10 story hole in WTC 7

[jaydeehess]

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!

On the contrary, Sunder was simply reporting on the status of the investigation at the time of printing. At that time there were still investigations ongoing to determine if a 5th floor fire was affecting the initiation of collapse.

He failed to include the modifier "possible" when referring to this fire in a popular press article (IF PM was reporting his exact words) and that does not constitute a lie unless he did so with forethought in an attempt to deceive.

GIVEN, that NIST conclude later that no fire on the fifth floor (or your other bugaboo, south face impact damage) caused the collapse it is quite obvious that Sunder was NOT attempting to deceive the public into believing that a 5th floor fre caused the collapse.

You, who is primed and ready to see conspiracy under every rock, now admit that you cannot see any advantage to such an alledged lie.
So was Sunder just lieing out of pure malevolance?

[jaydeehess]

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.

At a crime scene police route the prints of all involved including perons not considered to be suspects. To extend Chris' logic regarding a 5th floor fire, police should not be wasting time taking prints of persons only remotely of interest as suspects and concentrate only on those who are considered most likely to be the perpetrators.
Isn't that how a lot of innocent people get railroaded into jail?
Gad I hope Chris never gets called to jury duty.

[GStan]

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!

Christopher,

You should be commended for your tenacity. I would bet that 99.9 percent of those who have declared themselves to be "just looking for the truth" regarding 9/11 have not explored the NIST report to the extent that you have. Most of them probably would not understand it if they tried. Are you really going to quit digging for the truth and abandon the possible fruits of all the labor you've put into this when you are so close to the goal line?

Yes, the NIST hypothesis, as of the preliminary report and/or the interview with PM, has now been shown to be unlikely, if not impossible. Yes, the published evidence at that time makes the hypothesis look now like it was not even all that warranted to begin with. Most of the members of your movement would never have even taken the time to find the inconsistency. They would simply assume and assert that anything produced by NIST to be patently false because NIST is part of the government. You're better than them, Chris. Don't stoop to their level.

What are you trying to do here? What are your intentions? Are you simply trying to win a debate in an internet forum? Well congratulations. After more than 5,000 posts in this thread, you've outlasted most of the regular members of the forum and beat most of them by default in a war of attrition. I don't believe that is why you are doing this. You've invested many hours of your life, perhaps numbering in the thousands by now, just reading and writing about WTC7. The optimist in me wants to believe that your end goal in this is a meaningful objective like trying to identify the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice in a court of law.

(For the purposes of the paragraphs to follow, I have to assume that you believe that there was a large government conspiracy involved with the events of 9/11. Is that a fair assumption? The only reason I ask is that I cannot think of any other scenario under which it would make sense to accuse Mr. Sunder of lying. If you have another scenario in which his lying makes sense, please share it; although I think you’ve already indicated that you are not inclined to debate that point.)

So take the case of Shyam Sunder and NIST and the inconsistencies/anomalies between the evidence of the report/PM interview and the initial working hypothesis. If what you are saying is true, Mr. Sunder would have to be a large part of this conspiracy, perhaps not the planning, but at least the cover-up. He has somehow been able to coerce everyone at NIST and almost every relevant expert in the country to go along with this lie and preserve the cover-up. And its not just a tiny lie. It’s a lie that even a laymen with no formal training or experience in building engineering or fire performance can find. That is a pretty powerful key figure in your conspiracy. Your ultimate goal is to go to trial against him and bring him to justice for his lies. Do you not agree that you are going to have to take a deposition from him, or at least interview him to find out his side of the story, at some point between now and this hypothetical trial?

Why will you not just ask him why he said what he said to PM and why NIST used the working hypothesis it chose for the preliminary report, when, in examining the evidence, it looks like there was already enough evidence to disprove that theory? What is the harm in doing that? Either he will give you an answer that makes total sense, such as, “we hadn’t fully interpreted and analyzed enough of the evidence at that time to recognize that the hypothesis was flawed” or “we had some evidence to suggest that the hypothesis might not be true, but the limited analysis that we had done to that point still gave us the impression that the diesel fuel was going to prove to be the culprit for the collapse initiation” or “there was some evidence that NIST had obtained that was not released as part of the preliminary report that pointed more in the direction of diesel fire than was evident in the preliminary report.” Or any one of a hundred other answers. I don’t know; obviously I can’t speak for the man. He might give you an answer that you can live with, thus freeing you from the burden of your substantial time investment in this line of reasoning and allowing you to pursue more promising avenues to prove and prosecute this conspiracy.

On the flip-side, he might give you an answer that makes no sense at all and does nothing but fuel your suspicions of conspiracy. Guess what. You can use his answer later on as you try to build your court case against him. Either way, you win. You either make your criminal case that much stronger or you get to stop wasting time on an investigative area that you’ve now discovered to be pointless. One thing is certain, if you take Mr. Sunder to court, he is going to have the opportunity to defend his position (unless of course, his co-conspirators kill him before he can testify). Why not just have him defend it now and save yourself the potential hassle of being publicly humiliated in a court of law when he successfully defends it then? Assuming that the conspiracy is true, will you not have done the movement a huge disservice by bringing him to trial and then letting him off the hook simply because you refused to do your homework?

If you are a full-fledged twoofer and not simply someone pursuing the truth, you might take the position that “if I ask him the questions now, it will alert him that we are on to him and he will have time to cover-up his mistakes.” If the conspiracy is as far reaching and powerful as it would have to be just to get away with the lie you are accusing Mr. Sunder of pulling off, (not even considering the more comprehensive plot), trust me, they are on to you. As a matter of fact, if the conspiracy is true and it is as capable as it would have to be to get away with what you are accusing them of, they have probably read this post of mine before you did.

Why is it that the truth movement that claims to be so interested in an independent investigation will not actually use the means they have available to them to conduct one? “We’ve got to dig until we get to the bottom of this!” That’s right. We do. But if you believe that to be true, why will you not dig all the way to the bottom? Why do you always stop digging at the point where you find a tiny nugget that superficially supports your position? The movement never digs all the way to the bottom.

We went through this same exercise a few months back when arguing about whether or not the firefighter testimonies represented evidence of a fire/debris damage collapse argument. Your claim was that most of the firefighters did not assess the damage to WTC7 for themselves; they were only told it would collapse by their superiors and their belief in what they were told was objectively impaired by the events of the day. That’s not nearly the worst line of logic I’ve ever heard from the movement, and on its own, without any other information to go on, it makes perfect sense. However, you were asked repeatedly to talk to the firefighters about your claim and you predictably refused. Oh well, its just a debate on an internet forum, who cares? Well, you do, I hope. Remember, your goal is beyond winning a debate in an internet forum. You want some kind of justice for the perpetrators.

