you ever answer my question; "how is it that when I reduce the air channel to my wood stove by 50% the fire actually burns faster and hotter?".

[jaydeehess]

Has there been a discussion about the recent NIST WTC 7 report in this thread or has Chris decided that he must still saw on about the preliminary report?

[Christopher7]

Christopher7.... I suggest you read this....

"As for fuel fires, the team found that they could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to fail a critical column, and/orwould have produced "large amounts of visible smoke" from Floors 5 and 6, which was not observed."

Taken directly from NIST's summary page (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html) for the WTC 7 final report.

Why have you not mentioned this?

I did. See post #5059. They paraphrased what I had been saying . . . . . 10 times.
NIST knew there was NO fire in the north east generator room for the reason given in the summary page and 10 times in the report.

Unfortunately the crux of chris's argument is using a document which was based on preliminary hypotheses. While fires could have been ignited on the 5th floor, based on NIST's conclusion they would not have been sustained long enough to contribute to the weakening of the internal structure.

Christopher's error lies in assuming that preliminary hypotheses are final conclusions... Wrong, What I have been saying is, the "working hypothesis" was baseless and Shyam Sunder LIED to PM Magazine when he told them there was a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours.

There were NO reports of fire in the generator room on floor 5 and no reason to think there was a fire. The photo on page 26 of the FEMA report shows that there was NO fire in the north east generator room at about 2:10 p.m.

The "working hypothesis" was fraudulent from the beginning.

[Christopher7]

At the time of the preliminary report a deisel fuel fire was part of the over all working hypothysis. It was not a vital part of it and this is illustrated quite succiently by the fact that it was not a factor included in the recent report.

What part of "preliminary" and "working hypothysis" do you have trouble in understanding that they are not being put forth as absolute gospel fact?The part where Shyam Sunder LIED to PM magazine about there being a fire on the fifth floor.

[funk de fino]

The part where Shyam Sunder LIED to PM magazine about there being a fire on the fifth floor.

No, you lied when you tried to pass off magazine editorial words as his. Cherry picking liar.

One photo from FEMA is not enough to go to say that at no time during that day were there no fires on 5 or 6. They had to do further investiagions to confirm this. It was only a working hypothesis that needed further investigation.

Did you read what NIST said about the louvres in the final report?

[jaydeehess]

Limit thyself not to any one report my friend, but avail thyself to ALL the information.

You do understand that the lastest report's conclusions supercede the working hypothysis of the preliminary report?


By 4-5-05 they hand been investigating WTC 7 for about 3 years. In all that time they failed to see that the photo on pg 26 of the FEMA report rendered the diesel fuel fire hypothesis moot

They were doing their own investigation. Deisel fuel fires were one part of the preliminary hypothysis and has now been discarded as unlikely. What part of this are you having a problem with?

Not until December of 2007 did they finally admit their error.


It was not a "lie" or an "error" it was one hyp[othysis that had to be investigated. It was and subsequent to that investigation it was concluded that such a fire was improbable.

It is LYING when the lead investigator makes statements in a national publication and in an official report that have NO basis and are not true.

The magazine used the definitive language that there was a fire on the fifth floor. You have yet to show that Sunder used the same language. However all it would point to is imprecise language in describing one part of the preliminary hypothysis!

Will you now get around to discussing the new report? After all it states that no fifth floor fire contributed to the collapse and that the impact damage affected the fashion in which it collapsed (basically allowing the building to twist), but that it would have most probably collapsed due soley to the office fires causing the long span beams , some of which were constrained only on one side, to expand and fail the columns.

So you should be claiming vindication, your claims that the fifth floor deisel fire could not occur, and your contention that impact damage could not have contributed to the initiation of the collapse are included in the report.
Previously I, and others, argued that you were using definitive statements where statements with qualifiers such as 'unlikely' or 'less probable' would be more called for.

I am interested in seeing what definitive statements you will come up with concerning the new report, or do you agree with the new report?

[Christopher7]

You do understand that the lastest report's conclusions supercede the working hypothysis of the preliminary report?Yes

They were doing their own investigation. Deisel fuel fires were one part of the preliminary hypothysis and has now been discarded as unlikely. What part of this are you having a problem with?There was clear evidence that a diesel fuel fire did not exist in the NE generator room and even if it had it would not have sufficient air flow to be a factor in the collapse. If I could figure this out why couldn't all the experts at NIST?

The diesel fuel fire hypothesis was baseless and a waste of time and money.

It was not a "lie" or an "error" it was one hyp[othysis that had to be investigated. It was and subsequent to that investigation it was concluded that such a fire was improbable.The LIE was Shyam Sunder telling PM that there was a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours.

The magazine used the definitive language that there was a fire on the fifth floor. You have yet to show that Sunder used the same language.Shyam Sunder let the statements stand. If he had been misquoted, he would have corrected PM.

However all it would point to is imprecise language in describing one part of the preliminary hypothysis!There were NO REPORTS OF FIRE ON THE FIFTH FLOOR! The statements that there was a fire on the fifth floor are not "impresice", they are FALSE statements.

[Grizzly Bear]

This response to Jayhadees' question...
Yes

followed by all of this...

There was clear evidence that a diesel fuel fire did not exist in the NE generator room and even if it had it would not have sufficient air flow to be a factor in the collapse. If I could figure this out why couldn't all the experts at NIST?

The diesel fuel fire hypothesis was baseless and a waste of time and money.

The LIE was Shyam Sunder telling PM that there was a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours.

Shyam Sunder let the statements stand. If he had been misquoted, he would have corrected PM.

There were NO REPORTS OF FIRE ON THE FIFTH FLOOR! The statements that there was a fire on the fifth floor are not "impresice", they are FALSE statements.

Is a huge non-sequitor.... You agreed that the new information posted by the latest release of the NIST report supersedes the preliminary hypotheses they worked with yet they are still lying for having investigated the possibility in the first place?

[jaydeehess]

This response to Jayhadees' question...


Grizzlr Bear, the transposition of two consonants of my username makes it look like I am related to the Greek God of the netherworld.:D

[Grizzly Bear]

Grizzlr Bear, the transposition of two consonants of my username makes it look like I am related to the Greek God of the netherworld.:D

Whoops... every time I see your username I automatically write it that way for some reason... sorry about that :p
:D

[jaydeehess]

Yes

Really? Then why do you continue to argue as if Appendix L was and is the final report?

There was clear evidence that a diesel fuel fire did not exist in the NE generator room and even if it had it would not have sufficient air flow to be a factor in the collapse. If I could figure this out why couldn't all the experts at NIST?
............
The diesel fuel fire hypothesis was baseless and a waste of time and money.
..................

There was a large quantity of deisel fuel in the building and moch of it could not be accounted for and thus it had to be investigated as to whether or not it could have contributed to the fires in the building that initiated the collapse. The only way for it to have done so was via the pressurised line to the east side of the fifth floor. It was prudent and proper to investigate all possibilities despite no empirical evidence of such a fire.

The LIE was Shyam Sunder telling PM that there was a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours.
.......
Shyam Sunder let the statements stand. If he had been misquoted, he would have corrected PM.
...........
There were NO REPORTS OF FIRE ON THE FIFTH FLOOR! The statements that there was a fire on the fifth floor are not "impresice", they are FALSE statements.


The imprecision is in not including the word "possible" when describing the fires. If you happened to discuss O.J. Simpson with anyone in the past several years have you always prefaced any reference to crimes with the word 'alledged'?

You do not know that Sunder stated this as a possibility or if he neglected to qualify the statement with that or similar wording.

At the time of printing the possibility was still being thoroughly investigated(slightly more complex than your skimming the photos) and I can certainly forgive Sunder for not requiring a retraction or a writing letter to the editor of PM over a rather minor transgression.



,,,,,,,,, and the fact remains that contrary to your contention from the past, which you have repeated quite recently, a diesel fuel fire on the fifth floor, or any diesel fuel fire anywhere in the building was NOT required by NIST to explain the collapse. (not then, not now) We know this for FACT since NIST has rejected the diesel fuel fire as very improbable and did NOT include it in the more recent report which you say that you understand supercedes Appendix L.

[jaydeehess]

Whoops... every time I see your username I automatically write it that way for some reason... sorry about that :p
:D

Hah! I notice that I was rather dyslexic in typing your name, making you appear old and rugged.;)

[Christopher7]

Is a huge non-sequitor.... You agreed that the new information posted by the latest release of the NIST report supersedes the preliminary hypotheses they worked with yet they are still lying for having investigated the possibility in the first place?No!

The LIE was Shyam Sunder telling PM that there was a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours.

[Christopher7]

There was a large quantity of deisel fuel in the building and moch of it could not be accounted for and thus it had to be investigated as to whether or not it could have contributed to the fires in the building that initiated the collapse. The only way for it to have done so was via the pressurised line to the east side of the fifth floor. It was prudent and proper to investigate all possibilities despite no empirical evidence of such a fire.There was clear evidence that there was NO fire in the NE generator room. Investigating something that clearly did not happen was a waste of time and money.

You do not know that Sunder stated this as a possibility or if he neglected to qualify the statement with that or similar wording.

At the time of printing the possibility was still being thoroughly investigated(slightly more complex than your skimming the photos) and I can certainly forgive Sunder for not requiring a retraction or a writing letter to the editor of PM over a rather minor transgression.Shyam Sunder LIED about there being a 10 story gouge and fire on the fifth floor.

He had the clear evidence that there was NO fire on the fifth floor and a preponderance of evidence that there was no 10 story gouge.
He stated the 10 story gouge as a FACT and let stand a FALSE statement about a fire on the fifth floor.

These are NOT a minor transgressions, they are LIES!

[Mark Carter]

During the last anniversary of 911 the History Channel had a show about 911 and it showed a film crew entering building No 7 . There was live footage of a film crew going up the escalator to the second floor It showed that there was no hole that went all the way to the floor, NIST has been doing joint operations with the NSA since they worked on the ultra secret "clipper chip" operation in 1993. The NSA and the CIA had offices inside building No 7 . how can you trust what NIST is telling people?

[Christopher7]

During the last anniversary of 911 the History Channel had a show about 911 and it showed a film crew entering building No 7 . There was live footage of a film crew going up the escalator to the second floor It showed that there was no hole that went all the way to the floor, NIST has been doing joint operations with the NSA since they worked on the ultra secret "clipper chip" operation in 1993. The NSA and the CIA had offices inside building No 7 . how can you trust what NIST is telling people?Mark

Welcome to the forum.

That video was taken before the north tower collapsed.

However, you are right to question anything the Cheney/Bush administration publishes.

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

[Grizzly Bear]

There was clear evidence that there was NO fire in the NE generator room. Investigating something that clearly did not happen was a waste of time and money.
As has been mentioned before (repeatedly I'll add), when the generators were recovered from the site there was 12,000 gallons of fuel left unaccounted for. In that position, what do you think NIST should have done, investigated it as a possible cause in their preliminary investigation, or otherwise? If otherwise could you specify?


Shyam Sunder LIED about there being a 10 story gouge and fire on the fifth floor.
This lie again? Your repeated cherry-picking of content, from a preliminary report no less, is really beating a dead horse... To begin with that claim stems from a list of accounts which NIST provided, and they specifically said that "there were some conflicting accounts". What kind of reading comprehension problems do you have to not connect the context?



He stated the 10 story gouge as a FACT and let stand a FALSE statement about a fire on the fifth floor.

These are NOT a minor transgressions, they are LIES!

I have already discussed this ad nauseum with you and covered this matter in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4078260&postcount=5039). At this point I can only assume you are either incapable of understanding the context of that report or you intentionally cherry-pick the content and hope that no one else understands the context when they read it. Which is it? That you're capable of posting here with complete words, I'm inclined to believe you're doing the latter.

During the last anniversary of 911 the History Channel had a show about 911 and it showed a film crew entering building No 7 . There was live footage of a film crew going up the escalator to the second floor It showed that there was no hole that went all the way to the floor.
I am aware of a video that was taken of the lobby before the collapse of World Trade Center 1, which as Chris rightly (for once) pointed out. The damage which Chris is disputing was inflicted when WTC 1 collapsed.

NIST has been doing joint operations with the NSA since they worked on the ultra secret "clipper chip" operation in 1993. The NSA and the CIA had offices inside building No 7 . how can you trust what NIST is telling people?
This is a "Poisoning the Well Logical Fallacy" (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html). That aside why destroy the building to get rid of a few documents? I'm going with Occam's razor, I think the CIA, if they wanted to destroy documents would have zero need to demolish an entire building to cover up damaging documents. In fact I'd argue that they'd save money by doing something less complex and obvious.


Mark
However, you are right to question anything the Cheney/Bush administration publishes.

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

Another instance of "Poisoning the Well Logical Fallacy" (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html) and could alternately be considered a red herring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi). Christopher... would you mind addressing the topic concerning WTC 7, rather than going off on tangents?

[jaydeehess]

There was clear evidence that there was NO fire in the NE generator room. Investigating something that clearly did not happen was a waste of time and money.

That would be your opinion. I feel that the fact of the fuel being present and the discovery of the fact that the investigators could not account for all of , that it was prudent and proper to determine for certain whether or not there could have been a undetected fire on the fifth floor. That's my opinion.

Shyam Sunder LIED about there being a 10 story gouge and fire on the fifth floor.

He had the clear evidence that there was NO fire on the fifth floor and a preponderance of evidence that there was no 10 story gouge.
He stated the 10 story gouge as a FACT and let stand a FALSE statement about a fire on the fifth floor.

These are NOT a minor transgressions, they are LIES!


Was that supposed to be a statement directed at my post? To refresh your memory without you having to scroll up, I said;
You do not know that Sunder stated this as a possibility or if he neglected to qualify the statement with that or similar wording.

At the time of printing the possibility was still being thoroughly investigated(slightly more complex than your skimming the photos) and I can certainly forgive Sunder for not requiring a retraction or a writing letter to the editor of PM over a rather minor transgression.

[jaydeehess]

However, you are right to question anything the Cheney/Bush administration publishes.

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

Logical fallacy.
As posted on another thread;

A chicken has feathers.
This bird has feathers.
Therefore this bird must be a chicken.

[jaydeehess]

I never did understand the 'they demolished an entire building to use it as a giant paper shredder'. If they could somehow squirrel away large quatities of explosives into the building with no one, at all, seeing it done , then it would also have been possible to extract large quatities of docuements to be destroyed in a secure fashion elsewhere.

[Christopher7]

As has been mentioned before (repeatedly I'll add), when the generators were recovered from the site there was 12,000 gallons of fuel left unaccounted for. In that position, what do you think NIST should have done, investigated it as a possible cause in their preliminary investigation, or otherwise? If otherwise could you specify?The amount of fuel missing is irrelevant. The ONLY place the diesel fuel could have effected the initiating event was in the north east generator room on the fifth floor. The diesel fuel fire hypothesis was based on a fire in that room. They had clear evidence that there was NO fire in that room.

This lie again? Your repeated cherry-picking of content, from a preliminary report no less, is really beating a dead horse... To begin with that claim stems from a list of accounts which NIST provided, and they specifically said that "there were some conflicting accounts". What kind of reading comprehension problems do you have to not connect the context?Shyam Sunder DID NOT MENTION that there were conflicting accounts. He stated:
"The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."

He stated the 10 story gouge as a FACT.

Don't try to double talk around this LIE by saying his use of the phrase "there was, in fact"did not include the 10 story gouge, it did.
He stated the 10 story gouge as a FACT without any qualification.

[Christopher7]

There was clear evidence that there was NO fire in the NE generator room. Investigating something that clearly did not happen was a waste of time and money.

That would be your opinion.It is also the opinion of NIST.

In the Final draft, they finally admitted [10 times] to what i have been saying for over a year.

1-A pg 26 [64]

An under-ventilated fire, in which the air handling system was turned off, but the louvers wereopen. Result: Smoke would have exhausted through the east louvers, and the imagery showed no such effluent.

Pg 44 [82]
The worst-case scenarios

associated with fires being fed by the ruptured fuel lines, (b) would have

produced large amounts of visible smoke that would have emanated from the exhaust louvers.No such smoke discharge was observed.

Pg 85 [47]

Simulation of hypothetical, worst-case fire scenarios on these floors showed that pool fires, associated with ruptured diesel fuel lines, (c) would have exhausted smoke from the exhaust louvers, which was not observed.

The absence of diesel fuel fires on Floor 5 was consistent with the information from interviews that sometime after 1:00 p.m., OEM and FDNY staff climbed the east stairway of WTC 7 and did not see much damage on Floors 4, 5, or 6 from their viewing location. They made no mention of fire, heat or smoke.

1-9 vol 1 pg 355 [399]

Simulations showed that pool fires associated with ruptured diesel fuel lines . . . . (c) would have exhausted smoke from the exhaust louvers, in conflict with the photographic evidence which showed none.

1-9 vol 2 diesel fuel pg 371 [33]

Result: The FDS simulation showed that the natural flow from the fire plume would have been out of the louvered openings on the east side of the building in a very short time. Significant plumes of smoke would have been seen emerging from the building within a few minutes of ignition, contradicting the visual evidence.

Pg 373 [35]

A broad range of hypothetical, extreme fires on the 5th floor did not produce a fire scenario that was consistent with the visual evidence that would have threatened the load bearing capacity of Columns 79, 80, or 81.

pg 386 [48]

these fires would have exhausted smoke from the exhaust louvers. No such

emanation was observed.
Pg 605 [267]
Additionally, such fires would have produced large amounts of visible smoke that would have emanated from the exhaust louvers; however, no such smoke discharge was observed.

Pg 610 [272]

fires being fed by the ruptured fuel lines . . . . would have produced large amounts of visible smoke that would have emanated from the exhaust louvers. No such smoke discharge was observed.

Pg 613 [275]

fire scenarios on these floors showed that pool fires, associated with ruptured diesel fuel lines, . . . . would have exhausted smoke from the exhaust louvers, which was not observed.

[Grizzly Bear]

The amount of fuel missing is irrelevant.
Of course they had a burning building and fuel having potentially leaked out. Had they not looked into it, one could argue that critics would have cried afoul for negligence in a major investigation of an engineering failure.