The firefighter testimonies are part of the publicly available reports demonstrating what happened on 9/11. If you are out to prove those reports to be wrong and bring the real perpetrators to justice, and as part of your evidence you want to use the argument that the firefighter testimonies were unduly biased based on the events of the day, you will have to offer some proof of that in a court of law. The firefighters will be on the witness stand prepared to answer your questions. They might give you an answer that satisfies your concerns in this area, or they might slip up and give you another piece of the conspiracy puzzle. Why not just ask them now and either solidify your case or free yourself from continuing to waste your valuable time in an area that will ultimately prove to be without merit?

Is your time not valuable to you? Count up the hours you’ve spent writing your posts. Count up the hours you’ve spent reading others’ posts. Count up the hours you’ve spent reading official and unofficial documents and news reports. Do you not wish to see something meaningful come from all that hard work. You’ve identified a valid discrepancy. You’ve made a claim that the discrepancy is the result of a lie. Provide the evidence to support your claim. You do not currently have enough evidence to prove that it was a lie. A good place to start would be to ask Shyam Sunder why he told PM what he did and why NIST used the hypothesis they did when the evidence at the time already seemed to be suggesting that it was not true. An even better place to start might be to ask some of the other scientific professionals as well. You might find additional discrepancies in their answers, thus, supporting your case.

I think you’re a smart guy who, unlike most of the truth movement, is at least making an attempt to build a rational argument. If you want to pursue the truth, I applaud you. But for the love of Mike, save yourself. Don’t waste so much of your life on a fantasy simply because you were too stubborn to ask questions of people whose answers might disrupt the fantasy.

Better yet, let’s say the 9/11 conspiracy is absolutely true, whatever that means. Is asking these questions of the alleged conspirators now, like NIST and the FDNY, going to hamper in any way, your ability to bring the conspirators to justice? If the answer is yes, then by all means, don’t do it. But again, if the conspiracy is as prolific as it has to be to have pulled off what you are alluding to with your claims, I don’t see how you could honestly answer yes to that question; because they obviously have the capability to monitor their antagonists in the truth movement and know pretty much what you are going to hit them with before you even approach them. On the other hand, pretend for a minute that the conspiracy is absolutely false and that every minute you spend researching it will end up being a complete waste of your life. Wouldn’t you want to find that out sooner rather than later? Whether the conspiracy is absolutely true or absolutely false, there is no downside to confronting the suspects with the questions to which you seek answers.

Your dilemma reminds me of that phrase about living life as if there is a god or not.

“If I live my life as if there is no 9/11 conspiracy while all along there was one, then I am a fool. But if I live my as if there is a 9/11 conspiracy while all along there wasn’t one, then I am a bigger fool” GStan, 2008

Good luck.

I still have hope for you.

[Christopher7]

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?Since we cannot retroactively read his mind, we can only speculate on why he lied. You just want to avoid admitting that he lied by getting into an endless argument about why.

I mean whatever he said years ago really has no bearing on the report as it stands today, so...what is the big deal?It has bearing on his credibility.

He LIED about there being a fire on the fifth floor that could have lasted up to 7 hours.

He is now lying about how the key girder between columns 79 and 44 collapsed.

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]

They have two opposing theories for the same event.

Shyam Sunder and the NIST Final draft are not credible!

[Christopher7]

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 You have a habit of intentionally misquoting me.

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 22 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.


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. Shyam Sunder knew that diesel fuel fire did NOT play a roll in the collapse in 2004 when NIST released the preliminary report. See 4 & 5 above.

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.Again, you have a habit of intentionally misquoting me.

The working hypothesis was BASELESS SPECULATION and has no place in a scientific document.

[Christopher7]

Christopher,

Yes, the NIST hypothesis, as of the preliminary report and/or the interview with PM, has now been shown to be unlikely, if not impossible. Yes, the published evidence at that time makesthe hypothesis look now like it was not even all that warranted to begin with.The photo looks the same now as it did then.
Shaym Sunder knew then what we all know now.

Diesel fuel fire was not a factor in the collapse and the "working hypothesis" was BASELESS SPECULATION.

[funk de fino]

The photo looks the same now as it did then.
Shaym Sunder knew then what we all know now.

Diesel fuel fire was not a factor in the collapse and the "working hypothesis" was BASELESS SPECULATION.

What would the covers on the louvers do to the visibility of whether the louvers were open or not? especially from photos?

[GStan]

The photo looks the same now as it did then.
Shaym Sunder knew then what we all know now.

Diesel fuel fire was not a factor in the collapse and the "working hypothesis" was BASELESS SPECULATION.

I've only been back on this thread for a few weeks, so apologies if I've simply missed this, but is there other evidence aside from the photo that you are basing this on? Are you saying that a single photo, a snapshot of one point in time during the day, was enough to discount the working hypothesis?

[HawksFan]

Yes, he is. And apparently since Mr. Sunder didn't recognize that fact in 2004 and went with the 5th floor diesel fire hypothesis at the time for one interview, then everything he says ever for the rest of his life is wrong and can't be trusted.

[jaydeehess]

Since we cannot retroactively read his mind, we can only speculate on why he lied. You just want to avoid admitting that he lied by getting into an endless argument about why.

That would require an assumption that he spoke with malice of forethought in order to deceive. GIVEN that there is absolutly no reason for him to do so and he would have had absolutly nothing to gain, logic would dictate that he was not attempting to lie.


It has bearing on his credibility.

[B]He LIED about there being a fire on the fifth floor that could have lasted up to 7 hours.

He is now lying about how the key girder between columns 79 and 44 collapsed.


Now you wish to say that the entire NIST team is lying.

Sunder is not the sole arbitor of what goes into the report, nor could it be expected that if he grossly misrepresented the work of those others who did contribute that those persons would remain silent.

The NIST report, in all incarnations, has the girder going west despite your adamant claim otherwise.

[Crazytimes]

This thread is too long. Can someone tell me if this is just another truther demanding 100% accuracy of a report, interview or study the first time it was done ? Then ignoring the correction ?

[jaydeehess]

This thread is too long. Can someone tell me if this is just another truther demanding 100% accuracy of a report, interview or study the first time it was done ? Then ignoring the correction ?

That would indeed be the short story.
The rest is a lot of repetition.

[Christopher7]

I've only been back on this thread for a few weeks, so apologies if I've simply missed this, but is there other evidence aside from the photo that you are basing this on? Are you saying that a single photo, a snapshot of one point in time during the day, was enough to discount the working hypothesis?Add to the photo the fact that there was no fire reported on floor 5 at any time and no reason to think there was a fire in the NE generator room.

The photo on pg 22 of the FEMA report establishes that there was no smoke coming from the NE generator room at 2:10 p.m.