Shyam Sunder DID NOT MENTION that there were conflicting accounts.

So this doesn't exist in the NIST L report you're so fond of using as a resource?

Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts are mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:

A reminder I posted this excerpt in full context in post # 5039 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4078260&postcount=5039)

I don't feel like breaking this whole thing down for you for the millionth time. I'm not going to teach you reading comprehension either, if that is the problem you have you'll have to resolve it yourself.

He stated:
"The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."

He stated the 10 story gouge as a FACT.

Could it be that his statement at the time was based on information that had been gathered during the preliminary phases of the investigation? Perhaps even from the excerpt I've pointed out to you? Nah! Couldn't be!

Don't try to double talk around this LIE by saying his use of the phrase "there was, in fact"did not include the 10 story gouge, it did. He stated the 10 story gouge as a FACT without any qualification.
Now that you have brought up his statement to Popular mechanics, how does it impact what was stated in NIST appendix L which you appear fond of using? You did afterall state that Sunder, et al never stated anything about conflicting accounts (something which I've proven you to be incorrect on already).

[Crazytimes]

I never did understand the 'they demolished an entire building to use it as a giant paper shredder'. If they could somehow squirrel away large quatities of explosives into the building with no one, at all, seeing it done , then it would also have been possible to extract large quatities of docuements to be destroyed in a secure fashion elsewhere.


That is one of my favorite truther fantasies. As if the government doesnt back any infomation up. They have a large stack of paper files with no backup of information. They are destroying evidence of something by bringing the building down ? Hahaha

[Christopher7]

Of course they had a burning building and fuel having potentially leaked out. Had they not looked into it, one could argue that critics would have cried afoul for negligence in a major investigation of an engineering failure.What critics?
All the self proclaimed "skeptics" are not the least bit skeptical of the NIST report.

Shyam Sunder DID NOT MENTION that there were conflicting accounts.
So this doesn't exist in the NIST L report you're so fond of using as a resource?So what?
He failed to mention the conflicting accounts in the "debunking" article.

Could it be that his statement at the time was based on information that had been gathered during the preliminary phases of the investigation? Perhaps even from the excerpt I've pointed out to you? He knew of the conflicting statements at the time but he stated that there was a 10 story gouge as a FACT!

Don't try to double talk around this LIE by saying his use of the phrase "there was, in fact"did not include the 10 story gouge, it did. He stated the 10 story gouge as a FACT without any qualification.

Now that you have brought up his statement to Popular mechanics, how does it impact what was stated in NIST appendix L which you appear fond of using? You did after all state that Sunder, et al never stated anything about conflicting accounts (something which I've proven you to be incorrect on already).Wrong!

[jaydeehess]

It is also the opinion of NIST

In the Final draft, they finally admitted [10 times] to what i have been saying for over a year.
.

"admitted"??? They came to that conclusion after a detailed investigation. You jumped to the conclusion at the outset.

You know when I was a kid, when Jim Henson was just starting out, "Seame Street" had a bit where Grover would be in the foreground and say "Near" , then scamper off to the background and say "Far".

You seem to need that type of lesson with ,"Then" and "Now" , or with "Preliminary hypothysis" and "Final report".

At the time (Then) of the PM article or the printing of Appendix"L" it was your opinion that there could absolutly not possibly be a fire , let alone a deisel fuel fire, on the 5th floor. I, others, and NIST were of the opinion that given that there was deisel fuel present that could have supplied a fire on the 5th floor and given that there was an unaccounted for quantity of fuel, that it was prudent and proper to investigate thoroughly any possibility that a fuel fed 5th floor fire could have occured and escaped easy dectection. This led to the inclusion of a possible 5th floor fire being part (that's only "part" mind you) of the preliminary report known as Appendix"L".

At this time (Now), NIST has done the work required to determine that such a fire had a low probability of occuring. This leaves the whereabouts of the missing fuel a mystery but that is now a very minor concern.

As for the 'gash' , we known that there was indeed a gash or several of them close to each other in the vicinity described and that at the time of the preliminary report it could certainly be discussed as being relevent.

At this time (Now) in the latest (Final report) release NIST has determined that the impact damage affected only the fashion by which the building twisted as it collapsed and that had there been no impact damage and only the fires that the structure still would have failed.


Once again, why are you argueing about items that in the final report, were determined to be of little or no consequence? I would think that since you kept hounding away that the fuel fed fires were absolutly needed by NIST in order to have the building collapse and, you have been proved wrong about that point, that you'd want to shut up about it.

[jaydeehess]

What critics?
All the self proclaimed "skeptics" are not the least bit skeptical of the NIST report.

Want to go and look up how many qualified persons commented on Appendix"L"?


So what?
He failed to mention the conflicting accounts in the "debunking" article.

I'll see your "so what?" and raise you a "so what?".

He knew of the conflicting statements at the time but he stated that there was a 10 story gouge as a FACT!

FACT was there was a lot of damage to the south face including in the area closer to the center of the building as well as the SW corner.
Again I say, "so what" if Sunder, in a popular press article conflates this and states that there was a 10 storey gash in the center of the building ( seems to me the SW corner gash was greater than that)!

Now I know that you are looking for signs that evil is afoot, commies under every rock, all is deception, "The Matrix" might be a docuementary,,,,, but come on Chris these items are no longer part of the NIST hypothysis for the collapse of WTC 7.

Did my writing it larger convince you?

[Christopher7]

"admitted"??? They came to that conclusion after a detailed investigation. You jumped to the conclusion at the outset.I looked at the photograph on page 26 of the FEMA report and saw the obvious.

16th February 2007, 01:44 AM #900 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2347679&postcount=900) Christopher7 (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=11229)
If the generators [and the pump feeding fuel oil to them] were running, the louver vents would be open.

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

If there was a fire in this room, the smoke would be pouring out thru the vents.
This the only area near the initial collapse zone where there could have been a fuel oil fed fire.
It is not on fire.

The "experts" at NIST did NOT see the obvious and wasted a lot of time and money on a hypothesis that obviously did not occur.

At the time (Then) of the PM article or the printing of Appendix"L" it was your opinion that there could absolutly not possibly be a fire , let alone a deisel fuel fire, on the 5th floor.Correct.
At the time I based my conclusion on the vents that opened when the generators came on. However, any room containing diesel engines would have to have some ventilation all the time and any fire would vent smoke through those vents.
There was obviously NO fire in the north east generator room.

I, others, and NIST were of the opinion that given that there was deisel fuel present that could have supplied a fire on the 5th floor and given that there was an unaccounted for quantity of fuel, that it was prudent and proper to investigate thoroughly any possibility that a fuel fed 5th floor fire could have occured and escaped easy dectection.You and others [everybody here at 'never doubt NIST' central] missed the obvious just like the experts at NIST.

This led to the inclusion of a possible 5th floor fire being part (that's only "part" mind you) of the preliminary report known as Appendix"L".The photo on page 26 of the FEMA report clearly showed that it did not happen and was therefore a waste of time and money.

At this time (Now), NIST has done the work required to determine that such a fire had a low probability of occuring. Low probability is double talk! It did not occur.

As for the 'gash' , we known that there was indeed a gash or several of them close to each other in the vicinity described and that at the time of the preliminary report it could certainly be discussed as being relevent.More double talk.
Shyam Sunder was very specific in his description.
"On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."

There was NO gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of the south side floor 10 to the ground.

He LIED!

[Grizzly Bear]

According to Chistopher7, the missing fuel warranted no such investigation, going so far as to call it completely irrelevant. Such high standard of evidence he holds :boggled:


More double talk.
Shyam Sunder was very specific in his description.
"On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."

There was NO gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of the south side floor 10 to the ground.
He LIED!
You're too busy twisting the words of a preliminary report to the point you're completely oblivious to the context. Better yet, this argument turned into soap opera of repetitious argumentation on the same thing despite having this pointed out to you multiple times. When it was pointed out several times that you intentionally misrepresented the content of the preliminary report, you alternated to a statement by Sunder to Popular Mechanics and recently claimed:

"Shyam Sunder DID NOT MENTION that there were conflicting accounts. He stated..."

I highlighted this a long time ago in red in post #5039 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4078260&postcount=5039) where it was stated on the preliminary investigation. You blew right over it then, and you continue doing so now as if it bears negligible importance to your claims.

[Christopher7]

According to Chistopher7, the missing fuel warranted no such investigation, going so far as to call it completely irrelevant. Such high standard of evidence he holds.A higher standard than you or NIST.
You favor investigating something when the evidence clearly shows it did not occur.

The photo on page 26 of the FEMA report clearly shows that there was NO fire in the north east generator room.


Shyam Sunder was very specific in his description.
"On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."

There was NO gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of the south side floor 10 to the ground.

He LIED!
You're too busy twisting the words of a preliminary report to the point you're completely oblivious to the context.You are the one twisting words.
Shyam Sunder's statement in PM is consistent with the description of damage on page 18;
"middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground"
and the damage depicted on pages 23, 31 and 32, in the middle - 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7

When it was pointed out several times that you intentionally misrepresented the content of the preliminary report,Where?

you alternated to a statement by Sunder to Popular Mechanics and recently claimed: Alternated? Stop playing with words.
I stated the FACTS.

"Shyam Sunder DID NOT MENTION that there were conflicting accounts. He stated..."

I highlighted this a long time ago in red in post #5039 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4078260&postcount=5039) where it was stated on the preliminary investigation. You blew right over it then, and you continue doing so now as if it bears negligible importance to your claims.Correct.
It does not matter that it was a preliminary report.
It is an official government document.

Including the massive damage described on page 18 in the graphics on pages 31 and 32 as "Approximate Region of Impact Damage by Large WTC1 Debris" was fraudulent!
There were two statements on the same page in direct conflict with that damage and a statement in the FEMA report that was in conflict with the 10 stories high part.

Suggesting that diesel fuel may have played a part in the collapse by including it in the summary was fraudulent!
"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 a delibrate obfuscation of the facts.
These facts indicate the possibility of a fire in the south west generator room, NOT the north east generator room. A fire in the south west generator room would have no effect on column 79, 80 or 81.

Shyam Sunder misrepresented the evidence in the NIST L report and then LIED about there being a fire on floor five to PM Magazine.
He also LIED about the 10 story gouge when he stated it as a FACT.

He continued these LIES in the 4-5-05 report when he included the non existant damage on page 20 as "Approximate Region of Impact Damage by Large WTC1 Debris".
On page 38 it states:
"The two 6,000 gallon tanks supplying the 5th floor generators through a pressurized piping system were always kept full for emergencies and were full that day.
• Both tanks were found to be damaged by debris and empty several months after the collapse. Some fuel contamination was found in the gravel below the tanks and sand below the slab on which the tanks were mounted, but no contamination was found in the organic marine silt/clay layer underneath.
• This finding allows for the possibility, though not conclusively, that the fuel may have contributed to a fire on Floor 5."

The photo on page 26 of the FEMA report clearly shows that there was NO fire in the north east generator room.

The LIE continued when Shyam Sunder testified to the New York City Council on September 8, 2006. His entire testimony was about a diesel fuel fire that did not exist.

[roundhead]

The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the NIST/Sunder's outright lies and ever changing position regarding WTC7 is this.

They have tried to delay and allow years to pass by, so that when the lame excuse for the collapse was finally rolled out, it was hoped that such a long time has passed, interest would wane in the results, and a bright light wouldnt shine on their lies.

Much like a basketball game where fans leave in the fourth quarter with the home team up by thirty points, and only diehards are left at the final buzzer, those looking for the truth regarding 9/11 havent left their seats, unfortunately for the Govt, and the loyal fans(truthers) are still in attendance.

Anybody who cant clearly smell the stench of the Wtc7 story, have incurable sinus issues.

[Grizzly Bear]

[LEFT][LEFT]A higher standard than you or NIST.
You favor investigating something when the evidence clearly shows it did not occur.
When you have building fire and fuel generators with an unaccounted for amount of fuel, it's only proper to investigate to possibility and eliminate it as a cause. What do you think investigators do in homicide investigations, or coroners do in autopsies?


The photo on page 26 of the FEMA report clearly shows that there was NO fire in the north east generator room.

Big whoop. At what point in the day was it taken? Did any potential fire last that long? NIST has already clarified this.

"Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse?
No. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines—or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors—could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which were not observed.

As background information, the three systems contained two 12,000 gallon fuel tanks, and two 6,000 gallon tanks beneath the building’s loading docks, and a single 6,000 gallon tank on the 1st floor. In addition one system used a 275 gallon tank on the 5th floor, a 275 gallon tank on the 8th floor, and a 50 gallon tank on the 9th floor. Another system used a 275 gallon day tank on the 7th floor.

Several months after the WTC 7 collapse, a contractor recovered an estimated 23,000 gallons of fuel from these tanks. NIST estimated that the unaccounted fuel totaled 1,000 ±1,000 gallons of fuel (in other words, somewhere between 0 and 2,000 gallons, with 1,000 gallons the most likely figure). The fate of the fuel in the day tanks was unknown, so NIST assumed the worst-case scenario, namely that they were full on Sept. 11, 2001. The fate of the fuel of two 6,000 gallon tanks was also unknown. Therefore, NIST also assumed the worst-case scenario for these tanks, namely that all of the fuel would have been available to feed fires either at ground level or on the 5th floor."


Where?

Posts:
5098 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4113865&postcount=5098)
5092 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4113020&postcount=5092)
5041 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4079803&postcount=5041)
5025 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4072841&postcount=5025)
5039 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4078260&postcount=5039)

Not surprisingly, you hand waved every one of them. Not to mention you continually ignored the context of the report. The context is quite clear about listing what witness accounts were received that were in conflict. Why are you having such a brain aneurysm in reading this?


Alternated? Stop playing with words.
I stated the FACTS.
And ignoring that important line in a preliminary report is stating facts how again?

"Shyam Sunder DID NOT MENTION that there were conflicting accounts. He stated..."

Correct.


Post #5039 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4078260&postcount=5039) again for you liar.

Quote:
Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts are mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:


It does not matter that it was a preliminary report. It is an official government document.

I see so you don't care that it was a preliminary investigation. You would rather target a preliminary investigation than deal with a finalized report which underwent more comprehensive research. Your entire argument is one massive affirmation of the consequent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent) and confirmation bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias). If the preliminary report is inaccurate, or doesn't fit your conclusion, then the more refined report cannot be any more accurate than the preliminary.


Suggesting that diesel fuel may have played a part in the collapse by including it in the summary was fraudulent!
"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 a delibrate obfuscation of the facts.


How pray tell does the quote you posted support your leading statement (green)? I smell a straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)



He continued these LIES in the 4-5-05 report when he included the non existant damage on page 20 as "Approximate Region of Impact Damage by Large WTC1 Debris".
On page 38 it states:
"The two 6,000 gallon tanks supplying the 5th floor generators through a pressurized piping system were always kept full for emergencies and were full that day.
• Both tanks were found to be damaged by debris and empty several months after the collapse. Some fuel contamination was found in the gravel below the tanks and sand below the slab on which the tanks were mounted, but no contamination was found in the organic marine silt/clay layer underneath.
• This finding allows for the possibility, though not conclusively, that the fuel may have contributed to a fire on Floor 5."


Just curious... Do you ignore the content you post? (red)

The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the NIST/Sunder's outright lies and ever changing position regarding WTC7 is this.
According to Christopher7 a preliminary report is absolute proof of a lie and if any part of that content changes it's only further proof of a lie regardless of whether or not preliminary hypotheses were discarded as new information was made available.
Speaking of which, if we went by Christopher's standard, in which changes in information automatically equal a lie, then for example I could call the National hurricane center's re-evaluation of Hurricane Andrew a total fraud. By christopher's standard the National Hurricane center claimed for 10 years that Hurricane andrew was a category 4 hurricane when it made landfall, therefore they lied when they upgraded it to a category 5 10 years later.

Perhaps I should grab the pitch forks and put these guys into court martial!

Christopher7's standard of proof is based entirely on the basis that the National Institute of Technologies is a Federal institution and and his own confirmation biases. One could write a book on the numerous fallacies he commits in his argument.

Considering you hold the same position as Chris, you can read my responses to him. You apparently having nothing new to add.


Anybody who cant clearly smell the stench of the Wtc7 story, have incurable sinus issues.
Well if you have anything new to point out then out with it. Christopher's been repeating the same argument for 3 or 4 pages now... It gets boring to have to link him to earlier posts where his gripes have already been addressed. Perhaps you can offer a better standard of debate here, or at the very least substantiate the claims with more elaboration than chris is able to offer?

[Christopher7]

When you have building fire and fuel generators with an unaccounted for amount of fuel, it's only proper to investigate to possibility and eliminate it as a cause. What do you think investigators do in homicide investigations, or coroners do in autopsies? When you have clear, indisputable evidence that something did NOT occur, investigating it is a waste of time and money.

The photo on page 26 of the FEMA report clearly shows that there was NO fire in the north east generator room.

Big whoop. At what point in the day was it taken? Did any potential fire last that long? NIST has already clarified this.
The photo was taken about 2:10 p.m. [as if you didn't know]
There was NO FIRE in the north east generator room at that time.

There was NO reason to think a fire could get started there after this time.

There was NO reason to think that the damage to the other end of the building would cause the double wall supply pipe to fracture or break in the north east generator room.
Damage to the south west part would fracture or break the supply pipe in or near the south west generator room first. There was NO fire reported anywhere on the fifth floor at any time.
NIST L pg 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

Shyam Sunder LIED to PM when he told them that there was a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours.

[funk de fino]

I looked at the photograph on page 26 of the FEMA report and saw the obvious.

the louver vents would be open.

C7 what does the Final report say about the louvre vents? from a visibility point of view?

[Christopher7]

C7 what does the Final report say about the louvre vents? from a visibility point of view? We are discussing what Shyam Sunder said to PM.

Any room containing diesel engines would have to have some ventilation all the time and any fire would vent smoke through those vents.


There was obviously NO fire in the north east generator room in the 2:10 p.m. photo.

There were NO reports of fire on floor 5 at any time.

There was NO reason to think there was a fire in the north east generator room.