If there was a fire in the NE generator room and the louvers were open, smoke would be pouring out.

If the louvers were closed, any fire would quickly run out of air and burn out.

Therefore, even if there was an unseen fire in the NE generator room, it would not have been a factor in the collapse.

Shyam Sunder had this information and knew these facts when NIST released it's preliminary report in 2004.

[Jonnyclueless]

"Add to the photo the fact that there was no fire reported on floor 5 at any time and no reason to think there was a fire in the NE generator room."

You keep repeating this. For one, just because there was no fire reported does NOT mean there was no fire. And no reason to think there was a fire according to who?

[notheist]

Christopher, Is this not like saying Darwin was lying when he put forth the hypothesis that evolution was a steady "generation to generation" type thing? And that he knew puntuated equilibrium was a better explanation?

What Christopher is doing is the same lame tactic creationist use to try and force god into the FACT of evolution. only his god is a 9/11 conspiracy theory. he can't propose a logical, workable hypothesis involving a controlled demolition but his FAITH won't let him let go of his religious fantasy.

[notheist]

If there was a fire in the NE generator room and the louvers were open, smoke would be pouring out.

If the louvers were closed, any fire would quickly run out of air and burn out.



IF air was being drawn in through the louvers to feed the fire smoke would not come out. It is not like there was a lack of smoke coming from building 7. And if the louvers were closed there are plenty of places for air to get to the fires, remember... this building was just smashed by the collapse of WTC 1 opening a giant hole in the side.

[GStan]

Add to the photo the fact that there was no fire reported on floor 5 at any time and no reason to think there was a fire in the NE generator room.

Do you agree or not agree that absence of evidence is not evidence? If you do not agree, can I use that in my argument too? Or does it only apply to your theory?

The photo on pg 22 of the FEMA report establishes that there was no smoke coming from the NE generator room at 2:10 p.m.

If there was a fire in the NE generator room at 2:10 p.m. and the louvers were open, smoke would be pouring out at 2:10 p.m.. If there was a fire after 2:10 p.m., smoke would also be pouring out, but we do not have a photo of that.

Fixed that for you

If the louvers were closed, any fire would quickly run out of air and burn out.

Therefore, even if there was an unseen fire in the NE generator room, it would not have been a factor in the collapse.

Shyam Sunder had this information and knew these facts when NIST released it's preliminary report in 2004.

You make a pretty thin case for lying. Have you contacted NIST yet to find out why they used the diesel fuel hypothesis when it was so obviously flawed based on the evidence at the time? Or are you going to continue to waste your life avoiding asking the questions that can lead you to a truth that matches reality, simply because it might disrupt your fantasy?

What are you afraid of? If this lie is as obvious as you claim it to be, how can they possibly defend it? Won't you be closer to the truth when they defend it with another obvious lie?

[Christopher7]

IF air was being drawn in through the louvers to feed the fire smoke would not come out. It is not like there was a lack of smoke coming from building 7. And if the louvers were closed there are plenty of places for air to get to the fires, remember... this building was just smashed by the collapse of WTC 1 opening a giant hole in the side.The damage was to the other end of the building.

[Christopher7]

What Christopher is doing is the same lame tactic creationist use to try and force god into the FACT of evolution. only his god is a 9/11 conspiracy theory. he can't propose a logical, workable hypothesis involving a controlled demolition but his FAITH won't let him let go of his religious fantasy.It is your blind faith in the Cheney/Bush conspiracy theory that won't let you admit that there is no basis for the diesel fuel hypothesis or anything else that goes against your religious fantasy.

[Christopher7]

Do you agree or not agree that absence of evidence is not evidence? The absence of evidence for a hypothesis means the hypothesis is baseless.

There was no evidence of a fire in the NE generator room and no reason to think there was a fire there.

You make a pretty thin case for lying. Have you contacted NIST yet to find out why they used the diesel fuel hypothesis when it was so obviously flawed based on the evidence at the time?Get serious. Why ask a liar to explain why he lied?

[GStan]

The absence of evidence for a hypothesis means the hypothesis is baseless.

There was no evidence of a fire in the NE generator room and no reason to think there was a fire there.

There was a large quantity of diesel fuel unaccounted for. It was a prudent hypothesis at the time. A single photo of what was happening at 210pm was not enough to discount it. Multiple reports of 'no fires on the 5th floor' could have been enough to do so, but you of course don't have those. An absence of reports suggesting or confirming a 5th floor fire (reality) is not the same as reports that there was not a fire (fantasy). Can you see the difference?

Get serious. Why ask a liar to explain why he lied?

You shouldn't. You should just keep falsely repeating that he lied on an internet forum. You'll feel better about yourself. Fortunately for the rest of the world, you'll be at home at the computer where there is less of a danger of having your ignorance exposed to a mass audience. You can maintain a pristine fantasy and never get any closer to finding the truth. You can declare victory now. Prison would be awful for Shyam Sunder and his co-conspirators, but nothing compared to having his name soiled in front of the thousands of JREFers....er, OK....5 JREFers who still read this thread. Keep up the great work. Another couple of pages in this thread from you and Shyam Sunder will probably hang himself in shame.

You say 'why ask?' Very telling. Very cowardly. Very pathetic.

[Crazytimes]

It is amazing how well the government has done at keeping the tens of thousands of people who were in on it quiet. Not ONE person has come forward with a conscience in 7 years. They must pay well.

[GStan]

It is amazing how well the government has done at keeping the tens of thousands of people who were in on it quiet. Not ONE person has come forward with a conscience in 7 years. They must pay well.

Its true. They hooked me up with free porn on my cable TV.

[Crazytimes]

Its true. They hooked me up with free porn on my cable TV.

Hell, I would kill 3000 people for free porn. I wish I were in on it.

[GStan]

Hell, I would kill 3000 people for free porn. I wish I were in on it.

Whoa, don't lump me in with those guys. I didn't have to kill anyone. The free porn is payment for me to come here and make Christopher's arguments look foolish. I sometimes feel a little guilty getting paid though, as you can probably see that Christopher pretty much takes care of that on his own.:p

/derail

[funk de fino]

C7

What would the covers on the louvers do to the visibility of whether the louvers were open or not? especially from photos?

[Christopher7]

C7

What would the covers on the louvers do to the visibility of whether the louvers were open or not? especially from photos?Your question is stupid. If you don't know the answer to that, you are dumber than a brick.

[Christopher7]

There was a large quantity of diesel fuel unaccounted for. It was a prudent hypothesis at the time.
There's nothing prudent about investigating something when the evidence clearly shows that it was NOT a factor in the collapse. The diesel fuel fire hypothesis was about a possible fire in the NE generator room. There was NO evidence of a fire there and no reason to think there was a fire there. As long as you keep ignoring the fact that there was NO BASIS for the diesel fuel fire in the NE generator room i will keep reminding you of the facts.

A single photo of what was happening at 210pm was not enough to discount it.The photo clearly showed that even if there was a fire it would not be a factor in the collapse.

[Christopher7]

It is amazing how well the government has done at keeping the tens of thousands of people who were in on it quiet. Not ONE person has come forward with a conscience in 7 years. They must pay well.That's one of the dumbest denier statements. People don't just come forward and confess to murder.

This is just another denial tactic to change the subject.

Can you deny these fasts?

1) There were NO reports of fire in the NE generator room at any time.

2) The photo taken at 2:10 p.m. proves that either there was no fire or any possible fire would not have enough oxygen to burn very long.

3) There was NO reason to think a diesel fuel fire would start there after this time.

[Jonnyclueless]

One of the dumbest statements is implying that people in the government are capable of covering anything up. Stupid would be stating that they simply say nothing because they don't confess. People sell others out, things get leaked. This would be the first time in history something didn't get leaked. And that may be because there is no evidence that such a thing ever even happened outside of Christopher's imagination.

[Christopher7]

One of the dumbest statements is implying that people in the government are capable of covering anything up.Another denial fallacy. It assumes that the government can't keep a secret. How could you possibly know what you don't know?


Stupid would be stating that they simply say nothing because they don't confess. People sell others out, things get leaked. This would be the first time in history something didn't get leaked. Subject shift.

Can you deny these fasts?

1) There were NO reports of fire in the NE generator room at any time.

2) The photo taken at 2:10 p.m. proves that either there was no fire or any possible fire would not have enough oxygen to burn very long.

3) There was NO reason to think a diesel fuel fire would start there after this time.

[funk de fino]

Your question is stupid. If you don't know the answer to that, you are dumber than a brick.

It is not stupid C7. You just do not like what the answer does to your claims.

There are covers on the louvers. From the outside it is difficult to see wether they are open or not. From one photograph it is almost impossible to see if they are open. These louvers open automatically when the gennies start to draw in air for cooling and ventilation. They are not exhaust or vent louvers as you have claimed. There are not permanently open louvers either.

If it was not possible to determine from the 2:10 photograph if the louvers were open or not then you could not use that photo to say if there was a fire in floor 5 or not.

Therefore, the diesel fire hypothesis should still have been investigated when you take into account the missing diesel and changing smoke colours during the course of the day.

reported for insult also.

[Crazytimes]

That's one of the dumbest denier statements. People don't just come forward and confess to murder.



They dont ????? People don't confess to murder ??

Wow....after you saying my statement was dumb.

So tens od thousands of people are covering something up. Nothing has leaked, no one has come forward, they didn't tell a single person who outed them. You are living in a fantasy. Come back to reality.

[Grizzly Bear]

3) There was NO reason to think a diesel fuel fire would start there after this time.
However, that's not what people are discussing here. Your earlier claim was that the photographs proved there was no fire on the floor in question at all, and that because of this their investigation into the fuel's contribution to the fire, and ultimate contribution to the collapse was unjustified.

You have apparently shifted goal posts since this issue was first addressed to you. So in response to:

That's one of the dumbest denier statements. People don't just come forward and confess to murder.

This is just another denial tactic to change the subject.

Can you deny these fasts?

1) There were NO reports of fire in the NE generator room at any time.

2) The photo taken at 2:10 p.m. proves that either there was no fire or any possible fire would not have enough oxygen to burn very long.


the bolded, does this mean that you agree that there was a potential fire before the photo was taken on the floor in question? Yet in the context of a preliminary investigation, you disagree that this should have been at least looked into to see if any such fire contributed sugnificantly to the collapse....

[GStan]

There's nothing prudent about investigating something when the evidence clearly shows that it was NOT a factor in the collapse. The diesel fuel fire hypothesis was about a possible fire in the NE generator room. There was NO evidence of a fire there and no reason to think there was a fire there. As long as you keep ignoring the fact that there was NO BASIS for the diesel fuel fire in the NE generator room i will keep reminding you of the facts.

There was a large quantity of diesel fuel unaccounted for. Keep ignoring that. Maybe someday it magically won't be the truth anymore. Until that time, it will be enough to have based the initial working hypothesis on. Its enough for me. Its enough for Shyam Sunder. Its enough for the hundreds of professionals at NIST who allowed their names and reputations to be put to the report without objection. Its enough for virtually the entire fire safety and structural engineering community in the entire country. You have not come even close to proving a lie. In fact, your assertion that there was NO BASIS for the diesel fire hypothesis is itself a lie.

The photo clearly showed that even if there was a fire it would not be a factor in the collapse.

How does a single photo clearly show what happened for 7 hours. Aren't you embarrassed to be peddling this crap? The photo shows that there was no fire or smoke coming from the louvres at the exact moment the photo was snapped. That's it. Hell, it doesn't even prove definitively that there was no fire in the room at that time. Air flow fluctuations, oxygen level fluctuations, minor internal collapses. And have you never heard of a backdraft?

AND WHO F***ING CARES ABOUT THIS ANYWAY?

NIST HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE BUILDING DID NOT COLLAPSE FROM DIESEL FIRES. THEY'RE NOT HIDING IT. THEY'VE PUT ALL THE INFORMATION THEY'VE USED TO REACH THEIR CONCLUSION IN FULL PUBLIC VIEW. THE ONLY WAY YOUR MORONIC ACCUSATIONS MAKE ANY POSSIBLE SENSE IS IF VIRTUALLY EVERY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER AND FIRE SAFETY PROFESSIONAL IN THE COUNTRY, EITHER BY THEIR CONCURRENCE OR THEIR SILENCE, IS PART OF THE LARGEST, MOST DEMONIC, HYPER-COMPETENT, (AND AT THE SAME TIME, MOST BLATANTLY RETARDED) CONSPIRACY IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND.

[GStan]

Another denial fallacy. It assumes that the government can't keep a secret. How could you possibly know what you don't know?


Subject shift.

Can you deny these fasts?

Yes.

1) There were NO reports of fire in the NE generator room at any time.

Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence, although since you're starting with such a weak argument, you can't really afford to cut any of the tiny threads holding it together, can you?

2) The photo taken at 2:10 p.m. proves that either there was no fire or any possible fire would not have enough oxygen to burn very long.

Lie. It proves that there was no fire or smoke coming from the louvres at the time the photo was snapped. Since you have no other photos at any other points during the day, the extrapolation you've made from this one photo is just baseless speculation.

3) There was NO reason to think a diesel fuel fire would start there after this time.

There was a large quantity of deisel fuel missing. It was reason enough to think there was a diesel fire. It was the best available hypothesis at that time.