Shyam Sunder and the experts at NIST knew that the north east generator room had to have vents when Sunder told PM that there was a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours.



Shyam Sunder LIED to Popular Mechanics Magazine.



The whole diesel fuel fire hypothesis was a FRAUD.

[pomeroo]

No!

The LIE was Shyam Sunder telling PM that there was a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours.


It's fascinating that you agenda-driven cranks do nothing but lie, yet you pretend that every mistake committed by a rationalist is a deliberate falsehood. Well, when you're flogging an absurd, thoroughly discredited fantasy, I suppose you have no choice.

Your evil movement is quite dead. There were no explosives anywhere in the WTC complex. The evidence for their use is, as you know, nonexistent.

[pomeroo]

We are discussing what Shyam Sunder said to PM.




Any room containing diesel engines would have to have some ventilation all the time and any fire would vent smoke through those vents.





There was obviously NO fire in the north east generator room in the 2:10 p.m. photo.




There were NO reports of fire on floor 5 at any time.




There was NO reason to think there was a fire in the north east generator room.







Shyam Sunder and the experts at NIST knew that the north east generator room had to have vents when Sunder told PM that there was a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours.







Shyam Sunder LIED to Popular Mechanics Magazine.







The whole diesel fuel fire hypothesis was a FRAUD.





Uh, no, fraud is what you conspiracy liars specialize in. If NIST was perpetrating a fraud, why did the agency abandon it when the evidence led elsewhere? A guy like you can never give up on a false hypothesis. The real reseachers can, and, more importantly, do.

[jaydeehess]

You and others [everybody here at 'never doubt NIST' central] missed the obvious just like the experts at NIST.


Jeebus H. kristo! Just about every poster here has pointed out that your favorite bugaboo, the NIST appendix "L" to the WTC report, was a "preliminary" report and that the hypothysis put forward in it were all "possibilities". YOU are pretty much alone in claiming that NIST intended any of them to be definitive answers and, incredibly, YOU continue to behave as if that were the case!

I am not a "never doubt NIST" person. I would like to know what measures can be taken to guard against this occuring to other structures with long span or spans constrained assymettrically suffering a similar fate as WTC 7 and the final WTC 7 report does not go far enough to addressing that.

As for the Appendix "L", it gave many things to think about and outlined many avenues that required investigation. I am confident that they were investigated. So far your problem seems to be what was included in Appendix "L" rather than anything that was excluded. Very cynical of you, though not a surprise to me.

[jaydeehess]

C7 what does the Final report say about the louvre vents? from a visibility point of view?

We are discussing what Shyam Sunder said to PM.

Any room containing diesel engines would have to have some ventilation all the time and any fire would vent smoke through those vents.


There was obviously NO fire in the north east generator room in the 2:10 p.m. photo.

There were NO reports of fire on floor 5 at any time.

There was NO reason to think there was a fire in the north east generator room.



Shyam Sunder and the experts at NIST knew that the north east generator room had to have vents when Sunder told PM that there was a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours.



Shyam Sunder LIED to Popular Mechanics Magazine.



The whole diesel fuel fire hypothesis was a FRAUD.


The diesel fuel fire hypothysis was discarded by NIST after investigation. What part of this do you have so very much trouble with Chris?

You seem to be the type of person who has trouble taking "yes" for an answer. YES it is very unlikely that a deisel fuel fire on the fifth floor occured let alone contributed to the initiation of the collapse. This has beeen stated by NIST over and over again and yet you seem to be trying to take that fact as and use it to somehow 'pin' something on NIST!
Incredible!!!!

[funk de fino]

C7 what does the Final report say about the louvre vents? from a visibility point of view?

I will keep repeating it until you answer.

[Christopher7]

The diesel fuel fire hypothysis was discarded by NIST after investigation. What part of this do you have so very much trouble with Chris? The part where Shyam Sunder LIED about there being a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours when the evidence clearly showed that there was not.

YES it is very unlikely that a deisel fuel fire on the fifth floor occured let alone contributed to the initiation of the collapse. NIST stated 10 times that diesel fuel fires were not a factor for the reasons self evident in the photo on page 26 of the FEMA report.
[see post 5097]

[Christopher7]

It's fascinating that you agenda-driven cranks do nothing but lie, yet you pretend that every mistake committed by a rationalist is a deliberate falsehood. Actually, that's what people here do. You just called me an "agenda-driven crank" and a liar in a vain attempt to ignore the FACT that Shyam Sunder lied when he told the editors of Popular Mechanics that there was a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours.

[Christopher7]

The whole diesel fuel fire hypothesis was a FRAUD.

If NIST was perpetrating a fraud, why did the agency abandon it when the evidence led elsewhere? They did NOT abandon it when the evidence led elsewhere.

This photo from page 26 of the FEMA report clearly shows that there was NO fire in the north east generator room [louvers] at about 2:10 p.m. [see post 5103]

There is no reason to think a fire started after that time.

NCSTAR 1-9 vol.1 pg 330


Sections 8.9.1 shows that the worst-case scenarios associated with ruptured fuel lines generated fires that could not be sustained long enough, would have produced too little heat to raise the temperatures of the steel to the point of significant loss of strength, and/or would have led to the flowing of smoke out the ventilation louvers*, which contradicts the visual evidence.

1-9 vol.2 pg 371

Result: The FDS simulation showed that the natural flow from the fire plume would have been out of the louvered openings on the east side of the building in a very short time. Significant plumes of smoke would have been seen emerging from the building within a few minutes of ignition, contradicting the visual evidence.


I did not need a computer simulation to see the obvious and neither did the experts at NIST.

*Any room with diesel generators would have to have ventilation all the time.

[funk de fino]

The FDS simulation showed that the natural flow from the fire plume would have been out of the louvered openings on the east side of the building in a very short time. Significant plumes of smoke would have been seen emerging from the building within a few minutes of ignition, contradicting the visual evidence.

This photo from page 26 of the FEMA report clearly shows that there was NO fire in the north east generator room [louvers] at about 2:10 p.m. [see post 5103]

Any room with diesel generators would have to have ventilation all the time.


C7 what does the Final report say about the louvre vents? from a visibility point of view?

[funk de fino]

Actually, that's what people here do. You just called me an "agenda-driven crank" and a liar in a vain attempt to ignore the FACT that Shyam Sunder lied when he told the editors of Popular Mechanics that there was a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours.

Except you have no proof that is what he told them.

[Christopher7]

Except you have no proof that is what he told them.The proof is they said it.

[funk de fino]

The proof is they said it.

Well then you should clarify with them exactly what was said by whom before you label Sunder a liar.

Do you ever read something in a paper and think that every word is exactly as said to the journalist or investigator?

C7 what does the Final report say about the louvre vents? from a visibility point of view?

[Christopher7]

This photo from page 26 of the FEMA report clearly shows that there was NO fire in the north east generator room [louvers] at about 2:10 p.m. [see post 5103]

There is no reason to think a fire started after that time.

NCSTAR 1-9 vol.1 pg 330


Sections 8.9.1 shows that the worst-case scenarios associated with ruptured fuel lines generated fires that could not be sustained long enough, would have produced too little heat to raise the temperatures of the steel to the point of significant loss of strength, and/or would have led to the flowing of smoke out the ventilation louvers*, which contradicts the visual evidence.

1-9 vol.2 pg 371

Result: The FDS simulation showed that the natural flow from the fire plume would have been out of the louvered openings on the east side of the building in a very short time. Significant plumes of smoke would have been seen emerging from the building within a few minutes of ignition, contradicting the visual evidence.


I did not need a computer simulation to see the obvious and neither did the experts at NIST.

*Any room with diesel generators would have to have ventilation all the time. C7 what does the Final report say about the louvre vents? from a visibility point of view?They say the louvers made it difficult to see a fire on the 5th and 6th floors.

9-1 pg 49
Added in 1994 were nine additional generators that provided emergency power to the Salomon Smith Barney spaces . . . .
Two story* aluminum plenums that provided air for the diesel engines were located along portions of the west and east walls.

9-1 pg 52
a fire on the north side of the 6th floor would have been almost as visible (due to the tinted glass) as on one of the tenant floors.

*floors 5 and 6

[funk de fino]

And?

[Christopher7]

Well then you should clarify with them exactly what was said by whom before you label Sunder a liar.
It is perfectly clear what was said and who told them.

[Christopher7]

And?This photo from page 26 of the FEMA report clearly shows that there was NO FIRE in the north east generator room at 2:10 p.m.

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

Shyam Sunder LIED to PM when he told them that there was a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours.

[funk de fino]

It is perfectly clear what was said and who told them.

So you assume and do not check before you condemn someone. Well done very human of you.

[funk de fino]

This photo from page 26 of the FEMA report clearly shows that there was NO FIRE in the north east generator room at 2:10 p.m.

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

Shyam Sunder LIED to PM when he told them that there was a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours.

OK C7. babysteps time

Were the vents open all the time?

What would have made it difficult to tell from photographs whether they were open or not?

[Christopher7]

So you assume and do not check before you condemn someone. Well done very human of you.I did not assume anything. I read the article.
They said:
"a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours"

"Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel"

Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

Perhaps English isn't your first language.

These are definitive statements. There are no qualifiers.
They are statements of fact.

Sham Sunder KNEW that there was NO fire on the fifth floor.

[Christopher7]

OK C7. babysteps time

Were the vents open all the time?Yes.
Any room with diesel engines would have to have ventilation all the time.

[funk de fino]

Yes.
Any room with diesel engines would have to have ventilation all the time.

Are you sure they did not open automatically when needed?

What was covering them C7?

[Christopher7]

Are you sure they did not open automatically when needed?Yes.
The exhaust louvers opened when the fans came on. The ventilation louvers would be open all the time to vent any vapors from the diesel engines and potential diesel fuel leaks.

[funk de fino]

I did not assume anything. I read the article.
They said:

a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours

You are assuming Sunder told them this part. Those are not his words they are Pop Mechs. Why do you not check?

Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel"

Does not specify which fire on which floor.

Sunder: Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel[to the fire] for a long period of time."

Perhaps English isn't your first language.

The words "the fire" are not Sunders. They are added by Pop Mechs. Again it does not sepcify which fire on which floor

Also english is more my first language than your matey boy. I am from the homeland of the language I do not speak the bastardised version you use.

These are definitive statements. There are no qualifiers.
They are statements of fact.

Except you can show nowhere that Sunder said floor 5 was on fire for 7 hours? Just that someone at pop mechs has written that in an article.

Sham Sunder KNEW that there was NO fire on the fifth floor.

No, he did not. You just think he did not. It was part of the working hypothesis.

[funk de fino]

Yes.
The exhaust louvers opened when the fans came on. The ventilation louvers would be open all the time to vent any vapors from the diesel engines and potential diesel fuel leaks.

Now you are assuming? Would be? Any sources for this one? You dont think the exhaust and ventilation were the same?

When would the engines be running?

What was covering the louvres C7?

[Christopher7]

You are assuming Sunder told them this part. Those are not his words they are Pop Mechs. Why do you not check?There is no need to 'check'. The words are there to read.
They did not hear it from the tooth fairy, they heard it from Sunder.

Shyam Sunder knew that these statements were not true. He did not correct them.

[Christopher7]

The ventilation louvers would be open all the time to vent any vapors from the diesel engines and potential diesel fuel leaks.
Now you are assuming? Would be? Any sources for this one?I know from my experience as a contractor that this is the law. [no, i won't look it up for you]

You should be able to figure it out for yourself.

Any room containing diesel engines has to be ventilated.

You dont think the exhaust and ventilation were the same?
No. The exhaust louvers closed when the generators were off which is almost all of the time. The ventilation louvers have to stay open all the time.

[Christopher7]

Also english is more my first language than your matey boy. I am from the homeland of the language I do not speak the bastardised version you use.Then why is you spelling and grammar so bad?
Corrections in red
Also English is more my first language than yours matey boy. I am from the homeland of the language. I do not speak the bastardized version you use.

And why can't you understand that "a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours" is a definitive statement?

No, he did not. You just think he did not. It was part of the working hypothesis.Do you seriously think that Shyam Sunder and all the experts at NIST couldn't figure out, as I did, that there was no fire in the north east generator room?

[funk de fino]

There is no need to 'check'. The words are there to read.
They did not hear it from the tooth fairy, they heard it from Sunder.

Shyam Sunder knew that these statements were not true. He did not correct them.


So after saying you are not assuming, you then do exactly that?

[funk de fino]

I know from my experience as a contractor that this is the law. [no, i won't look it up for you]

You should be able to figure it out for yourself.

Any room containing diesel engines has to be ventilated.

Does ventilation have to be louvres? There are many ways to ventilate these areas C7.

No. The exhaust louvers closed when the generators were off which is almost all of the time. The ventilation louvers have to stay open all the time.

Of course I would have to see your source for this?

What was covering the louvres C7?

[funk de fino]

Then why is your spelling and grammar so bad?
Corrections in red
Also English is more my first language than yours matey boy. I am from the homeland of the language. I do not speak the bastardized version you use.

Har har. Nothing worse than cocking up trying to correct someone is there?

See my red correction above.

I leave out one capital that probably is not needed. I leave out one letter at the end of a word, which you then repeat. Then you make a schoolboy error with correcting me on "bastardised". Very ironic, I suggest you look up my spelling matey. As I said, I use the original.

Too funny. Remember it was you who started the attempted insults.

And why can't you understand that "a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours" is a definitive statement?


Its definitive, but they are not Sunders words. Unless you can prove they are?

Do you seriously think that Shyam Sunder and all the experts at NIST couldn't figure out, as I did, that there was no fire in the north east generator room?

When did you figure that out C7? In the Appendix L they do not at any time say there was definately a fire in floor 5. They speculate there could have been, and that it needs further investigation.

[Christopher7]

Har har. Nothing worse than cocking up trying to correct someone is there? :eek: :blush: :D :cool:

Its definitive, but they are not Sunders words. Unless you can prove they are?Please.

Do you seriously think that Shyam Sunder and all the experts at NIST couldn't figure out, as I did, that there was no fire in the north east generator room?
When did you figure that out C7?As soon as I began looking into the diesel fuel fires in response to a post by:
#762 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2323801&postcount=762) beachnut (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=12447)
7th February 2007, 10:05 PM
Was there 10,000 gallons/60,000 pounds of fuel in your buildings? NO
Was there 20,000 gallons to run generators to burn in the fire? NO


#778 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2326818&postcount=778) Christopher7 (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=11229)
8th February 2007, 10:08 PM
Since engine rooms must be well ventilated to the exterior, any smoke from these fires would have been clearly visible as it escaped through the vents on the east side of the building.

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/7447/smokefromfloors56uq6.jpg

In the Appendix L they do not at any time say there was definately a fire in floor 5. They speculate there could have been, and that it needs further investigation.Correct, but Shyam Sunder [not the tooth fairy] told PM that there was a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours. They stated it as a fact and Mr. Sunder did not correct them.

[jaydeehess]

[/LEFT]
Sections 8.9.1 shows that the worst-case scenarios associated with ruptured fuel lines generated fires that could not be sustained long enough, would have produced too little heat to raise the temperatures of the steel to the point of significant loss of strength, and/or would have led to the flowing of smoke out the ventilation louvers*, which contradicts the visual evidence.

1-9 vol.2 pg 371

Result: The FDS simulation showed that the natural flow from the fire plume would have been out of the louvered openings on the east side of the building in a very short time. Significant plumes of smoke would have been seen emerging from the building within a few minutes of ignition, contradicting the visual evidence.


I did not need a computer simulation to see the obvious and neither did the experts at NIST.

*Any room with diesel generators would have to have ventilation all the time.

,,, and I for one have already congradulated you on having your cursory examination of the photos agree with the computersimulatrion that was used to determine if there was a not-so-obvious method by which a fire could be burning on the fifth floor and not been seen from the outside as being on the fifth floor.

Quote:
In the Appendix L they do not at any time say there was definately a fire in floor 5. They speculate there could have been, and that it needs further investigation.
Correct, but Shyam Sunder [not the tooth fairy] told PM that there was a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours. They stated it as a fact and Mr. Sunder did not correct them.

To which I already added a similar reply that you made to a counterpoint, "so what?" It makes no significant difference that Sunder did not demand a retraction on this point because everything was based upon a preliminary report in which it it is made quite clear, many times, that a fire on the fifth floor was one possibility that was being investigated and the reported impact damages were variant and in cases contradictory.

You are pretty much counting the number of angels on the head of a pin here Chris, To carry the analogy further, a pin which a preliminary report stated that there could be several and for which the final report stated there were 3 or 4 and you claim that since several could mean 6 that the preliminary report lies.

[Christopher7]

It makes no significant difference that Sunder did not demand a retraction on this point because everything was based upon a preliminary report in which it it is made quite clear,Basically, you are saying that it is OK to LIE about there being a fire on floor 5 in a national publication.
He did not demand a retraction because they published what he had told them.

that a fire on the fifth floor was one possibility that was being investigatedThe evidence clearly showed that there was NO fire in the north east generator room at 2:10 p.m. There was absolutely NO possibility that there was a fire there that could have lasted up to 7 hours. There was NO reason to think there was a fire there at all.

Shyam Sunder knew this when he LIED to PM and PM published that LIE.

and the reported impact damages were variant and in cases contradictory.You keep ignoring the FACT that he did not say there were conflicting reports. He stated the 10 story gouge as a fact.

We are NOT talking about the preliminary report. We are talking about an article in PM nearly a year after the release of the preliminary report.

Stop saying it's OK to LIE about the facts.

[Grizzly Bear]

Basically, you are saying that it is OK to LIE about there being a fire on floor 5 in a national publication.
That's your strawman kid... In your world preliminary investigations amount to absolute conclusions. But don't mind me, continue with your games... :o


He did not demand a retraction because they published what he had told them.
Nothing personal, but is barfing random accusations of deceit wise when you completely disregard the fact that what you're continuing to criticize is a preliminary report, and that both NIST and popular mechanics have updated pages which discuss the results of the more thorough investigation... You seem to be stuck in 2002...