[GStan]

That's one of the dumbest denier statements.

You claim CT's statement was dumb, but in response, you post something that is dumb to the 8th power, like this:

People don't just come forward and confess to murder.

<SNIP>

Will you be providing any evidence to back up that claim? Or is that just more of your baseless speculation?

[jaydeehess]

It is your blind faith in the Cheney/Bush conspiracy theory that won't let you admit that there is no basis for the diesel fuel hypothesis or anything else that goes against your religious fantasy.

I do not believe that there was such a thing as a virgin birth 200+ years ago BUT given that there is one report of such an event I do not count it out entirely.

NIST has stated that there is a very low probability of a diesel fuel fire on the 5th floor of WTC 7 and that even had there been it is highly unlikely that it would have caused the initial collapse. THAT is the conclusion reached by what you refer to as the Cheney/Bush conspiracy theory research organization.

I daresay that all here agree with the NIST finding that such an event is of very low probability. There does exist some small chance but the 'official' word is that it was not a factor.

So much for your accusation of religious dogma.

[GStan]

Christopher,

Do you have any comprehension of how a group of scientists at NIST would approach coming up with a hypothesis for what caused building 7 to collapse?

Do you realize all that they would review?

They look at the blueprints for the building.
They look at structural design elements to identify any areas that might have been more vulnerable to failure than others.

They look at the materials used in the building.
They look at building components to identify any materials used that might have been more vulnerable to failure than others.

They look at the contents of the building.
They try to identify any areas whose concentration of flammable contents may have been high enough to make it more vulnerable to failure than others.

They look at the verbally reported and photo/video documented structural damage to the building.
(All of it, not just selective pieces that support pre-determined conclusions.) They try to assess what was damaged to the best of their ability and identify any areas that may have been more vulnerable to failure than others.

They look at the verbally reported and photo/video documented fire progression.
(All of it, not just selective pieces that support pre-determined conclusions.) They try to assess when and where there were fires and identify any areas that may have been more vulnerable to failure than others.

They look at the video of the collapse sequence.
They try to assess what areas of the structure could most likely have failed to produce the observed collapse sequence.

After looking at ALL of this, they would try to identify the area most vulnerable to failure and develop a working hypothesis for what caused the failure. Then they would develop experiments and models to determine the probability of their hypothesis.

After their preliminary examination of the whole body of evidence, as sound scientists, what they would NOT do, (even though you've made it painfully clear that you would do it this way), is abandon what was, at the time, the best available hypothesis simply because of a single photo and absence of evidence in one of the six above-mentioned areas.

Based on the evidence (and lack thereof) you've provided, your claim that NIST/Shyam Sunder was lying by proposing their initial working hypothesis is a 55-gallon heavy-duty garbage bag filled to the top with nothing but fail.

[GStan]

No post from Christopher in almost a week. Perhaps NIST got word that he was getting so close to exposing their obvious lies?

[notheist]

There's nothing prudent about investigating something when the evidence clearly shows that it was NOT a factor in the collapse.


DUH!!! To determine something was NOT a factor in the collapse you need to INVESTIGATE.

And unlike the conspiracy theorist loons NIST does investigate. They develop a hypothesis and look at the facts. If the facts don't support the hypothesis they dump the hypothesis. That does not imply the original hypothesis was a lie.

Conspiracy theorist on the other hand will never put forth a cogent hypothesis. Better to ask lots and lots of questions and pretend the mass of question and up to something real.

[Christopher7]

What would the covers on the louvers do to the visibility of whether the louvers were open or not? especially from photos?
Your question is stupid. If you don't know the answer to that, you are dumber than a brick. It is not stupid C7. You just do not like what the answer does to your claims.[/quote=C7] The question is both stupid and sarcastic. You know the answer because it is obvious.
[quote]There are covers on the louvers. From the outside it is difficult to see wether they are open or not. From one photograph it is almost impossible to see if they are open.Right

These louvers open automatically when the gennies start to draw in air for cooling and ventilation. They are not exhaust or vent louvers as you have claimed. There are not permanently open louvers either.
If it was not possible to determine from the 2:10 photograph if the louvers were open or not then you could not use that photo to say if there was a fire in floor 5 or not.You are still ignoring the fact that if the louvers were open, smoke from a fire would be pouring out and if they were closed any fire there would not be a factor in the collapse.

Do you agree?
If not, why?

[funk de fino]

The question is both stupid and sarcastic. You know the answer because it is obvious.

Right

You are still ignoring the fact that if the louvers were open, smoke from a fire would be pouring out and if they were closed any fire there would not be a factor in the collapse.

Do you agree?
If not, why?

I am not ignoring anything. Your earlier claims regarding the louvers were wrong and now we have established that we can see that one photograph, taken at some point during the day, that does not show whether the louvers are open or not cannot be used to say there was no fire on Floor 5.

How do you know what the air supply in the damaged building would have been for a fire with closed louvers?

This photograph cannot be used as evidence against a fire on Floor 5 that may have contributed to the collapse.

You also missed this part of my post.

Therefore, the diesel fire hypothesis should still have been investigated when you take into account the missing diesel and changing smoke colours during the course of the day.

[Christopher7]

I am not ignoring anything. Your earlier claims regarding the louvers were wrong and now we have established that we can see that one photograph, taken at some point during the day, that does not show whether the louvers are open or not cannot be used to say there was no fire on Floor 5If the louvers were closed, any fire that might have been would be oxygen starved and therefore not a factor in the collapse.

How do you know what the air supply in the damaged building would have been for a fire with closed louvers?The damage was to the other end of the building.

This photograph cannot be used as evidence against a fire on Floor 5 that may have contributed to the collapse.Yes it can, for the reason i stated above.

You also missed this part of my post.Missing diesel fuel is NOT evidence of a fire at the opposite end of the building. There were no reports of smoke or fire from the north east generator room at any time. There was NO reason to think there was a fire in the north east generator room.

[funk de fino]

If the louvers were closed, any fire that might have been would be oxygen starved and therefore not a factor in the collapse.

You cannot say for certain because you were not in the building that day.

It could have been oxygen starved. From one photo you cannot say that there was no fire in that floor therefore it had to be investigated. They did and found out a diesel fuelled fire did not contribute to the collapse. The normal fire was enough.

The damage was to the other end of the building.

All of it? And they knew that at the time?

Yes it can, for the reason i stated above.

No, it cannot be used to rule out any prospect of a fire in that floor during that day.

Missing diesel fuel is NOT evidence of a fire at the opposite end of the building. There were no reports of smoke or fire from the north east generator room at any time. There was NO reason to think there was a fire in the north east generator room.

Missing diesel fuel had to have gone somehwere so they had to investigate if it had burned.

[Christopher7]

If the louvers were closed, any fire that might have been would be oxygen starved and therefore not a factor in the collapse.
You cannot say for certain because you were not in the building that day. Please
The north east generator room was NOT damaged by debris. It was necessarily air tight because of the fans that blew a great deal of air into the room.

The only ventilation was the louvers.

If they were open smoke would be pouring out.

If they were closed a fire would burn out when it ran out of oxygen.

It's so simple a child could understand.

It could have been oxygen starved. From one photo you cannot say that there was no fire in that floor / therefore it had to be investigated.Right / wrong. Even if there was a fire it would not be a factor in the collapse.

They did and found out a diesel fuelled fire did not contribute to the collapse.They knew that in 2004

The normal fire was enough.That's another subject. We are discussing the diesel fuel fire hypothesis.

The damage was to the other end of the building.
All of it? And they knew that at the time?Yes, they knew that there was no debris damage on the east and north sides.

No, it cannot be used to rule out any prospect of a fire in that floor during that day.True

Missing diesel fuel had to have gone somehwere so they had to investigate if it had burned.Why? It was clear that the diesel fuel played no part in the collapse.

[funk de fino]

Please
The north east generator room was NOT damaged by debris. It was necessarily air tight because of the fans that blew a great deal of air into the room.

was it airtight that day after the collapse of the towers?

The only ventilation was the louvers.

How do you know? What about the diesel engine ventilation you say should have been there?

If they were open smoke would be pouring out.

If they were closed a fire would burn out when it ran out of oxygen

That photograph was one moment in time on that day.

It could not be used to say one way or the other whether a fire was burning on that floor at ay time apart from when it was taken.

It's so simple a child could understand.

Attempted insult noted.

Right / wrong. Even if there was a fire it would not be a factor in the collapse.

They knew that in 2004

They did not know that, you are lying again.

That's another subject. We are discussing the diesel fuel fire hypothesis.

We are supposed to be discussing the 10 storey hole.

Yes, they knew that there was no debris damage on the east and north sides.

There was reported damage east of centre

True

Good, this is not what you have tried to claim earlier.

Why? It was clear that the diesel fuel played no part in the collapse.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

You are a blatant hypocrite C7. You have used photos to call NIST liars, yet in the same thread you have called photos faked.

You have called NIST misleading for using shadows to determine time yet you have done exactly the same thing to support your arguments.

You have used a magazine articles words to try and say that Shyam Sunder said them.

You will not directly contact the people you are calling liars to get clarification.

[GStan]

Christopher,

Do you have any comprehension of how a group of scientists at NIST would approach coming up with a hypothesis for what caused building 7 to collapse?

Do you realize all that they would review?

They look at the blueprints for the building.
They look at structural design elements to identify any areas that might have been more vulnerable to failure than others.

They look at the materials used in the building.
They look at building components to identify any materials used that might have been more vulnerable to failure than others.

They look at the contents of the building.
They try to identify any areas whose concentration of flammable contents may have been high enough to make it more vulnerable to failure than others.

They look at the verbally reported and photo/video documented structural damage to the building.
(All of it, not just selective pieces that support pre-determined conclusions.) They try to assess what was damaged to the best of their ability and identify any areas that may have been more vulnerable to failure than others.

They look at the verbally reported and photo/video documented fire progression.
(All of it, not just selective pieces that support pre-determined conclusions.) They try to assess when and where there were fires and identify any areas that may have been more vulnerable to failure than others.

They look at the video of the collapse sequence.
They try to assess what areas of the structure could most likely have failed to produce the observed collapse sequence.

After looking at ALL of this, they would try to identify the area most vulnerable to failure and develop a working hypothesis for what caused the failure. Then they would develop experiments and models to determine the probability of their hypothesis.

After their preliminary examination of the whole body of evidence, as sound scientists, what they would NOT do, (even though you've made it painfully clear that you would do it this way), is abandon what was, at the time, the best available hypothesis simply because of a single photo and absence of evidence in one of the six above-mentioned areas.

Based on the evidence (and lack thereof) you've provided, your claim that NIST/Shyam Sunder was lying by proposing their initial working hypothesis is a 55-gallon heavy-duty garbage bag filled to the top with nothing but fail.

Given all that NIST would have to investigate with respect to building 7, why should they have abandoned their hypothesis based on a single photo and absence of evidence?

Why would you not contact them for clarification, if for no other reason than to force them to create another lie in response to your inquiry, thus firming up the case for the eventual prosecution of these alleged crimes?

Does it not give you pause at all that for your allegations to be true, not only does Shyam-Sunder have to be a liar, but also he has to have convinced every scientist who either worked on the report or reviewed it to lie as well about something that is so "obvious" that even an unqualified layman like yourself can identify it?

[Christopher7]

Given all that NIST would have to investigate with respect to building 7, why should they have abandoned their hypothesis based on a single photo and absence of evidence?
1) Because it was enough to establish that there was no fire at 2:10 p.m. and no reason to think there was a fire later.
2) There were no reports of fire there at any time.
3) Even if there were a fire there it would not be a factor in the collapse.

The outright refusal to grasp these simple facts shows that everyone here is in denial or getting paid to keep this merry-go-round going around.

Why would you not contact them for clarification, if for no other reason than to force them to create another lie in response to your inquiry, thus firming up the case for the eventual prosecution of these alleged crimes?Dumb question.
Hey mister, did you lie in this report? No? OK, thank you very much.

Does it not give you pause at all that for your allegations to be true, not only does Shyam-Sunder have to be a liar, but also he has to have convinced every scientist who either worked on the report or reviewed it to lie as well about something that is so "obvious" that even an unqualified layman like yourself can identify it?The Bush administration systematically distorts scientific documents to further their political agenda. It only requires a few people at the top to falsify a report.

Why do you still fanatically believe and support the Bush administration?

[UNLoVedRebel]

1)
The Bush administration systematically distorts scientific documents to further their political agenda. It only requires a few people at the top to falsify a report.

Why do you still fanatically believe and support the Bush administration?

http://www.breakers.com/media/parrot.jpg

[UNLoVedRebel]

This thread is dead, stop bumping it.

[funk de fino]

The Bush administration systematically distorts scientific documents to further their political agenda. It only requires a few people at the top to falsify a report.

And no-one else involved in that report notices?? Get real C7, how many people were involved in that report, including external companies NIST used?

epic failure.

Why do you still fanatically believe and support the Bush administration?

Even bigger failure than above. Political claptrap and untrue anyway. Most here are against the Bush admin. This is the mantra of the truther who has no arguments based in facts and evidence.

[Grizzly Bear]

1) Because it was enough to establish that there was no fire at 2:10 p.m. and no reason to think there was a fire later.
Again with this (bold). What about before 2PM Christopher? You never did answer my question, is there a reason why you make a point to evade that?