The evidence clearly showed that there was NO fire in the north east generator room at 2:10 p.m. There was absolutely NO possibility that there was a fire there that could have lasted up to 7 hours. There was NO reason to think there was a fire there at all.
The photo shows no evidence of any ongoing fires at the time it was taken. Should this photo be deemed representative of the entire duration of the day? Clearly fires, if any, as per the conclusion reached in the final draft of the WTC 7 NIST report were not serious enough, or long lasting enough to have contributed to the collapse. How might this affect your ongoing claim?

Oh, and by the way chris, popular mechanics has an updated page regarding your conspiracy theory: here (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4278874.html)

Shyam Sunder knew this when he LIED to PM and PM published that LIE.
And the information he was basing his comments on a preliminary report correct? What does this say, about the final report which eliminated any 5th floor fire as a major contributor to the collapse?

You keep ignoring the FACT that he did not say there were conflicting reports. He stated the 10 story gouge as a fact.



So this doesn't exist in the NIST L report you're so fond of using as a resource?

A reminder I posted this excerpt in full context in post # 5039 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4078260&postcount=5039)

Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts are mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:

I don't feel like breaking this whole thing down for you for the millionth time. I'm not going to teach you reading comprehension either, if that is the problem you have you'll have to resolve it yourself.


Chris.....?




We are NOT talking about the preliminary report. We are talking about an article in PM nearly a year after the release of the preliminary report.

Could it be that his statement at the time was based on information that had been gathered during the preliminary phases of the investigation? Perhaps even from the excerpt I've pointed out to you?

You do realize that the information presented at the time was based on preliminary data right? Don't tie yourself knots now...

[Christopher7]

In your world preliminary investigations amount to absolute conclusions.
The evidence in the preliminary report conclusively showed that there was NO fire in the north east generator room at 2:10 p.m. This did not change in the final report.

Nothing personal, but is barfing random accusations of deceit wise when you completely disregard the fact that what you're continuing to criticize is a preliminary report,Hello?
I am NOT criticizing the preliminary report!

The photo shows no evidence of any ongoing fires at the time it was taken.The photo conclusively shows that there was NO fire up until this time.

There is absolutely NO possibility of a fire lasting up to 7 hours in the north east generator room.

Shyam Sunder LIED to Popular Mechanics about a fire on floor 5 lasting up to 7 hours.

The editors of PM did not make this up, they got it from Shyam Sunder.

Should this photo be deemed representative of the entire duration of the day?Yes! There is NO reason to think a fire got started in the north east generator room after this time.

Clearly fires, if any, as per the conclusion reached in the final draft of the WTC 7 NIST report were not serious enough, or long lasting enough to have contributed to the collapse. How might this affect your ongoing claim?

Oh, and by the way chris, popular mechanics has an updated page regarding your conspiracy theory: here (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4278874.html)
That does NOT change the FACT that Shyam Sunder LIED to PM in 2004.

And the information he was basing his comments on a preliminary report correct?What wonderful double speak.
He based his comments on his false assertion that there was a fire in the north east generator room.

Could it be that his statement at the time was based on information that had been gathered during the preliminary phases of the investigation?
You do realize that the information presented at the time was based on preliminary data right? Correct.
Here is the preliminary data:
NIST L pg 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

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

There was NO fire in the north east generator room or anywhere on the fifth floor at or before 2:10 p.m.


Therefore, Shyam Sunder LIED when he told Popular Mechanics that there was a fire on floor 5 that lasted up to 7 hours.

[pomeroo]

Actually, that's what people here do. You just called me an "agenda-driven crank" and a liar in a vain attempt to ignore the FACT that Shyam Sunder lied when he told the editors of Popular Mechanics that there was a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours.


No, you are the conspiracy liar: you deliberately spread falsehoods to promote a pernicious and preposterous myth. It is not a "fact" that Sunder lied. You are lying when you claim it's a fact. If Sunder made a mistake, he and the other real researchers, were not wedded to it. When the evidence led elsewhere, their findings reflected reality, not their subjective wishes--the opposite of your approach.

[pomeroo]

They did NOT abandon it when the evidence led elsewhere.

This photo from page 26 of the FEMA report clearly shows that there was NO fire in the north east generator room [louvers] at about 2:10 p.m. [see post 5103]

There is no reason to think a fire started after that time.


NCSTAR 1-9 vol.1 pg 330




Sections 8.9.1 shows that the worst-case scenarios associated with ruptured fuel lines generated fires that could not be sustained long enough, would have produced too little heat to raise the temperatures of the steel to the point of significant loss of strength, and/or would have led to the flowing of smoke out the ventilation louvers*, which contradicts the visual evidence.


1-9 vol.2 pg 371




Result: The FDS simulation showed that the natural flow from the fire plume would have been out of the louvered openings on the east side of the building in a very short time. Significant plumes of smoke would have been seen emerging from the building within a few minutes of ignition, contradicting the visual evidence.




I did not need a computer simulation to see the obvious and neither did the experts at NIST.

*Any room with diesel generators would have to have ventilation all the time.


When will you be taking your blockbuster "evidence" to a real news outlet? Oh, never? Why is that?

[Grizzly Bear]

The evidence in the preliminary report conclusively showed that there was NO fire in the north east generator room at 2:10 p.m. This did not change in the final report.
And the final report states that fires on the floor in question, if any, did not burn long or intense enough to have contributed to the collapse.......


Hello?
I am NOT criticizing the preliminary report!

NIST Appendix L, and the data used in the popular mechanics article that you're criticizing were published immediately prior to the commencement of the final WTC 7 report. If the investigation data that they were using at the time wasn't preliminary, then what was it?



The photo conclusively shows that there was NO fire up until this time.
It indicates that there was no substantial fire (if any at all) at the time the photograph was taken... NIST has already addressed this in their final report.

This includes factoring in whether or not any such fuel fire would have burned long enough to have spread significantly throughout that floor. If it didn't burn sufficiently long enough, then it's no surprise that visible damage from the vantage point of the photograph wouldn't be apparent.


There is absolutely NO possibility of a fire lasting up to 7 hours in the north east generator room.
Rhetorical question... What does the final draft of the report state regarding the generator fire hypothesis? Will you continue to argue the 2004 preliminary hypothesis in which popular mechanics brings this up, or will you in fact acknowledge that the final draft has sufficiently answered regarding this matter?


Shyam Sunder LIED to Popular Mechanics about a fire on floor 5 lasting up to 7 hours.
You've still failed to substantiate that it was Sunder that even stated this... as has already been pointed out, this is not a direct quotation from him.

source (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5)

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

It doesn't take much reading comprehension to distinguish between what is part of the PM commentary, and that of a direct quotation. The red is what really should have caught your attention.... If you're unable to distinguish the two, return to school, I don't give language arts classes.

Since it's obvious you have no intention of even reading the updated PM site here it is for you:

The report clarifies a number of widely debated issues concerning the collapse, particularly the role of the building's many diesel fuel tanks and the importance of structural damage from falling WTC 1 debris. Both of those factors have been cited by investigators as possibly contributing to the collapse; the 2006 Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts mentions both hypotheses. However, the final NIST report downplays both scenarios, concluding that the diesel fuel stored in tanks (and intended to power backup generators) did not burn long enough or hot enough to account for structural failures. And, while debris damage to WTC 7's southern exterior was considerable (and initiated the destructive fires), the collapse originated in the northeast portion of the building. In fact, the report concludes: "Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires."

From here on if you insist on trying to argue this matter further you'll be linked back to this post. I'm not going to babysit you on reading comprehension skills.


The editors of PM did not make this up, they got it from Shyam Sunder.
[/SIZE][/B]
If you actually paid attention, the building overall burned for 7 hours prior to the collapse. Whether Sunder himself stated to PM directly that floor 5 burned for 7 hours, you've made totally unsubstantiated claims from an excerpt which isn't even a direct quote. And for several pages you've continued at failing to substantiate your claim.


Yes! There is NO reason to think a fire got started in the north east generator room after this time.

Nice dodge... I've bolded where you've made your error. Let me ask you again:

Should this photo be deemed representative of the entire duration of the day? In other words, can the picture definitively be deemed representative of any point in time during the day ranging from the time that the fires were initiated in WTC 7, to the time the picture in question was taken?




What wonderful double speak.
He based his comments on his false assertion that there was a fire in the north east generator room.

"Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

no.... I'm actually taking his quote into context, something you have repeatedly failed to do.

[Christopher7]

NIST Appendix L, and the data used in the popular mechanics article that you're criticizing were published immediately prior to the commencement of the final WTC 7 report. If the investigation data that they were using at the time wasn't preliminary, then what was it?Conclusive.
The evidence conclusively proved that there was NO FIRE IN THE NORTH EAST GENERATOR ROOM AT OR BEFORE 2:10 P.M.

You are trying to imply that because this conclusive proof was in a preliminary report that it wasn't conclusive.

That's just double talk.


There is absolutely NO possibility of a fire lasting up to 7 hours in the north east generator room.

Rhetorical question... What does the final draft of the report state regarding the generator fire hypothesis? It is a statement of fact, not a question. And don't try to change the subject to the final report.

Stop denying and dancing around the fact that

Shyam Sunder LIED to Popular Mechanics about a fire on floor 5 lasting up to 7 hours.


You've still failed to substantiate that it was Sunder that even stated this... as has already been pointed out, this is not a direct quotation from him.Please. That is the silliest of all defenses.
It is self evident that they got the information from Sunder.

Your fanatic loyalty to the Cheney/Bush appointed lead 'investigator' forces you to deny the obvious.

[funk de fino]

C7, I have yet to see a source for your claims about the louvers?

Which were the ventilations, which were the exhaust? What was covering them on the outside?

Please. That is the silliest of all defenses.
It is self evident that they got the information from Sunder.

Except that defence is continually used in court. Someone makes statements to journalist. Journalist writes piece which interprets said statements. When piece comes out the information provided has been incorrectly stated in the piece. Unless you have a transcript of Sunder saying these words then you have nothing. Why dont you take this up with Pop Mechs or Sunder?

You are making accusations based on assumption. You also originally tried to make it look like those words were Sunders by cherry picking them from the piece. You are the liar here not Sunder.

You have cried fake about photos in thread in this forum, are you saying now they are not fake and if so were you lying?

[Christopher7]

C7, I have yet to see a source for your claims about the louvers?

Which were the ventilations, which were the exhaust?

The FDS simulation showed that the natural flow from the fire plume would have been out of the louvered openings on the east side of the building in a very short time. Significant plumes of smoke would have been seen emerging from the building within a few minutes of ignition, contradicting the visual evidence.


That's what I said over a year ago.
8th February 2007, 10:08 PM
Since engine rooms must be well ventilated to the exterior, any smoke from these fires would have been clearly visible as it escaped through the vents on the east side of the building.

Except that defence is continually used in court. Someone makes statements to journalist. Journalist writes piece which interprets said statements. When piece comes out the information provided has been incorrectly stated in the piece.When the piece came out, Sham Sunder did not say it was incorrect.


Unless you have a transcript of Sunder saying these words then you have nothing. Why dont you take this up with Pop Mechs or Sunder?Get serious.

It is perfectly clear that they are both talking about a fire on floor 5

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

The evidence available at the time was conclusive. There was NO fire on floor 5. Sham Sunder LIED!

[funk de fino]

The FDS simulation showed that the natural flow from the fire plume would have been out of the louvered openings on the east side of the building in a very short time. Significant plumes of smoke would have been seen emerging from the building within a few minutes of ignition, contradicting the visual evidence.


Ok so you are saying NIST used the simulation to prove this. This was not done in 2004. Is that a quote from the report?

That's what I said over a year ago.
8th February 2007, 10:08 PM
Since engine rooms must be well ventilated to the exterior, any smoke from these fires would have been clearly visible as it escaped through the vents on the east side of the building.


This was how long after the Pop Mech piece?

What was covering the louvers C7?
When the piece came out, Sham Sunder did not say it was incorrect.

How do you know he even read it? Whats with the childish namecalling of Sunder? How old are you pal?

Get serious.

You would have to if you took it to court C7. You have nothing and you attempted to deceive about the claims for a 7 hour fire on floor five and saying they were Sunders words. You lied.


It is perfectly clear that they are both talking about a fire on floor 5

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

The evidence available at the time was conclusive. There was NO fire on floor 5. Sham Sunder LIED!

No, it is not, it is only clear to someone who has made ridiculous paranoid and delusional claims many times on this forum. The evidence was not conclusive. Diesel was missing. Where had it gone?

lets see what sunder said and if it was true.

There was no firefighting in WTC 7 = True

"Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel for a long period of time." = true

Now lets look at the Pop Mechs editorial

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. = Not true as we know now. Now who said that? Sunder or was it Pop Mechs editorial interpretation of what he said.

However this is not tied to anything that Sunder has said. Anyone saying the fire when talking about WTC7 is not always talking about the fire on floor 5, whatever Pop Mechs printed.

[Christopher7]

The FDS simulation showed that the natural flow from the fire plume would have been out of the louvered openings on the east side of the building in a very short time. Significant plumes of smoke would have been seen emerging from the building within a few minutes of ignition, contradicting the visual evidence.


Ok so you are saying NIST used the simulation to prove this.No. A computer simulation cannot tell you that smoke will exit through the louvered openings unless you tell the computer there are louvered openings.

Shyam Sunder and the experts at NIST knew there were louvered openings when Mr. Sunder LIED to PM about fires on floor 5.

Any room with diesel engines would be ventilated.

[Christopher7]

If Sunder made a mistake, he and the other real researchers, were not wedded to it. When the evidence led elsewhere, their findings reflected realityNot so. The evidence they had at the time proved that there was NO fire on floor 5.

Are you aware that any room containing diesel engines has to be ventilated?

Do you think that Shyam Sunder and the experts at NIST did not know this when Mr. Sunder told PM there was a fire on floor 5?

[funk de fino]

No. A computer simulation cannot tell you that smoke will exit through the louvered openings unless you tell the computer there are louvered openings.

Shyam Sunder and the experts at NIST knew there were louvered openings when Mr. Sunder LIED to PM about fires on floor 5.

Any room with diesel engines would be ventilated.




So you have no source for the open vents? Only a source regarding the auto opening vents?

Ventilation does not have to be vents C7

What was covering the louvers C7?

You have reverted to type and missed out stuff from my post.

[Christopher7]

So you have no source for the open vents? Only a source regarding the auto opening vents?Hello?
The FDS simulation showed that the natural flow from the fire plume would have been out of thelouvered openings on the east side of the building in a very short time. Significant plumes of smoke would have been seen emerging from the building within a few minutes of ignition, contradicting the visual evidence.

Can you grasp the concept that a room with diesel engines must have ventilation?

What was covering the louvers C7?How is that relevant?

[Grizzly Bear]

Conclusive.
The evidence conclusively proved that there was NO FIRE IN THE NORTH EAST GENERATOR ROOM AT OR BEFORE 2:10 P.M.
The photograph in question indicates two things:


There was no apparent fire at the time it was taken
any fire that might have been induced by fuel leakage would not have burned long enough or hot enough to have contributed to structural failure.

Continued below...

You are trying to imply that because this conclusive proof was in a preliminary report that it wasn't conclusive.
They had a working hypothesis which had not conclusively established that the fuel lines would have been responsible for any significant fires. And you're blindly cherry-picking from a 2005 article as if NIST itself had assumed there was a "7-hour fire on floor 5." I'm not implying anything other than your dishonesty...


That's just double talk.
Fix yer cherry picking (http://www.upickcherries.com/images/0306/cherry%20picking1.jpg) pirate...


It is a statement of fact, not a question. And don't try to change the subject to the final report.

Stop denying and dancing around the fact that

Shyam Sunder LIED to Popular Mechanics about a fire on floor 5 lasting up to 7 hours.


Please. That is the silliest of all defenses.
It is self evident that they got the information from Sunder.

Please review Post #5148 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4124274&postcount=5148) and Post# 5150 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4124467&postcount=5150)



Yes! There is NO reason to think a fire got started in the north east generator room after this time.

Have you an answer regarding the remainder of the question?
"Should this photo be deemed representative of the entire duration of the day? Clearly fires, if any, as per the conclusion reached in the final draft of the WTC 7 NIST report were not serious enough, or long lasting enough to have contributed to the collapse. How might this affect your ongoing claim?"

I even rephrased the question for you when you interpreted the 1st sentence of this questioning incorrectly:

"Should this photo be deemed representative of the entire duration of the day? In other words, can the picture definitively be deemed representative of any point in time during the day ranging from the time that the fires were initiated in WTC 7, to the time the picture in question was taken? [meaning before & after the photo was taken]"

[HawksFan]

Perhaps it's just me...lord knows I don't claim to be the brightest bulb on the tree...but I really fail to see the significance of this whole point. What could Shyam Sunder possibly gain by lying to PM in regards to a preliminary hypothesis? And even if he did "lie" and it wasn't the more probable misinterpretation by PM or a misunderstanding on someone's part, what possible relevance could it have now since we have the final report on WTC7 and it doesn't include this alleged fire anyway?

Hell, if all Chris wants is points on something let him have this one. It's completely irrelevant anyway.

[Crazytimes]

Perhaps it's just me...lord knows I don't claim to be the brightest bulb on the tree...but I really fail to see the significance of this whole point. What could Shyam Sunder possibly gain by lying to PM in regards to a preliminary hypothesis? And even if he did "lie" and it wasn't the more probable misinterpretation by PM or a misunderstanding on someone's part, what possible relevance could it have now since we have the final report on WTC7 and it doesn't include this alleged fire anyway?

Hell, if all Chris wants is points on something let him have this one. It's completely irrelevant anyway.

Because crazy truthers have to cling on to mistakes in the preliminary reports and explanations to feed their delusions of an inside job. They don't have any actual evidence so these oddities fuel their paranoia

[bio]

The photograph in question indicates two things:


There was no apparent fire at the time it was taken
any fire that might have been induced by fuel leakage would not have burned long enough or hot enough to have contributed to structural failure.

Continued below...


"Should this photo be deemed representative of the entire duration of the day? In other words, can the picture definitively be deemed representative of any point in time during the day ranging from the time that the fires were initiated in WTC 7, to the time the picture in question was taken? [meaning before & after the photo was taken]"

Is there any "real-world" evidence of fire in the north east generator room, floor 5?