2) There were no reports of fire there at any time.
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

3) Even if there were a fire there it would not be a factor in the collapse.
Of course, we know now, but at the time of the preliminary report this was an unknown. Stop using outdated material...

The outright refusal to grasp these simple facts shows that everyone here is in denial or getting paid to keep this merry-go-round going around.
False Dilemma (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html)

Or you could be using flawed argumentation tactics which expose your confirmation bias, or you're incompetent, the world may never know. However argumentation is not precluded to two exclusive choices.

[GStan]

1) Because it was enough to establish that there was no fire at 2:10 p.m. and no reason to think there was a fire later.

Yes there was. At minimum, there was a large quantity of diesel fuel unaccounted for. That alone is enough to trump the single photograph theory (which incidently, only establishes that there was no smoke coming from the louvres at 210 pm), not even considering everything else that would have been factored into the development of the working hypothesis.

2) There were no reports of fire there at any time.

Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. But I'll let it stand if you want to allow me to apply it to your theory as well. There were no reports of explosives being set off. There were no reports of demolition characteristics in the rubble pile. There were no remnants of demolition hardware in the rubble pile. There were no reports of demolition charges or thermite being planted in building 7 prior to 9/11. There were no reports of people going into building 7 on 9/11 to plant demolition charges or thermite. There are no reports from witnesses at ground zero that building 7 was CD'd. There are no reports of seismic activity consistent with what would be recorded in a CD. There are no reports from any scientists who worked on the NIST report stating that Dr. Shyam-Sunder lied or told them to lie. None of these works as proof of my argument anymore or less than your repeated assertion of "no reports of fire" works for yours. Stop saying it. It makes you look like a ********.

3) Even if there were a fire there it would not be a factor in the collapse.

Obviously we know that now. Stop pretending that it was already apparent to them before they even published the first draft.

The outright refusal to grasp these simple facts shows that everyone here is in denial or getting paid to keep this merry-go-round going around.

HEY! Where's my check?!

Dumb question.
Hey mister, did you lie in this report? No? OK, thank you very much.

If that is the best question that you could come up with, given the opportunity to correspond or interview with Dr. Shyam-Sunder, then yes, quite dumb indeed. Hopefully the attorney who ultimately prosecutes the case is able to come up with some questions that are slightly more intelligent.

Is that really what you would ask him if you had the chance? You do realize that even if prosecuted, he will be presumed innocent until his guilt is proven, and he will have the opportunity to defend himself? He should be so lucky as to have such an inadequate prosecutor.

The Bush administration systematically distorts scientific documents to further their political agenda. It only requires a few people at the top to falsify a report.

That's idiotic. Period. Please explain to me some semblance of a coherent theory as to how "a few people at the top" could falsify a scientific report using an alleged lie that is so blatantly obvious that a layman with no relevant professional experience can identify it, yet hidden enough that every other scientist who worked on or reviewed the report could either not detect it, or have agreed to play along with it. (And this is not just some minor manipulation used to unduly justify a policy initiative, this is the cover up of mass murder!) Your assertion is absurd.

Why do you still fanatically believe and support the Bush administration?

Here is a nickel's worth of free advice. Spend 3 or 4 hours one day reading in the JREF politics forum, particularly the election 08 subforum. You will find a lot of handles of posters who also comment in the conspiracy forums. It will be ridiculously obvious to you very quickly that there is not much love for the Bush administration here at JREF, and that there are even some who would be tickled pink to find evidence that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Etc. planned and executed 9/11, perhaps even wishing for it. (That's probably why some of them argue so politely with truthers and yet so venomously with conservatives.;))

I am a conservative, but I believe that W has done far more to hurt the conservative movement in this country than he has to help it. And even if I didn't hold that belief; even if I thought he was doing a terrific job; if evidence is found that he and/or individuals in his administration have had any hand in perpetrating the events of 9/11, you grab the torches and I'll bring the pitchforks. I will stand right along side you and pursue him/them with as much vigor as we have put into the war on terror.

You're not there. The evidence has not been found. If you want to find it, find it. But stop wasting your life pretending that that which is not evidence, is.

[Jono]

The Bush administration systematically distorts scientific documents to further their political agenda. It only requires a few people at the top to falsify a report.

Why do you still fanatically believe and support the Bush administration?

This is demonstrably illogical. There is a differences between how many people are required to falsify a report (one) and how many people directly involved in reviewing it are required.

Show me one scientific document distorted by the any member of the elected Bush administration, please.

[BCR]

I am a conservative, but I believe that W has done far more to hurt the conservative movement in this country than he has to help it. And even if I didn't hold that belief; even if I thought he was doing a terrific job; if evidence is found that he and/or individuals in his administration have had any hand in perpetrating the events of 9/11, you grab the torches and I'll bring the pitchforks. I will stand right along side you and pursue him/them with as much vigor as we have put into the war on terror.

Ditto...

[DavidJames]

Show me one scientific document distorted by the any member of the elected Bush administration, please.I'm surprised you find this hard to believe. You could start here (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/).

[jaydeehess]

This is demonstrably illogical. There is a differences between how many people are required to falsify a report (one) and how many people directly involved in reviewing it are required.

Show me one scientific document distorted by the any member of the elected Bush administration, please.

there have been articles in magazines that I read such as "Discover" and Scientific American" which deal with the Bush administration changing the wording of scientific papers.

That is not the point. With the NIST reports, Chris is trying to say that because non-technical people have pushed to spin the wording of gov't sponsored papers that NIST as a whole and the researchers involved in writing the WTC NIST reports are either bowing to political pressure, staying quiet about having their work altered by political machinations, or activley involved in producing a docuement with little or no technical honesty, or worse, deliberately creating a an utterly false report.

There are several other organizations that have no, or minor, problems with the content of the reports and whose membership is comprised of technical persons with the training and ability to spot such a lie as Chris would have us believe that he IS the NIST WTC 7 report. The ASCE and the CTBUH to name two.

Chris wishes to have us believe that since papers have been altered due to political pressure by this administration in the past that THIS particular paper must also not only be a case of 'spin' but also a complete and utter fabrication to cover up the single most aggregious act of treason and mass murder in the history of his country, possibly the entire span of human history.