[Grizzly Bear]

Is there any "real-world" evidence of fire in the north east generator room, floor 5?
Christopher's claim, Christopher's burden of proof, unless you'd like to jump in and answer for him. His claim is essentially that his photograph is representative of the entire duration of the day, including before, during, and after the photo was taken. I asked him if he could answer as to elaborate.

At this point whether the 5th floor ever did experience a fire, whatever contribution such would have had on the collapse was at best minimal, and this position is reflected in the current NIST report.

[jaydeehess]

Perhaps it's just me...lord knows I don't claim to be the brightest bulb on the tree...but I really fail to see the significance of this whole point. What could Shyam Sunder possibly gain by lying to PM in regards to a preliminary hypothesis? And even if he did "lie" and it wasn't the more probable misinterpretation by PM or a misunderstanding on someone's part, what possible relevance could it have now since we have the final report on WTC7 and it doesn't include this alleged fire anyway?

Hell, if all Chris wants is points on something let him have this one. It's completely irrelevant anyway.

Allow me to illuminate you on Chris' motive in this.

He is , in this case, out show a concerted and deliberate effort on the part of the researchers at NIST, the organization as a whole, and specifically S.Sunder, to seed the idea in the general populace that the fires and the impact damge were far worse than was the actuality on 9/11/01. He decried the simple inclusion of a possibility of a fuel fed fire in the preliminary report, he ignored the statement, in the report, that some of the impact damage reports conflicted with each other. Now, some years later he is still attempting to say that the very fact that these were included in the preliminary report and reported upon in PM, shows his case for deliberate misdirection. Orginally Chris claimed that the diesel fuel fed fires were "required" by the NIST hypothysis in order to show how the buildings collapsed. He ignores the fact that he was quite incorrect on that point.(which another person like him would characterize as a lie)

He claims that including the conflicting accounts and mapping the extent of all accounts in a diagram, and including the possibility of a fuel fire is designed to lead the general populace to the conclusion that these caused the collapse. He wishes to also show that PM magazine has actively aided and abetted this supposed act of obfuscation.

Chris ignores the bald fact that PM reported on the final report and that therefore the readership of that magazine now sees PM reporting that NIST has ruled out a diesel fuel fire as causing the collapse and that impact damage played a role only in the fashion by which the building twisted as it collapsed.

So who is it that was deceived then? The readers who have passed away between the two reports? People who went to live under rocks between the two reports? Just how stupid does one have to be in order to read both reports (or both reportings on the reports, by PM) and still believe that diesel fuel fires brought down the building?

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by bio
Is there any "real-world" evidence of fire in the north east generator room, floor 5?

Circumstantial evidence only. The survey of the fuel left after the collapse and how much should have been in them indicates that a large quantity is missing. Thus the impetus to find out if there was a possibility that this fule was consumed in a fire near the zone of initial collapse.

Chris claims that an examination of the photos is all that is needed to abosolutly, positively, definitively claim that there was zero probability of such a fire being there. Therefore, in Chris' mind, NIST's insistence on thoroughly investigating the possibility by doing computer sims on air flow is soley designed to lead the general populace into believeing that such a fire did exist. Furthermore, in Chris' mind, the bald fact that NIST has determined that such a fire had a very low probability of existance makes no difference because the general populace has now moved on and is not even listening to any more NIST reports. This means that they will not question how the building fell, they will still believe that fuel fed fires caused it.(in Chris' mind)

[bio]

Christopher's claim, Christopher's burden of proof, unless you'd like to jump in and answer for him. His claim is essentially that his photograph is representative of the entire duration of the day, including before, during, and after the photo was taken. I asked him if he could answer as to elaborate.

At this point whether the 5th floor ever did experience a fire, whatever contribution such would have had on the collapse was at best minimal, and this position is reflected in the current NIST report.
:confused:
I do not know about "burden of proof" you are talking about. Do you want to drive C7 crazy?;)
There are photos of the north-east corner, floor 5 in following posts:
post 5145: photo from 2:10 pm. It shows no signs of smoke or flames.
post 5141: photo from 4:00 pm. It shows light signs of smoke.

For me, there was at best a light smouldering fire in floor 5 at 4:00 pm ... but we do not know, from were the smoke came from - perhaps from the above fire?

[HawksFan]

Ah, thanks. So my original thought that Chris' point was...eh...pointless was the correct one.

[Christopher7]

Ah, thanks. So my original thought that Chris' point was...eh...pointless was the correct one.There are two points here.

1) Shyam Sunder LIED when he stated the 10 story gouge as a fact and he LIED when he told PM there was a fire on the fifth floor that lasted up to 7 hours.

2) The photo on page 26 of the FEMA report proves beyond all doubt that there was NO fire in the north east generator room at 2:10 p.m.
There is no reason to think a fire started there after this time.
Therefore, the hypothesis that diesel fuel fires may have contributed to the collapse is a BASELESS FRAUD.

[Christopher7]

Circumstantial evidence only. The survey of the fuel left after the collapse and how much should have been in them indicates that a large quantity is missing. Thus the impetus to find out if there was a possibility that this fule was consumed in a fire near the zone of initial collapse.The photograph on page 26 of the FEMA report and the statement on page 22* of the NIST report prove beyond all doubt that there was no diesel fuel fire in the north east generator room.

*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

There were NO FIRES REPORTED ON FLOOR 5 AT ANY TIME.

NIST acknowledged this fact in the Final Draft.
"Significant plumes of smoke would have been seen emerging from the building within a few minutes of ignition, contradicting the visual evidence."

They knew this when Shyam Sunder told PM that the working hypothesis was:
"Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

The hypothesis that diesel fuel fires may have contributed to the collapse is a BASELESS FRAUD.


The LIES and FRAUD continued in the technical briefing and the Final Draft.

In the NIST technical briefing and the slide show/document titled;
NIST Response to the World Trade Center Disaster Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster August 26, 2008
Page 32: "Forces from thermal expansion failed the connection at Column 79, then pushed the girder off the seat." [to the west]
Shyam Sunder narrates how this occurred.

In NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 page 353 [397 on pg counter] it says:
"Axial compression then increased in the floor beams, and at a beam temperature of 436 °C, the northmost beam began to buckle laterally. Buckling of other floor beams followed as shown in Figure 8–27 (a), leading to collapse of the floor system, and rocking of the girder off its seat at Column 79 as shown in Figure 8–27 [to the east]

They can't even keep it straight which LIE to tell.

[jaydeehess]

There are two points here.

1) Shyam Sunder LIED when he stated the 10 story gouge as a fact and he LIED when he told PM there was a fire on the fifth floor that lasted up to 7 hours.

2) The photo on page 26 of the FEMA report proves beyond all doubt that there was NO fire in the north east generator room at 2:10 p.m.
There is no reason to think a fire started there after this time.
Therefore, the hypothesis that diesel fuel fires may have contributed to the collapse is a BASELESS FRAUD.

I am quite sure that if Hawksfan read any of the last page or two he understood that you are continually re-stating the above Chris.
That is not what he asked about.

Do my posts 5162 and 5163 sum up your position concerning the significance of the above quote?

[Grizzly Bear]

:confused:
I do not know about "burden of proof" you are talking about. Do you want to drive C7 crazy?;)
There are photos of the north-east corner, floor 5 in following posts:
post 5145: photo from 2:10 pm. It shows no signs of smoke or flames.
post 5141: photo from 4:00 pm. It shows light signs of smoke.

For me, there was at best a light smouldering fire in floor 5 at 4:00 pm ... but we do not know, from were the smoke came from - perhaps from the above fire?

Aside from your response to my question making the same mistake as Chris, where I asked about the validity of the photo as a representative of the entire time (I was asking if the photo was representative of circumstances before the photo was taken as well), your conclusion seems to be somewhat similar to the one NIST determined in its final report wherte they downplayed the role of the fuel after investigating it.... :confused:

If that's the case, then in this instance I don't have any issues with your conclusion, the point is pretty much exactly that which Jaydeehess brings up regarding chris' total reliance on a single photo.

[jaydeehess]

<<snip spam>>
The LIES and FRAUD continued in the technical briefing and the Final Draft.

In the NIST technical briefing and the slide show/document titled;
NIST Response to the World Trade Center Disaster Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster August 26, 2008
Page 32: "Forces from thermal expansion failed the connection at Column 79, then pushed the girder off the seat." [to the west]
Shyam Sunder narrates how this occurred.

In NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 page 353 [397 on pg counter] it says:
"Axial compression then increased in the floor beams, and at a beam temperature of 436 °C, the northmost beam began to buckle laterally. Buckling of other floor beams followed as shown in Figure 8–27 (a), leading to collapse of the floor system, and rocking of the girder off its seat at Column 79 as shown in Figure 8–27 [to the east]

They can't even keep it straight which LIE to tell.

Both show the failure occuring with the floor beams pushing to the west.
If the floor beams were deflecting laterally then it means that they were pushing against the W33X130 girder. They were also sagging so the girder was being pushed west and twisted. The bottom of the girder would be going west while the top being twisted (rotated) eastward. The globall movement of the end of the girder is therefore westward even though the top of it is being twisted counterclockwise(looking south). The girder would come off its seat at the bottom and thus the characterization of it moving west

Diagram 8-26 is more clear concerning this IMO, than is 8-27. The floor beams are pushing west, they are constrained by the W30X130 girder, they also sag twisting the girder but obviously the bottom of the girder will come off the seat as it moves west.

[Christopher7]

I am quite sure that if Hawksfan read any of the last page or two he understood that you are continually re-stating the above Chris.
That is not what he asked about.

Do my posts 5162 and 5163 sum up your position concerning the significance of the above quote?
He is , in this case, out show a concerted and deliberate effort on the part of the researchers at NIST, the organization as a whole, and specifically S.Sunder, to seed the idea in the general populace that the fires and the impact damge were far worse than was the actuality on 9/11/01.I am pointing out that the Bush appointed lead investigator is engaging in a fraud and a cover up as did the Bush appointed controller of the 9/11 Commission Report.

He decried the simple inclusion of a possibility of a fuel fed fire in the preliminary report,Correct

he ignored the statement, in the report, that some of the impact damage reports conflicted with each other.Mr. Sunder ignored that statement when he told PM that there was a 10 story gouge.

So who is it that was deceived then? Everyone who read and believed the so called "debunking" article.

Shyam Sunder and PM did not correct the LIES for 4 years nor did they acknowledge or apologize for the LIES.

[pomeroo]

Not so. The evidence they had at the time proved that there was NO fire on floor 5.

Are you aware that any room containing diesel engines has to be ventilated?

Do you think that Shyam Sunder and the experts at NIST did not know this when Mr. Sunder told PM there was a fire on floor 5?


You've been caught lying. You have no actual quotes from Sunder and we have the FACT that NIST's definitive final report on the collapse of building 7 does not rely on a fire on the fifth floor. You keep trying to pretend that you're making a point, but you're just another ineducable conspiracy liar flogging a totally debunked myth.

There were no explosives in WTC 7. Period. Your evil movement is dead.

[RedIbis]

You've been caught lying. You have no actual quotes from Sunder and we have the FACT that NIST's definitive final report on the collapse of building 7 does not rely on a fire on the fifth floor. You keep trying to pretend that you're making a point, but you're just another ineducable conspiracy liar flogging a totally debunked myth.

There were no explosives in WTC 7. Period. Your evil movement is dead.

Did you just call NIST's report on WTC 7 "definitive"? That is a lie. Period. And your evil movement of extremism and pyschopathic sycophancy is dead. You're a liar, and your pants are on fire.

But not enough fire to actually cause the collapse of Column 79.

[Grizzly Bear]

Period. And your evil movement of extremism and pyschopathic sycophancy is dead. You're a liar, and your pants are on fire.
But not enough fire to actually cause the collapse of Column 79.
It would help if you elaborated why that is your evidence rather than just naming it... Are you relying on the same assumptions Christopher makes entirely from external fires... which NIST warns about in analyzing interior fires?
Short of that, let's cut the semantics unless you'd prefer pointing fingers regarding your definition of extremism....

[RedIbis]

Showing the true colors now Red? ;)

No, just some simple parody.


It would help if you elaborated why that is your evidence rather than just naming it... Are you relying on the same assumptions Christopher makes entirely from external fires which NIST warns about in analyzing interior fires?

No, I'm curious how the thermal expansion occurred during a cooling phase. Unless you can provide proof otherwise.

[Grizzly Bear]

No, just some simple parody.




No, I'm curious how the thermal expansion occurred during a cooling phase. Unless you can provide proof otherwise.
The problem during the cooling phase actually wouldn't be expansion if I understand correctly... The problem in cooling would be contraction, which would be equally problematic. Cycles of expansion and contraction would lead to deformation of the structural members and instability, and in WTC 7's case the problem would have been exasperated by the long floor spans... I'm pretty sure someone could explain the matter to you better, but that's the general gist of the issue.

[RedIbis]

The problem during the cooling phase actually wouldn't be expansion if I understand correctly... The problem in cooling would be contraction, which would be equally problematic. Cycles of expansion and contraction would lead to deformation of the structural members and instability, and in WTC 7's case the problem would have been exasperated by the long floor spans... I'm pretty sure someone could explain the matter to you better, but that's the general gist of the issue.

And this is theoretical of course since there is no physical evidence of this phenomenon.

[Grizzly Bear]

And this is theoretical of course since there is no physical evidence of this phenomenon.

Erm... nooooooooooo.... it's an applied concept both in physics and architecture. To name an application, think about the purpose of expansion joints (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_joint) which are intended to help relieve physical strain on two independent components of either a structure or in some cases utilities such as plumbing. It's not theoretical at all, and it is factored into steel construction.

This paper (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_gx5226/is_2002/ai_n19143774) is one of many online publications that deal with the concept... outside of NIST
You should also read sections of appendix 4 in the 2005 specifications as well as other parts of the publication located here (http://www.aisc.org/Content/ContentGroups/Documents/2005_Specification/2005Specification_third_printing.pdf) to find issues where thermal expansion is considered

This would have happened regardless inside WTC 7, the severity and effect of the structural members would have in part been determined by their spans.

[pomeroo]

Did you just call NIST's report on WTC 7 "definitive"? That is a lie. Period. And your evil movement of extremism and pyschopathic sycophancy is dead. You're a liar, and your pants are on fire.

But not enough fire to actually cause the collapse of Column 79.


Still trying to "pull it," liar? You never tire of making a laughingstock of yourself. Remember when you pretended that something--something that could not be expressed in words--relating to a column 79 was your long-sought "smoking gun"? Yes, you looked pretty ridiculous. What did that experience teach you? Nothing, of course, but it should have taught you that when you spout empty rhetoric, you get exposed as a complete fraud.

The NIST Report is definitive in that it lays out a comprehensive hypothesis for the examination of serious researchers. You unscrupulous liars are the antithesis of serious researchers. You peddle your pathetic falsehoods and fabricate bogus science and distort the words of people who don't share your fantasies, but you never actually do anything. You have nothing to offer but your nonsense about imaginary explosives.

Remember, we rationalists are not wedded to NIST as you liars are wedded to your delusions. We are open to correction: you are not. Have you informed Mike Newman of NIST of your findings? Why not?

How dare a silly, dishonest charlatan like yourself accuse someone who values the truth of your own greatest failing!

[Christopher7]

Both show the failure occuring with the floor beams pushing to the west.
If the floor beams were deflecting laterally then it means that they were pushing against the W33X130 girder.Correct

They were also saggingIncorrect
Neither the Technical Briefing slide show or the Final draft say the beams sagged.
They site axial expansion as the cause of the failure of the girder.

"Continued axial expansion of the girder caused it to bear against the face of column 79, generating large axial forces that led to failure of the bolts connecting the girder to Column 44. When the girder temperature had reached 398 °C, all four erection bolts at column 44 had failed, leaving the girder essentially unrestrained against rotation at both ends. After failure of the erection bolts in the seat at Column 44, continued axial expansion of the floor beams pushed the girder laterally, where it came to bear against the inside of the column flange. Axial compression then increased in the floor beams, and at a beam temperature of 436 °C, the northmost beam began to buckle laterally. Buckling of other floor beams followed as shown in Figure 8–27 (a), leading to collapse of the floor system, and rocking of the girder off its seat at Column 79 as shown in Figure 8–27 (b)." [to the east]

On page 33 of the Technical Briefing it states that "Forces from thermal expansion failed the connection at Column 79, then pushed the girder off the seat" [to the west]

[pomeroo]

Correct

Incorrect
Neither the Technical Briefing slide show or the Final draft say the beams sagged.
They site axial expansion as the cause of the failure of the girder.

"Continued axial expansion of the girder caused it to bear against the face of column 79, generating large axial forces that led to failure of the bolts connecting the girder to Column 44. When the girder temperature had reached 398 °C, all four erection bolts at column 44 had failed, leaving the girder essentially unrestrained against rotation at both ends. After failure of the erection bolts in the seat at Column 44, continued axial expansion of the floor beams pushed the girder laterally, where it came to bear against the inside of the column flange. Axial compression then increased in the floor beams, and at a beam temperature of 436 °C, the northmost beam began to buckle laterally. Buckling of other floor beams followed as shown in Figure 8–27 (a), leading to collapse of the floor system, and rocking of the girder off its seat at Column 79 as shown in Figure 8–27 (b)." [to the east]

On page 33 of the Technical Briefing it states that "Forces from thermal expansion failed the connection at Column 79, then pushed the girder off the seat" [to the west]



Have you informed NIST of your technical criticisms of the final report on WTC 7? Why not?

[Christopher7]

You've been caught lying.I have been misquoted and accused of lying. Please quote what you think is a lie.

You have no actual quotes from Sunder Wrong.
NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."

Shyam Sunder stated that there was a 10 story gouge.
He failed to mention that there were three conflicting reports.

The statement was false!

[Christopher7]

Have you informed NIST of your technical criticisms of the final report on WTC 7? http://www.911blogger.com/node/17794

Will you address the two opposing theories please.

[pomeroo]

http://www.911blogger.com/node/17794

Will you address the two opposing theories please.


Say, that's quite a collection of incompetents the charlatan Richard Gage has assembled. Tony Szamboti has been exposed on this forum by the real engineers. He, unlike you, knows when to quit.

[funk de fino]

Hello?
The FDS simulation showed that the natural flow from the fire plume would have been out of thelouvered openings on the east side of the building in a very short time. Significant plumes of smoke would have been seen emerging from the building within a few minutes of ignition, contradicting the visual evidence.

Well you see C7, this is where I am struggling to keep up with your claims. If you read the FEMA report on page 29 it does not state that the louvers are exhaust louvers like you claim. It states that the auto opening louvers are for combustion air and for cooling.

What do you surmise from this? Where is your source that states there are permanently open louvers? I am not being arsey here I would like to see the source. I do not have the WTC7 Final report handy over here.

Can you grasp the concept that a room with diesel engines must have ventilation?

Can you grasp the concept that not all ventilation system for fuels are louvers that are permanently open?

How is that relevant?

If something is covering the louvers then it would be very difficult to tell if they were open, especially from one photograph? No?

[funk de fino]

I have been misquoted and accused of lying. Please quote what you think is a lie.

Wrong.
NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."

Shyam Sunder stated that there was a 10 story gouge.
He failed to mention that there were three conflicting reports.

The statement was false!

The larger font words above reference that fact that there were conflicting reports. So does the appendix L. He is referencing claims made about the damage. he is saying there was large damage in the face of the buidling and gives approximate sizes and areas and locations. He is not specific in those.

[Christopher7]

Say, that's quite a collection of incompetents the charlatan Richard Gage has assembled. Tony Szamboti has been exposed on this forum by the real engineers. He, unlike you, knows when to quit.So glad you stopped by to make a lot of stupid personal insults.

Would you care to post something relevant?

NIST has proposed two opposing theories on how the critical girder between columns 79 and 44 failed.

As a skeptic, don't you find this a bit curious?

[funk de fino]

http://www.911blogger.com/node/17794

Will you address the two opposing theories please.

You know C7, if you put your name to that then you are a blatant hypocrite.

COMMENT: To support NIST’s assertion that there was indeed fire present on floor 12 at 5:00pm, NIST has provided a single photograph from an “unknown source” (Figure 5-152, NCSTAR 1-9, p. 237), that was purportedly taken at around 5:00pm, and shows fire in the two windows that comprise the northwest corner. NIST contends that it has determined that this photograph was taken at approximately 5:00pm, with a margin of error of “at least 10 minutes,” using shadow analysis.

REASON FOR COMMENT: We find it unlikely that NIST could estimate the time the “unknown source” photograph in Figure 5-152 was taken with such accuracy.

SUGGESTED REVISION: NIST must explain how it was able to estimate the photograph’s time using shadow analysis to a margin of error even close to 10 minutes.


You are the guy who, in this forum and indeed in this thread I believe, who used shadow matching to cry fake on photos in the NIST appendix L and others.

It would have been better if you had left off the omissions parts at the end. It makes you look like kooks. I guess you were outvoted on that one eh?

[Christopher7]

NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom —approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."

The larger font words above reference that fact that there were conflicting reports.No they do not. They modify and qualify the extent of the damage, they do NOT refer to the conflicting reports.
"was scooped out" is NOT modified or qualified. It is a statement of fact.

[funk de fino]

NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom —approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."

No they do not. They modify and qualify the extent of the damage, they do NOT refer to the conflicting reports.
"was scooped out" is NOT modified or qualified. It is a statement of fact.

Then it is your English which is deficient.

About - means he does not know for a fact

Approximately - means he does not know for a fact

About - he does not know for a fact

Was scooped out - means the building was damaged, this is a fact

He does not state there was a 10 storey hole, a 1/3rd of the face and 25% into the building, from bottom to top. He says there was damage approximate to this. This is approximate because they do not know for a fact because there are conflicting reports

It's not difficult C7

ETA - you seem to have jumped post # 5185

[Christopher7]

About - means he does not know for a fact
Approximately - means he does not know for a fact
About - he does not know for a factWrong!
About and Approximately in this case mean 'more or less' referring to the size of the gouge.

Was scooped out - means the building was damaged, this is a factIt means that the building was damaged as described on page 18 and in the graphics on pages 23, 31 and 32.

He does not state there was a 10 storey hole, a 1/3rd of the face and 25% into the building and to the bottom, from bottom to top approximately 10 stories. He says there was damage approximate to this.The description is the same as the 10 story gouge described on page 18 and shown in the graphics on pages 23, 31 and 32.

He stated the area WAS scooped out. He did not say maybe or possibly.

[Christopher7]

Can you grasp the concept that a room with diesel engines must have ventilation?
Can you grasp the concept that not all ventilation system for fuels are louvers that are permanently open?Yes, some of the louvers will open when the fans come on and some are open all the time.

ETA: NIST does not say where the ventilation louvers were.

[HawksFan]

There are two points here.

1) Shyam Sunder LIED when he stated the 10 story gouge as a fact and he LIED when he told PM there was a fire on the fifth floor that lasted up to 7 hours.

2) The photo on page 26 of the FEMA report proves beyond all doubt that there was NO fire in the north east generator room at 2:10 p.m.
There is no reason to think a fire started there after this time.
Therefore, the hypothesis that diesel fuel fires may have contributed to the collapse is a BASELESS FRAUD.

1. Please explain to me what he gained by lying.

2. Please explain to me what point you are trying to make here since the WTC7 report completely discounts the input of diesel fuel in the collapse of the building. Oh, and why it has to be a "baseless fraud" and not just an incorrect hypothesis.

Thank you.

[jaydeehess]

[QUOTE]He is , in this case, out show a concerted and deliberate effort on the part of the researchers at NIST, the organization as a whole, and specifically S.Sunder, to seed the idea in the general populace that the fires and the impact damge were far worse than was the actuality on 9/11/01. I am pointing out that the Bush appointed lead investigator is engaging in a fraud and a cover up as did the Bush appointed controller of the 9/11 Commission Report.

My bad, you were trying to implicate everyone associated with the NIST WTC 7 investigation before when you decried the inclusion of the possibility of a diesel fuel fire in the working hypothysis summary. That was when you were so insenced that this mention was in the second paragraph of the summary. That indicated to you that it was of the utmost importance to the final judgement that NIST would come up with in the final report.
You were wrong! Perhaps you lied since by any logical reading of the summary there was no evidence at all that a diesel fuel fire was central to the NIST hypothysis!





Everyone who read and believed the so called "debunking" article.

Oh come now Chris. Who would have read the original debunking article? People interested in 9/11 and frequent readers of PM. Who would have read the latest article that indicates that NIST has disgarded the fuel fire possibility as improbable? The very same people who read the first article!! Now tell me Chris if the same people read both articles will they still believe that NIST requires a fuel fire and debris damage to be central to the NIST hypothysis as to how the building collapsed?

[jaydeehess]

Yes, some of the louvers will open when the fans come on and some are open all the time.
.

I just checked with some former co-workers. This was at an airport and of course there were several diesel back up generators at various sites. My memory was that both the intake and exhaust louvers opened at the same time when the diesel started up. I was correct except in one case, in a small non-directional beacon site where the exhaust did not have louvers. instead it was always 'open' to the outside. Of course in all cases the exhaust is connected to a hose to the outside vent/louver, and in ALL cases the room ventilation louvers only opened when the engine started. IF the engine started but he louvers did not open within a set time then the enginewould shut down.

[GStan]

I've been away from the forums for quite awhile, however, for some reason I'm not surprised to see that C7 is still hammering away here. What is shocking to me is that funk and jdh still have the patience to respond. I've just scanned the last few pages, and from what I can tell, Christopher is unable to discern the difference between changes that may occur between a preliminary and final report and lying. Is that pretty much it?

[HawksFan]

That's what I'm getting from it.

[Norseman]

I will suggest that everybody still posting in this thread conducts a reality check by skimming through the first page of this thread. After nearly 2 years, 130 pages and 5198 posts, including this post, one would think that we still are on page one. It is time to walk. This thread should never have gone beyond page one.

ETA.
Especially take look at post #30 by jaydeehess (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2226171#post2226171). I think that sums it all up very well.

[Christopher7]

1. Please explain to me what he gained by lying.An explanation for the collapse of column 79.
The working hypothesis was that a diesel fuel fire heated column 79 to a point where it would fail.


2. Please explain to me what point you are trying to make here since the WTC7 report completely discounts the input of diesel fuel in the collapse of the building. Oh, and why it has to be a "baseless fraud" and not just an incorrect hypothesis.

Thank you.The point is Shyam Sunder LIED when he stated that there was a 10 story gouge as described on page 18 and depicted in the graphics on pages 23, 31 and 32 of the NIST L report.
He LIED to Popular Mechanics when he told them that there was a fire on floor 5 that lasted up to 7 hours.
He let that LIE stand for 4 years.

The diesel fuel fire hypothesis was a FRAUD because the evidence NIST had at the time conclusively proved that there was no fire in the north east generator room, where column 79 was located, at 2:10 p.m.
There was no reason to think a fire got started there after this time.

The NIST report is a scientific document. It must be based on sound science.

"No fires were observed on Floor 5, but the lack of windows and the
presence of fuel systems on the south, west, and north floor areas indicate that fire should be considered as a possibility on this floor."

This is baseless speculation. It is NOT science.
This reasoning ignores the fact that smoke would be coming out of the ventilation louvers which any room with diesel engines must have.
It also ignores the fact that even if there was no ventilation, any fire would be oxygen starved and could not burn hot enough to be a factor in the collapse.

NIST acknowledged these facts in the Final draft.

NIST had the evidence that conclusively proved diesel fuel fire was not a factor in the collapse when they released the preliminary report in June of 2004.

There was absolutely NO justification for the diesel fuel fire hypothesis.

[HawksFan]

There's absolutely no justification for a CD hypothesis, either, but that doesn't stop people from asking NIST to study the possibility.

They acknowledged the fact that diesel fuel played little to no role in the fires that brought down 7. What's the problem? The fact that they looked into the possibility? That's really what you're upset about?

[Christopher7]

Oh come now Chris. Who would have read the original debunking article? People interested in 9/11 and frequent readers of PM. Who would have read the latest article that indicates that NIST has disgarded the fuel fire possibility as improbable? The very same people who read the first article!! Now tell me Chris if the same people read both articles will they still believe that NIST requires a fuel fire and debris damage to be central to the NIST hypothysis as to how the building collapsed?The point is, Shyam Sunder LIED and let those LIES stand for 4 years.

Now he is LYING AGAIN.

In the technical briefing on August 26, 2008 Shyam Sunder said that thermal expansion pushed the girder off its support at column 79 [to the west]

The Final draft says that the floor beams buckeled and rocked the girder off its support. [to the east]

These two theories contradict each other.
They are a matter of public record.

This is inexcuseable. They took 3 years, spent millions of dollars, and they can't even get their story straight.
This is FRAUD.
The entire NIST report is a FRAUD.

[Grizzly Bear]

I've been away from the forums for quite awhile, however, for some reason I'm not surprised to see that C7 is still hammering away here. What is shocking to me is that funk and jdh still have the patience to respond. I've just scanned the last few pages, and from what I can tell, Christopher is unable to discern the difference between changes that may occur between a preliminary and final report and lying. Is that pretty much it?

It's gotten to the point where I just decided to link to posts which he has seemingly forgotten about by repeating the same argument ad nauseum. Christopher is hell bent on proving that the preliminary report is somehow supposed to present a final conclusion of the entire investigation... essentially that any information that changes regardless of future accuracy is still grounds for blatant accusations of fraud. Unfortunately Christophers continually cherry-picks (http://info-pollution.com/evidence.htm), Quote Mines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining), poisons the well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well), virtually every spectrum of fallacy that deals with presentation. He's ignored 5 or 6 posts from the prelimary report where I showed him the context he continues to deny was there and he ignored it every time. Christopher's claims clearly will not hold in a court of law.

I will suggest that everybody still posting in this thread conducts a reality check by skimming through the first page of this thread. After nearly 2 years, 130 pages and 5198 posts, including this post, one would think that we still are on page one. It is time to walk. This thread should never have gone beyond page one.

ETA.
Especially take look at post #30 by jaydeehess (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2226171#post2226171). I think that sums it all up very well.
I'm pretty well aware that I'm wasting my time trying to debate with him considering everything I said above. I don't expect to convince him, some people are incurable of their paranoia, and that's how reality is. I'm bored and writing this material kills time, and informs people at the same time who lurk through the topic. Then again, it's getting boring having to post links to posts which already address his repetitious claims.


An explanation for the collapse of column 79.
The working hypothesis was that a diesel fuel fire heated column 79 to a point where it would fail.

This isn't 2004 anymore, start discussing 2008 and the final report. It's extraordinarily ironic that truthers, or rather for those who don't like the coining term; conspiracy theorists to criticize NIST by claiming they had not followed the scientific method, yet you expect them to skip steps because of of your opinion. I'd really love to see you try making that same suggestion to investigators of any homicide investigation and see how far you get in your push. I can assure you that your position on how the investigation should have taken place is not only warped but wouldn't even be considered in a standard forensic investigation of any kind.

The rest of your post is answered in the multitude of posts that precede this. Take some time to actually read rather than spit out the same material

[Christopher7]

Christopher is hell bent on proving that the preliminary report is somehow supposed to present a final conclusion of the entire investigationWrong!

Since you obviously did not read this, I will post it again.

The diesel fuel fire hypothesis was a FRAUD because the evidence NIST had at the time conclusively proved that there was no fire in the north east generator room at 2:10 p.m.
There was no reason to think a fire got started there after this time.

The NIST report is a scientific document. It must be based on sound science.

"No fires were observed on Floor 5, but the lack of windows and the presence of fuel systems on the south, west, and north floor areas indicate that fire should be considered as a possibility on this floor."

This is baseless speculation. It is NOT science.
This reasoning ignores the fact that smoke would be coming out of the ventilation louvers which any room with diesel engines must have.
It also ignores the fact that even if there was no ventilation, any fire would be oxygen starved and could not burn hot enough to be a factor in the collapse.

NIST acknowledged these facts in the Final draft.

NIST had the evidence that conclusively proved diesel fuel fire was not a factor in the collapse when they released the preliminary report in June of 2004.

There was absolutely NO justification for the diesel fuel fire hypothesis.

[Grizzly Bear]

Wrong!
Since you obviously did not read this, I will post it again.

Read it, answered to it long ago...

There was absolutely NO justification for the diesel fuel fire hypothesis.
Except for the volume of fuel which had gone unaccounted for. You conveniently forget that. But finding out what happened to it and what if any role it played is something you'd rather skip. And of course after their lengthy investigation they've since eliminated it as a substantive contributor to the collapse.

[Christopher7]

Except for the volume of fuel which had gone unaccounted for. You conveniently forget that. But finding out what happened to it and what if any role it played is something you'd rather skip. And of course after their lengthy investigation they've since eliminated it as a substantive contributor to the collapse.After a lengthy investigation?

They had the clear and indisputable evidence that diesel fuel fire was not a factor in the collapse when they released the preliminary report.

Therefore, the missing diesel fuel is irrelevant because it was not a factor in the collapse.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by HawksFan
1. Please explain to me what he gained by lying. An explanation for the collapse of column 79.
The working hypothesis was that a diesel fuel fire heated column 79 to a point where it would fail.

This most ceratainly was not a reason to supposedly lie about such a fire, Chris. That much is patently obvious given that NIST does not now use such a fire as a means by which they explain the failure of column 79, nor did NIST ever claim that this was indeed the cause of that failure in any technical paper that NIST put out.

Your taking a comment in a non-technical, popular press article, in which Sunder apparently over looks saying that such a fire was but one possibility, and trying to make this part of a deep conspiracy to mislead the general public is frankly laughable.


The Final draft says that the floor beams buckeled and rocked the girder off its support. [to the east]

When the girder temperature had reached 398 °C, all four erection bolts at column 44 had failed, leaving the girder essentially unrestrained against rotation at both ends. After failure of the erection bolts in the seat at Column 44, continued axial expansion of the floor beams pushed the girder laterally, where it came to bear against the inside of the column flange. Axial compression then increased in the floor beams, and at a beam temperature of 436 °C, the northmost beam began to buckle laterally. Buckling of other floor beams followed as shown in Figure 8–27 (a), leading to collapse of the floor system, and rocking of the girder off its seat at Column 79 as shown in Figure 8–27 (b)

The floor beams buckled laterally therefore one of two things had to occur, either the girder moved towards the beams thus shortening the distance the beams were spanning or the beams were trying to get longer and were constrained from doing so thus buckling laterally. Given that there is no mechanism by which the girder would bend to the east, especially at the ends butting against columns 79 and 44 it is quite obvious that the floor beams were expanding, voila, that is what NIST is stating. While this is occuring though the girder is not constrained against rotating axially and it too has expanded (which broke the connections to the columns giving rise to the girder not being constrained against rotation in any axis).

So as the girder expands it is also being pushed west by the beams and it is also twisting slightly therefore the lower side of the girder passes beyond the seat before the upper side. If you wish to characterize this as 'to the east' you are mistaken.

If You are on a train moving west and you walk to the back are you moving east? If you are on a train moving west and you have a bicycle upside down in the aisle with the axles perpendicular to the line of travel of the train and you spin the wheel, one part of the wheel is moving east while another moves west but where is the wheel going?

I cannot for the life of me see how you construe this as the girder dropping off its seat to the east of its original connection given that it would require that NIST state somewhere in the text that the girder was being 'pulled' by those floor beams rather than 'pushed'. Does the text read anywhere that the beams were pulling the girder east Chris?

[jaydeehess]

After a lengthy investigation?

They had the clear and indisputable evidence that diesel fuel fire was not a factor in the collapse when they released the preliminary report.

Therefore, the missing diesel fuel is irrelevant because it was not a factor in the collapse.
....
The NIST report is a scientific document. It must be based on sound science.


Do you know at what point they examined the possibility of a diesel fuel fire using the air flow sims? The lengthy investigation included one part that dealt with the fuel fire.
The photos show, that at the time the photos were taken, a fire is not obvious on the fifth floor.
That's it Chris, that's as far as that can go, it cannot go any further, period. NIST prudently decieded to run sims to determine if there was a way by which a fire could be burning unnoticable from the outside, on the fifth floor. It was determined that there was a very low probability of such an event and thus (in combination with other reasons, the fire could not have lasted long enough or been hot enough) it was concluded that a fuel fire on the fifth floor was unlikely in the extreme to have caused the failure of column 79. That, Christopher, is sound science not a jump to conclusion that you state was all that was needed.

When the PM article came out though all that was available was the photos and the diesel fuel fire was still being investigated as a possibility.

[GStan]

After a lengthy investigation?

They had the clear and indisputable evidence that diesel fuel fire was not a factor in the collapse when they released the preliminary report.

Therefore, the missing diesel fuel is irrelevant because it was not a factor in the collapse.

It was not clear and indisputable, thus, the term "preliminary report". When the preliminary report was released, they may even have had more evidence in their possession pointing away from diesel fires than evidence pointing towards it, but still believed that the thorough investigation would point to diesel fires. So the diesel fire hypothesis is what they started with. They changed their minds based on the evidence they found. Their final report explanation may not be perfect, but the explanation they've offered has far more evidence supporting it than any other collapse theory that has been put forth, OTers and CTers included.

Even if you could prove that NIST was lying when it released its hypothesis, which you can't, where is this leading?

Even if you can show Sunder to be a proven liar, which you can't, you'll still be left with a NIST hypothesis that is supported by evidence (fire driven collapse), and on your side, a hypothesis that is supported by zero evidence (controlled demolition).

[Christopher7]

Your taking a comment in a non-technical, popular press article, in which Sunder apparently over looks saying that such a fire was but one possibilityWhy do you keep making excuses for this guy?
It was NOT a possibility. He LIED.
There were no reports of fire on the fifth floor at any time.
There was NO reason to think there was a fire there.
The lame excuse that a fire on floor 5 would be hard to see ignores the fact that fires produce smoke.

The whole diesel fuel hypothesis is a FRAUD based on NOTHING!

The evidence they had at the time proved that diesel fuel fire was NOT A FACTOR IN THE COLLAPSE!

Stop thinking up excuses and face reality. Shyam Sunder LIED.


The floor beams buckled laterally therefore one of two things had to occur, either the girder moved towards the beams thus shortening the distance the beams were spanning or the beams were trying to get longer and were constrained from doing so thus buckling laterally. Given that there is no mechanism by which the girder would bend to the east, especially at the ends butting against columns 79 and 44 it is quite obvious that the floor beams were expanding, voila, that is what NIST is stating. While this is occuring though the girder is not constrained against rotating axially and it too has expanded (which broke the connections to the columns giving rise to the girder not being constrained against rotation in any axis). So as the girder expands it is also being pushed west by the beams and it is also twisting slightly therefore the lower side of the girder passes beyond the seat before the upper side. If you wish to characterize this as 'to the east' you are mistaken.The first part is so stupid i almost wrote off the whole thing. The second part is very clever but it does not work.
The floor beam would start to sag and start pulling the girder back before it could expand enough to push the girder off its seat.

Once the bolts on the connection at column 79 failed, there would be no axial restraint and the beam at that end would not buckle as NIST proposes.

I cannot for the life of me see how you construe this as the girder dropping off its seat to the east of its original connection given that it would require that NIST state somewhere in the text that the girder was being 'pulled' by those floor beams rather than 'pushed'. Does the text read anywhere that the beams were pulling the girder east Chris?They don't use the word pull. You actually have to think about it and figure out that is what they are saying.
"Buckling of other floor beams followed as shown in Figure 8–27 (a), leading to collapse of the floor system, and rocking of the girder off its seat at Column 79 as shown in Figure 8–27 (b)"

As the floor started to sag and then collapse, it would pull the girder to the east. The top of the girder would be pulled to the east more than the bottom but the bottom would not be pushed to the west.


The technical briefing slide show made no mention of "rocking".


“Forces from thermal expansion failed the connection at Column 79, then pushed the girder off the seat.” [to the west]
This is accompanied with a slide [pg 32] that shows the girder pushed to the west.

[Christopher7]

It was not clear and indisputable, thus, the term "preliminary report". Your assertion that nothing in a preliminary report can be conclusive is incorrect.

[Christopher7]

The photos show, that at the time the photos were taken, a fire is not obvious on the fifth floor. Please.
This photo shows there was absolutely no fire in the north east generator room.

Any room with diesel engines has to be ventilated!

NIST prudently decieded to run sims to determine if there was a way by which a fire could be burning unnoticable from the outside, on the fifth floor.Prudent, my elbow!

There were no reports of fire on the fifth floor.

There was no reason to think there was a fire on the fifth floor.

Baseless speculation has no place in a scientific document.

It was determined that there was a very low probability of such an eventThere was no probability.

When the PM article came out though all that was available was the photos* and the diesel fuel fire was still being investigated as a possibility.The photo was enough to prove that even if a fire did exist in the north east generator room, it would not have been a factor in the collapse.

*Not so. And you know that.

[Grizzly Bear]

Please.
This photo shows there was absolutely no fire in the north east generator room.

Tell me Chris, do you have x-ray vision?



Prudent, my elbow!

There were no reports of fire on the fifth floor.


But there was a missing quantity of fuel. I brought this up earlier:
It's extraordinarily ironic that truthers, or rather for those who don't like the coining term; conspiracy theorists to criticize NIST by claiming they had not followed the scientific method, yet you expect them to skip steps because of your opinion. I'd really love to see you try making that same suggestion to investigators of any homicide investigation and see how far you get in your push. I can assure you that your position on how the investigation should have taken place is not only warped but wouldn't even be considered in a standard forensic investigation of any kind.

Care to try suggesting to a forensic investigator to ignore a piece of evidence that you think is worthless? Come back with the results, I need a good laugh.

[B]The photo was enough to prove that even if a fire did exist in the north east generator room, it would not have been a factor in the collapse.
This is exactly the point that NIST makes in it's final draft...

What you are suggesting however is that they ignore one subset of evidence on the basis that another subset indicates otherwise. This like telling a homicide investigator to not take finger prints because you're so sure of your opinion that you think the finger prints will absolutely not say anything about the crime or establish the identity of an intruder. The photograph acts as a catalyst that establishes that at the time it was taken, there was no evidence of ongoing fire, from it can be established that had there been a fire it neither lasted long enough nor burned hot enough to have factored into the collapse.

The point of investigating the fuel was to determine what contribution, if any, regardless of how long or hot a fire it produced, it played into the collapse mechanisms. If they don't investigate every potential mechanism that plays a factor into the collapse then their models will be that much less accurate. And you don't care

[GStan]

The whole diesel fuel hypothesis is a FRAUD based on NOTHING!

The evidence they had at the time proved that diesel fuel fire was NOT A FACTOR IN THE COLLAPSE!

Stop thinking up excuses and face reality. Shyam Sunder LIED.



The whole diesel fuel hypothesis is prudent, based on the fact that thousands of gallons of diesel fuel were unaccounted for in the rubble or the soil beneath the rubble.

The evidence they had at the time suggested many many contributing factors to the collapse, and it was appropriate to explore them all, even if it meant that their first best guess ended up being incorrect.

The truth movement is the fraud based on nothing.

[Christopher7]

Tell me Chris, do you have x-ray vision? Smoke can be seen coming out of vents without x-ray vision.

But there was a missing quantity of fuel. I brought this up earlier:
The missing fuel is irrelevant because of the photo on page 26 of the FEMA report.

The photo was enough to prove that even if a fire did exist in the north east generator room, it would not have been a factor in the collapse.
This is exactly the point that NIST makes in it's final draft...
Precisely my point thank you very much.

They had this photographic evidence when they started investigating.
They could see that there was no fire in the north east generator room.
[any room containing diesel engines must be ventilated]
There were NO reports of fire on floor 5 at any time.
They knew that even if there was a fire there, it would be oxygen starved and would not be a factor in the collapse.

They knew all this in 2004.

[GStan]

The missing fuel is irrelevant because of the photo on page 26 of the FEMA report.

The photo was enough to prove that even if a fire did exist in the north east generator room, it would not have been a factor in the collapse.


Was there more evidence available at the time to support this? Do you really believe that one photo in the FEMA report, a snapshot of one moment in time out of seven hours, would be enough for NIST to conclude back then that there was no fire in that room at any point during the day?

And forgive my ignorance if this has already been covered, but why is the possibility of a diesel fire isolated to the generator room? I feel like I remember reading that there were pipes that supplied the fuel from outside the room that could have been compromised, thus feeding a diesel fire that was not in the generator room. That possibility is no longer supported, but was that known conclusively as of the preliminary report?

[jaydeehess]

Please.
This photo shows there was absolutely no fire in the north east generator room.

Any room with diesel engines has to be ventilated!

That photo is a snapshot of ONE moment in time. Thus of the preliminary report it cannot logically be stated that a fire on the fifth floor never existed. By saying it you must not only have x-ray vision but also the ability to see the entire day through one photo.

As I stated, the diesel generator rooms I have been in have the louvers open when the generator starts. It gets down to -40 C in these parts and allowing cold air into the room when the gen is not running is a great way to ensure that it will NOT START when called upon to do so. Once it is running the cold air will not affect it. Now NYC does not get as cold as it does here but it gets cold enough. What use is a generator that is cold and has a hard time starting when you need it?
In fact the generators in the Arctic did not use room vent louvers, the gens had a separate air supply hose. The room smelled only slightly of fuel and there were three gensets in it, two of which were always running. The heat from them was also used to heat the surrounding buildings.
You do not need to ventilate carbon monoxide since it will only be created when the gen is running and the louvers will be open then.
There is the possibility of fuel fumes but the gen rooms are all sealed off from the rest of the building.

Prudent, my elbow!
There were no reports of fire on the fifth floor.

There was no reason to think there was a fire on the fifth floor.

Baseless speculation has no place in a scientific document.



The audit of tye fuel left over after the collapse indicated that there was a significant amount missing. There are a few ways for this fuel to show as missing during such an audit. The only way that would be significant to an investigation into the collapse would be if that fuel had burned off during the fires on 9/11 and only likely to play any role if it burned in the east side of the building.

Thus it would be indeed prudent to eliminate the possibility of such a fire by all methods available such as computer air flow sims. NIST also calculated the amount of heat that would result and determined that such a fire would also not be enough to cause the collapse.
That IS indeed how science works Chris.


There was no probability.

The photo was enough to prove that even if a fire did exist in the north east generator room, it would not have been a factor in the collapse.

:rolleyes:

*Not so. And you know that.

Really? oh you mean the scant eyewitness reports from inside early on in the day. Once again, that would be pertinent to the early part of the day AND it had to be determined if a fire could occur on the fifth floor that would be unnoticeable from the outside later on in the day.

[jaydeehess]

And forgive my ignorance if this has already been covered, but why is the possibility of a diesel fire isolated to the generator room? I feel like I remember reading that there were pipes that supplied the fuel from outside the room that could have been compromised, thus feeding a diesel fire that was not in the generator room. That possibility is no longer supported, but was that known conclusively as of the preliminary report?

Fire occurring elsewhere in the building would have been far removed from the area of column 79 and much less likely to have been involved in the initiation of collapse. The feed pipe actually ran from the basement in the west end of WTC 7 up to 5th floor, accross much of 5th floor and then into the gen room at ceiling level.

The missing fuel could have burned off near the center or west end of the building and been even less noticable but it would not have contributed to the collapse initiation. It also could be only missing on paper if there was sloppy book-keeping on the part of the maintenance of the tanks. Faulty calculation of volume from dip measurements or a faulty gauge or a fuel delivery counted twice, for that matter a small and continuous bit of employee theft ( supplement one's income once a week by taking 5 gallons of deisel to your own truck or car every Friday evening for instance). However only if the fuel was burned would it be significant to the investigation of how the building collapsed.

[jaydeehess]

Stop thinking up excuses and face reality. Shyam Sunder LIED.

Stop looking under every bed for boogymen! Next thing ya know you'll be leading the witch or Commie hunt.

[GStan]

Stop looking under every bed for boogymen! Next thing ya know you'll be leading the witch or Commie hunt.

Commie Hunt?! Can I sign up for that?:D

[jaydeehess]

Commie Hunt?! Can I sign up for that?:D

As long as you continue to keep the consonants in the correct order thus not violating rule 10 (it use to be rule 8, I think its rule 10 now:D )

Better yet let's combine it and hunt for the intersecting subset of Commie witches. They would be the most dangerous after all.

Hmmm using truther logic,,,,,,,,,,, wicked witch of the north is a well known witch, and Commies are "Reds", the color associated with the Republican Party is red, Sarah Palin is from Alaska.
OMIGAWD, Sarah Palin is a Commie witch! :eye-poppi

[Christopher7]

The photo was enough to prove that even if a fire did exist in the north east generator room, it would not have been a factor in the collapse.
This is exactly the point that NIST makes in it's final draft...
Was there more evidence available at the time to support this?
Yes, there were NO reports of fire on the fifth floor at any time.
Any room with diesel engines would be ventilated and any fire would have produce smoke that would have been visible.

The photo on pg 26 of the FEMA report is enough to establish:
1) There was no fire in the north east generator room at or before 2:10 p.m.
2) Even if there was a fire in this room, it would not be a factor in the collapse. A fire with no ventilation could not burn hot enough to be a factor in the collapse.

Do you really believe that one photo in the FEMA report, a snapshot of one moment in time out of seven hours, would be enough for NIST to conclude back then that there was no fire in that room at any point during the day? There were NO reports of fire on floor 5 at any time and there was NO reason to think there was a fire in the north east generator room.

Baseless speculation has no place in a scientific document.

And forgive my ignorance if this has already been covered, but why is the possibility of a diesel fire isolated to the generator room? I feel like I remember reading that there were pipes that supplied the fuel from outside the room that could have been compromised, thus feeding a diesel fire that was not in the generator room. That possibility is no longer supported, but was that known conclusively as of the preliminary report?The diesel fuel fire hypothesis was in reference to heating column 79 to the point where it would fail. A potential diesel fuel fire anywhere else would not have effected the initiating event.

[Grizzly Bear]

There were NO reports of fire on floor 5 at any time and there was NO reason to think there was a fire in the north east generator room.

There you go again trying to justify leaving out evidence in a preliminary report... Have you suggested anything similar to your local homicide investigators? They should be itching to get some feedback from you on you fantastic ability to determine instantaneously when something can be skipped.

Baseless speculation has no place in a scientific document.
In a preliminary report, was it baseless to investigate what happened to the fuel?

The diesel fuel fire hypothesis was in reference to heating column 79 to the point where it would fail. A potential diesel fuel fire anywhere else would not have effected the initiating event.
Looks to me like it was part of a subset of other causes being considered, in otherwords, the diesel was stand-alone as a consideration, and they never deemed it a final conclusion:
Source (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf)

NIST continues to evaluate the factors that could have caused column 79,
80, or 81 to fail
Possible contributing factors include:

Damage to components adjacent to truss #2 from debris impact
Damage to fireproofing from normal activities prior to event or debris
damage
[B]Unusual fuel loads (fuel lines, high density of building contents)



And while we're here.... I'd like to point out that Outdated information (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#outdated) is a subset of logical fallacies.

[Christopher7]

That photo is a snapshot of ONE moment in time. Thus of the preliminary report it cannot logically be stated that a fire on the fifth floor never existed. You continue to ignore these facts:

1) Any room with diesel engines would be ventilated and any fire would vent smoke through those vents.

2)There were NO reports of fire on floor 5 at any time and
THERE WAS NO REASON TO THINK THERE WAS A FIRE ON FLOOR 5.


Baseless speculation has no place in a scientific document.

[Christopher7]

There were NO reports of fire on floor 5 at any time and there was NO reason to think there was a fire in the north east generator room.

There you go again trying to justify leaving out evidence in a preliminary report...Missing fuel is NOT evidence of a fire in the north east generator room.

No reports of fire on floor 5 at any time is evidence that there was not a fire in the north east generator room.

THERE WAS NO REASON TO THINK THERE WAS A FIRE ON FLOOR 5.


In a preliminary report, was it baseless to investigate what happened to the fuel?Investigating the possibility of a fire in the north east generator room when there was NO evidence of a fire is BASELESS SPECULATION.

Investigating the possibility that a fire in the north east generator room might cause column 79 to weaken to the point of failure is BASELESS SPECULATION.


The diesel fuel fire hypothesis was in reference to heating column 79 to the point where it would fail. A potential diesel fuel fire anywhere else would not have effected the initiating event.
Looks to me like it was part of a subset of other causes being considered, in otherwords, the diesel was stand-alone as a consideration, and they never deemed it a final conclusion:
Source (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf)
The "working hypothesis" was about a fire in the north east generator room that led to the failure of column 79.

PM Magazine
. . . . a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

[jaydeehess]

You continue to ignore these facts:

1) Any room with diesel engines would be ventilated and any fire would vent smoke through those vents.

2)There were NO reports of fire on floor 5 at any time and
THERE WAS NO REASON TO THINK THERE WAS A FIRE ON FLOOR 5.


Baseless speculation has no place in a scientific document.

Does your browser have a problem? You missed my next paragraph;

As I stated, the diesel generator rooms I have been in have the louvers open when the generator starts. It gets down to -40 C in these parts and allowing cold air into the room when the gen is not running is a great way to ensure that it will NOT START when called upon to do so. Once it is running the cold air will not affect it. Now NYC does not get as cold as it does here but it gets cold enough. What use is a generator that is cold and has a hard time starting when you need it?
In fact the generators in the Arctic did not use room vent louvers, the gens had a separate air supply hose. The room smelled only slightly of fuel and there were three gensets in it, two of which were always running. The heat from them was also used to heat the surrounding buildings.
You do not need to ventilate carbon monoxide since it will only be created when the gen is running and the louvers will be open then.
There is the possibility of fuel fumes but the gen rooms are all sealed off from the rest of the building.


Anyway it is YOU who ignores the bald unadulterated FACT that a diesel fuel fire was NOT a requirement by which NIST would explain the failure of column 79. Sunder would have gained absolutly nothing by supposedly lieing in the interview with PM since IF he knew it was not going to be a part of the final draft it would be reported as such in PM at that time.

ETA: removed personal assesment of Chris

[Christopher7]

Does your browser have a problem? You missed my next paragraph;
As I stated, the diesel generator rooms I have been in have the louvers open when the generator starts.
There is the possibility of fuel fumes but the gen rooms are all sealed off from the rest of the building.
Are you certain that there was no permanent ventilation?

If this was the case in WTC 7 then any fire would quickly burn out when it ran out of oxygen.

Anyway it is YOU who ignores the bald unadulterated FACT that a diesel fuel fire was NOT a requirement by which NIST would explain the failure of column 79. Wrong!
The working hypothesis was about diesel fuel fires causing column 79 to fail.

PM Magazine
. . . . a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

NIST IIC 4-5-05 Pg 28


Initiating Event: Thermal-Structural Response of Critical Components

Columns 79 and 81 at Floors 5-7


Possible Modes of Column Failure:

􀂉Squashing (Yielding) of Column

􀂉Cover Plate Weld Failure

􀂉Failure of Column Splice




Pg 39


• Critical columns (79, 80, 81) carrying large loads from about 2,000 ft2 of floor area were present on the 5th floor.


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




Shyam Sunder's Testimony to the New York City Council 9-8-06
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

His entire statement was about a possible diesel fuel fire in the north east generator room.

[pomeroo]

Are you certain that there was no permanent ventilation?

If this was the case in WTC 7 then any fire would quickly burn out when it ran out of oxygen.

Wrong!
The working hypothesis was about diesel fuel fires causing column 79 to fail.

PM Magazine
. . . . a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."


NIST IIC 4-5-05 Pg 28






Initiating Event: Thermal-Structural Response of Critical Components




Columns 79 and 81 at Floors 5-7






Possible Modes of Column Failure:




��Squashing (Yielding) of Column




��Cover Plate Weld Failure




��Failure of Column Splice










Pg 39






• Critical columns (79, 80, 81) carrying large loads from about 2,000 ft2 of floor area were present on the 5th floor.






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







Shyam Sunder's Testimony to the New York City Council 9-8-06
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

His entire statement was about a possible diesel fuel fire in the north east generator room.



How long are you planning to rant mindlessly about statements made years ago and discarded hypotheses?

[twinstead]

I remember that the first reports I heard on the radio even before it became aware that it was a terrorist attack on that morning was that a small plane had accidentally crashed into the Pentagon.

Who cares what was discovered later? Further investigation is for losers.

[Christopher7]

How long are you planning to rant mindlessly about statements made years ago and discarded hypotheses?You would like to forget that Shyam Sunder LIED to PM when he told them there was a fire on floor 5.
[The working hypothesis was a diesel fuel fire on floor 5]


When will you address the facts?

1) There were NO reports of fire on floor 5 at any time.

2) There was NO reason to think there was a fire in the north east generator room on
floor 5.

3) The lame excuse that fires would not be visible because of plenums and louvers ignores the FACT that fires produce smoke.

4) The photo on page 26 of the FEMA report shows NO smoke coming from the north east generator room at 2:10 p.m.

5) If the louvers were closed, any fire would die when the oxygen in the room was consumed.

[funk de fino]

Yes, some of the louvers will open when the fans come on and some are open all the time.

ETA: NIST does not say where the ventilation louvers were.

So you were wrong about the louvers? They are not exhaust louvers they are for combustion and cooling? Why do you have to snip out stuff C7?

You are very dishonest.

Where is the source that says there are louvers open all the time and that this is the ventilation for the diesel engines? And which ones?

What would the covers on the louvers do to the visibility of whether the louvers were open or not? especially from photos?

[pomeroo]

You would like to forget that Shyam Sunder LIED to PM when he told them there was a fire on floor 5.
[The working hypothesis was a diesel fuel fire on floor 5]


I have occasionally posted on this insane thread, but I recognize the futility of it all. What does it take to convey to you the meaning of the word "lie"? A simple concept, really: a statement that is a) untrue; b) known to be untrue by the person making it is a lie. A mistake is not a lie. An opinion that is later adjusted to conform with new information is not a lie.




When will you address the facts?

1) There were NO reports of fire on floor 5 at any time.

2) There was NO reason to think there was a fire in the north east generator room on
floor 5.

3) The lame excuse that fires would not be visible because of plenums and louvers ignores the FACT that fires produce smoke.

4) The photo on page 26 of the FEMA report shows NO smoke coming from the north east generator room at 2:10 p.m.

5) If the louvers were closed, any fire would die when the oxygen in the room was consumed.


You don't care about facts: you are a conspiracy liar. Will you ever enter the year 2008 and address the NIST Report?

[Christopher7]

What does it take to convey to you the meaning of the word "lie"? A simple concept, really: a statement that is a) untrue; b) known to be untrue by the person making it is a lie. A mistake is not a lie. An opinion that is later adjusted to conform with new information is not a lie.I listed the facts that clearly show Shyam Sunder knew that there was no fire on floor 5 when he told PM there was a fire that could have lasted up to 7 hours.
Furthermore, he knew that even if there was an unseen fire it would not have been a factor in the collapse as it would have no air supply.

You did NOT address those facts.

Instead you just called me a liar. That's a cheap, shoddy way of avoiding the facts.

Again i ask you to address these facts directly.

1) There were NO reports of fire on floor 5 at any time.

2) There was NO reason to think there was a fire in the north east generator room on
floor 5.

3) The lame excuse that fires would not be visible because of plenums and louvers ignores the FACT that fires produce smoke.

4) The photo on page 26 of the FEMA report shows NO smoke coming from the north east generator room at 2:10 p.m.

5) If the louvers were closed, any fire would die when the oxygen in the room was consumed.

[Christopher7]

Will you ever enter the year 2008 and address the NIST Report?I have on this thread.
You did not respond to the facts. You just asked a question.

That's a cheap, shoddy way of avoiding a substantive answer.

Please respond to these facts:

Shyam Sunder describes in the NIST technical briefing and the slide show/document titled;
NIST Response to the World Trade Center Disaster Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster August 26, 2008
states on page 32: "Forces from thermal expansion failed the connection at Column 79, then pushed the girder off the seat." [to the west]

In NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 page 353 [397 on pg counter] it says:
"Axial compression then increased in the floor beams, and at a beam temperature of 436 °C, the northmost beam began to buckle laterally. Buckling of other floor beams followed as shown in Figure 8–27 (a), leading to collapse of the floor system, and rocking of the girder off its seat at Column 79 as shown in Figure 8–27 [to the east]

These two theories cannot both be true.

[funk de fino]

What would the covers on the louvers do to the visibility of whether the louvers were open or not? especially from photos?

[jaydeehess]

Are you certain that there was no permanent ventilation?
Yes, no full time, continuous ventilation with outside air, none.

If this was the case in WTC 7 then any fire would quickly burn out when it ran out of oxygen.

For a fire inside the gen room when the gen is not running.

Wrong!
The working hypothesis was about diesel fuel fires causing column 79 to fail.

PM Magazine
[FONT=&quot]. . . . a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says [SIZE=4]Sunder: "Our [B]current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."


At the time of printing
At the time of printing
At the time of printing
At the time of printing
this was the case for a fire on the fifth floor. Are you really trying to tell us that at the time of printing of that article that NIST was abandoning all other working hypothysis' and that a fire on the fifth floor was the end all and be all at that time? Sure seems like it and of course even you must realize that such a position is completely at odds with reality.

[Christopher7]

Yes, no full time, continuous ventilation with outside air, none.OK

If this was the case in WTC 7 then any fire would quickly burn out when it ran out of oxygen.
For a fire inside the gen room when the gen is not running.Correct, if the louvers were not open, a fire in the NE generator room could not last long due to lack of air.
Therefore it could not be a factor in the collapse.

If the louvers were open, smoke would be pouring out.
There was no fire or smoke reported on floor 5 at any time.

Given these two alternatives, it was clear at the time of printing that diesel fuel fires were NOT a factor in the collapse.

" . . . a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

At the time of printing this was the case for a fire on the fifth floor. At he time of printing Shyam Sunder knew that there were NO reports of fire on the fifth floor and that diesel fuel fire was NOT a factor in the collapse.

Shyan Sunder LIED to PM when he told them that there was a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours.

The whole diesel fuel fire hypothesis was BASELESS SPECULATION!


Are you really trying to tell us that at the time of printing of that article that NIST was abandoning all other working hypothysis' and that a fire on the fifth floor was the end all and be all at that time? No

[HawksFan]

The whole diesel fuel fire CD hypothesis was is BASELESS SPECULATION!




There. Fixed that for you. Can we move on now?

[GStan]

At he time of printing Shyam Sunder knew that there were NO reports of fire on the fifth floor and that diesel fuel fire was NOT a factor in the collapse.

Shyan Sunder LIED to PM when he told them that there was a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours.

The whole diesel fuel fire hypothesis was BASELESS SPECULATION!


Have you ever attempted to get in touch with Shyam Sunder to ask him why they used 'diesel fires' as their initial working hypothesis? You can continue to speculate all you want. Everyone here agrees that NIST's initial working hypothesis was incorrect, yet you seem to be the only one here obtuse enough to keep asserting that you know without question that NIST was lying when this hypothesis was proposed.

Why don't you contact Mr. Sunder and explain to him that it was very obvious to anyone who looked at the evidence, even at the time of the preliminary report, that there were no diesel fed fires that contributed to the collapse? Maybe you'll get a shady, sinister, ridiculous answer that could raise some eyebrows amongst the rationalists here at JREF. Or maybe he'll give you a straight answer that you could actually, god forbid, learn something from.

...Or, you can simply keep your fingers your ears, keep your eyes closed, and continue spouting your own baseless speculation.

[jaydeehess]

Quote jdhess:
Are you really trying to tell us that at the time of printing of that article that NIST was abandoning all other working hypothysis' and that a fire on the fifth floor was the end all and be all at that time?
No

At he time of printing Shyam Sunder knew that there were NO reports of fire on the fifth floor and that diesel fuel fire was NOT a factor in the collapse.

The "time of printing" pre-dates, by quite a bit, the final report.
In the final report no diesel fire was claimed to be respsible in any way for the collapse.
Neither was any blast event!

[Jonnyclueless]

"At he time of printing Shyam Sunder knew that there were NO reports of fire on the fifth floor and that diesel fuel fire was NOT a factor in the collapse."

Chris you are a fraud and a liar. Aside form simply making up this statement, the fact is that the lack of reports does not conclude there were no fires. So at the time the most plausible scenario was exactly what he stated. To claim otherwise is idiocy.

The bottom line is that you have no evidence to support your little CD fantasy so now you are just trying to fling mud to make up for any actual case you have. NIST actually did the work and proved their case. They didn't make a case by trying to put others down. What have you done? Absolutely nothing. If you want to prove NIST wrong, then prove your CD theory. Until then you will not be taken seriously.

[jaydeehess]

"The bottom line is that you have no evidence to support your little CD fantasy so now you are just trying to fling mud to make up for any actual case you have. .

Fling mud, conduct a witch hunt, however you want to put it Chris is simply adamant that NIST is nothing more than a shill organization for the bush administration, and that Sunder's main motive was to hide a supposed giant conspiracy conerning the demise of the WTC complex of buildings. He will stretch or ignore anything as long as it can, if only in some mall way, support such a line of thought.

[Christopher7]

At he time of printing Shyam Sunder knew that there were NO reports of fire on the fifth floor and that diesel fuel fire was NOT a factor in the collapse.

The "time of printing" pre-dates, by quite a bit, the final report.So what?

Shyam Sunder Lied to PM about a fire on the fifth floor that might have lasted up to 7 hours.

He knew that was not true. There were no reports of fire on the fifth floor and no reason to think there was one.

When someone makes a statement that they know is not true, it's called LYING.

[Jonnyclueless]

Chris, please stop lying. Mr Sunder in no way shape or form lied. YOU are lying in your claim to accuse him of lying. And there was no way at that point to rule out fires on the 5th floor. You are flat out lying yet AGAIN. You have a huge fuel source, you have a huge fire, and it's pretty simple math. It was only after the investigation they realized this was not the case. For you to say he was lying about it is libel and is itself a lie. This is probably the 10th flat out lie you have made in this thread alone Chris. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[GStan]

So what?

Shyam Sunder Lied to PM about a fire on the fifth floor that might have lasted up to 7 hours.

He knew that was not true. There were no reports of fire on the fifth floor and no reason to think there was one.

When someone makes a statement that they know is not true, it's called LYING.


Have you ever attempted to get in touch with Shyam Sunder to ask him why they used 'diesel fires' as their initial working hypothesis? You can continue to speculate all you want. Everyone here agrees that NIST's initial working hypothesis was incorrect, yet you seem to be the only one here obtuse enough to keep asserting that you know without question that NIST was lying when this hypothesis was proposed.

Why don't you contact Mr. Sunder and explain to him that it was very obvious to anyone who looked at the evidence, even at the time of the preliminary report, that there were no diesel fed fires that contributed to the collapse? Maybe you'll get a shady, sinister, ridiculous answer that could raise some eyebrows amongst the rationalists here at JREF. Or maybe he'll give you a straight answer that you could actually, god forbid, learn something from.

...Or, you can simply keep your fingers your ears, keep your eyes closed, and continue spouting your own baseless speculation.

Have you asked NIST/Sunder what they were basing their initial hypothesis on? No? Are you afraid that their answer will make sense, thereby demolishing yet another feeble and ignorant truth movement claim?

What is NIST/Sunder's incentive to lie?

This argument for lying is pretty weak, and the only way it makes any possible sense is if you have already accepted as truth, the very thing that you are trying to prove by using this lie as evidence; that there was a conspiracy. If you are truly pursuing the truth, try to imagine that you are a rational person for a minute, and abandon your predetermined conclusions. If you want to pursue the truth, pursue it. Don't just make stuff up when you come to a stone you don't feel like turning over.

[jaydeehess]

So what?

Shyam Sunder Lied to PM about a fire on the fifth floor that might have lasted up to 7 hours.

He knew that was not true. There were no reports of fire on the fifth floor and no reason to think there was one.

When someone makes a statement that they know is not true, it's called LYING.

Asked several times now, you have yet to give an answer that maes a modicum of sense. Want to try again?

What would Sunder have gained by "lying" to PM magazine when inact the final report would not contain any indication that a fire on the 5th floor, let alone one fed by the diesel lines, contributed to the collapse?

[HawksFan]

That's the one question I'd like to see a logical answer to. Why on earth would he lie and what did he gain by it?

Actually, another question would be: Even if he did lie then, what possible difference does it make now?

[Christopher7]

Asked several times now, you have yet to give an answer that maes a modicum of sense. Want to try again?

What would Sunder have gained by "lying" to PM magazine when inact the final report would not contain any indication that a fire on the 5th floor, let alone one fed by the diesel lines, contributed to the collapse?In order to continue denying that Shyam Sunder LIED to PM you ask a convoluted question.

What he stood to gain is debatable, but such debate is only to avoid the fact that Shyam Sunder LIED!

Shyam Sunder told PM there was a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours.

He knew that was not true. That's LYING!

[funk de fino]

In order to continue denying that Shyam Sunder LIED to PM you ask a convoluted question.

What he stood to gain is debatable, but such debate is only to avoid the fact that Shyam Sunder LIED!

Shyam Sunder told PM there was a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours.

He knew that was not true. That's LYING!


What would the covers on the louvers do to the visibility of whether the louvers were open or not? especially from photos?

[HawksFan]

In order to continue denying that Shyam Sunder LIED to PM you ask a convoluted question.

What he stood to gain is debatable, but such debate is only to avoid the fact that Shyam Sunder LIED!

Shyam Sunder told PM there was a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours.

He knew that was not true. That's LYING!


So...you're as good as admitting you can't come up with any reasonable reason why he would lie. He apparently lied just for fun and games, is that it? I mean whatever he said years ago really has no bearing on the report as it stands today, so...what is the big deal?

[Grizzly Bear]

So...you're as good as admitting you can't come up with any reasonable reason why he would lie. He apparently lied just for fun and games, is that it? I mean whatever he said years ago really has no bearing on the report as it stands today, so...what is the big deal?

If he (Sunder) actually said material with the intention of lying to the public it might have had considerable impact regardless, but it seems to me the attention would be on Sunder and not on that of the team performing the report in such a situation. The preliminary report provides clear context to the some of the arguments which Chris seems to have a chronic habit of either misrepresenting or outright misleading on..

However, what Christopher bases his conclusion on is his continued insistence that "certain details" such as the missing fuel should have been skipped based on a single photograph taken much later in the day. Chris's assertion is that the photo makes it absolutely clear that there was "no fire" on the floor in question at any time throughout the day and that NIST should have drawn the conclusion they have now regarding the role of fuel fires in WTC 7 based just on that.

The fundamental problem Christopher's argument has is two-fold. First, he demands that NIST not investigate every factor which could have potentially played a role in compromising the structural integrity of the building. He is ironically in doing so contradicting the argument which the "mainstream" truth movement criticizes the NIST report for; not taking proper scientific procedure -- so they put it that is.

Second -- Christopher asserts that a single photo tells the entire story. Christopher does not understand that a photograph is a snapshot in time, it is static, and cannot reliably represent any period of time or progression before it was taken without a comparative that tells what was happening before it was taken. What the photo does tell us is that any fire that could have been a factor neither burned long enough or hot enough to significantly contribute to the collapse.

The aim of NIST's investigation into the fuel fed fire scenario it could be said, was therefore to evaluate what if any contribution any fire would have provided to the collapse later in the day. Christopher's demand that certain things be overlooked is the investigative equivalent of neglecting finger prints in a crime scene because the personality of the suspects alone is enough to determine guilt or presence at any given time in a crime scene.

And there happens to be a third factor in Chris's argument flaws -- He continually relies on outdated information and intentionally bases his assertion on a preliminary report published before the main investigation commenced. He asserts that a working hypothesis is the equivalent of a lie and that this goes regardless on the accuracy of the final report.

In other words... arguing with Chris's logic is the equivalent of talking to a brick wall. :)