To this end Chris himself is completely willing to 'spin' the contents of the NIST report, twisting it to suit his own forgone conclusions that NIST is a den of liars and accomplices to mass muder and that the events of 9/11/01 were the result of the afore mentioned treason and mass murder by persons unknown in the US government. (or Israel, or a shadowy, back room, world controlling, organization)

[jaydeehess]

. It will be ridiculously obvious to you very quickly that there is not much love for the Bush administration here at JREF, and that there are even some who would be tickled pink to find evidence that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Etc. planned and executed 9/11, perhaps even wishing for it. (That's probably why some of them argue so politely with truthers and yet so venomously with conservatives.;))

I am a conservative, but I believe that W has done far more to hurt the conservative movement in this country than he has to help it. And even if I didn't hold that belief; even if I thought he was doing a terrific job; if evidence is found that he and/or individuals in his administration have had any hand in perpetrating the events of 9/11, you grab the torches and I'll bring the pitchforks. I will stand right along side you and pursue him/them with as much vigor as we have put into the war on terror.

You're not there. The evidence has not been found. If you want to find it, find it. But stop wasting your life pretending that that which is not evidence, is.

In order for me to make the above fit me I would have to change it slightly, as below

I am a liberal (by any measure that would be used in the USA) , and I believe that W has done far more to hurt the conservative movement in this country than he has to help it. And even if I didn't hold that belief; even if I thought he was doing a terrific job; if evidence is found that he and/or individuals in his administration have had any hand in perpetrating the events of 9/11, you grab the torches and I'll bring the pitchforks. I will stand right along side you and pursue him/them with as much vigor as we have put into the war on terror.

I might add that I was relieved when Rumsfeld left the Pentagon, relieved for the future of the men and women serving in the US military.

I am relieved that finally GWB has reached the end of his allotted time to screw up the USA and the world.

I believe deeply that history will not be kind to GWB, Cheney or Rumsfeld and that they, and many others in the administration (Karl Rove comes to mind), will be branded as the worst persons ever to serve their respective offices..

However because of the desparate political beliefs of the TM and Christopher 7, they will always find it neccessary to absolutly demonize persons in the administration, persons in the gov't agencies who stand in the way of their politically driven claims, and those who oppose their politically driven forgone conclusions. So if Chris wishes to believe that we are all Bush loving neo-cons driven to support the so-called 'official conspiracy theory' because we all love the present administatration, then let him rant on in that vein. It clearly demonstrates his desparation.

[GStan]

Dang! I got all excited when I saw this back on the front page. I thought maybe Christopher had returned to say that he'd read the final NIST WTC7 and to apologize for being so wrong for so long.

Nothing else to add, just wanted to do my part to ensure that this thread never EVER dies.

[Dave Rogers]

I thought maybe Christopher had returned to say that he'd read the final NIST WTC7 and to apologize for being so wrong for so long.

Tell me, what colour is the sky in your world?

Dave

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Christopher7
1) Because it was enough to establish that there was no fire at 2:10 p.m. and no reason to think there was a fire later.
Yes there was. At minimum, there was a large quantity of diesel fuel unaccounted for.So what? There was no reason to think there was a fire in the north east generator room. The damage was to the south west corner.

2) There were no reports of fire there at any time.
Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. That IS evidence of absence. "Could have been" without any evidence to support a hypothesis doesn't warrant investigation it in a scientific document.

3) Even if there were a fire there it would not be a factor in the collapse.
Obviously we know that now. Stop pretending that it was already apparent to them before they even published the first draft.
STOP DENYING THAT THEY KNEW THAT IN 2004!
If the louvers were closed a fire would burn out when it had used up the oxygen in the room and therefore COULD NOT BE A FACTOR IN THE COLLAPSE.

[UNLoVedRebel]

http://www.betadaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/beating-a-dead-horse.jpg

[Christopher7]

There are numerous problems with the collapse of the girder between columns 79 and 44 on floor 13.

1) The girder collapses twice.

2) NIST deleted key words from a paragraph in the NIST L report in order to claim the absence of shear studs on the girder between columns 79 and 44.

3) NIST brought the temperatures of the beams and girder up to 600oC and 500oC respectively, over their entire length in less than 3 seconds.

4) NIST did notinclude the expansion of the floor slab in their calculations for the computer model that showed the shear studs on the beams failing. Concrete expands at 85% the rate of steel.

* * * * *
1) 1-9 Vol.1 pg 353 [397 on pg counter]
“Axial compression then increased in the floor beams, and at a beam temperature of 436°C, shown in Figure 8-27 (a), leading to the collapse of the floor system, and rocking the girder off its seat at Column 79 as shown in Figure 8-27 (b)" [to the east]
http://nasathermalimages.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_Vol1_for_public_comment_unlocked.pdf (http://nasathermalimages.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_Vol1_for_public_comment_unlocked.pdf)

1-9 Vol.2 pg 487 [149]
Walk-off failure of beams and girders was defined to occur when (1) the end of the beam or girder moved along the axis of the beam until it was no longer supported by the bearing seat, or (2) the beam or girder was pushed laterally until its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat.
[see pg 33 Tech Brief] http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Technical_Briefing_082608.pdf (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Technical_Briefing_082608.pdf)

1-9 Vol.2 pg 525 [187]
A girder was considered to have lost vertical support when its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in. [to the west], it was no longer supported by the bearing seat.
http://nasathermalimages.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_vol2_for_public_comment_unlocked.pdf (http://nasathermalimages.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_vol2_for_public_comment_unlocked.pdf)

* * * * *
2) In their June 2004 report, NIST referred to the use of shear studs in World Trade Center 7. Shear studs are used to keep steel floor beams and girders in place; they impart stability and strength to buildings. But in their August 2008 final report, NIST re-worded their comments on shear studs to make it appear that none were used on the floor girders.

Why would they do this? To know the answer, you need to understand NIST's collapse theory. This is how it goes:
1. The key girder between column 79 and the exterior wall fails at floor 13.
2. Its failure causes the collapse of floors 13 through 6.
3. Column 79, now unsupported laterally by these floors, buckles and brings down the entire building.

This scenario is easier to posit if the key girder isn't being held firmly with shear studs. Thus, in the August 2008 report, NIST did what it had to do to make it more reasonable that the girder would fail: It magically omitted the shear studs.

Compare these two paragraphs. In the excerpted paragraph of the 2004 report, NIST says that studs were used with both beams and girders, although the studs "were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders" (the girder associated with column 79, by the way, was not a core girder). In the 2008 report, however, not only does NIST drop the association of girders with shear studs ( first sentence of excerpted paragraph), but then they go on to imply that studs were not indicated at all on the girders (last sentence of excerpted paragraph):

June 2004 NIST L pg 6 [10 on pg counter]
Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced 1 ft to 2 ft on center. Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders.
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

August 2008 NCSTAR 1-9 vol.1 pg 15 [59]
Most of the beams - - - - - - - - - were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced - - - - 2 ft on center*. Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for - - - - - - the - - - - girders.
http://nasathermalimages.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_Vol1_for_public_comment_unlocked.pdf

Then, in this paragraph of the 2008 report, they use the "absence" of shear studs to help make their case:

August 2008 NCSTAR 1A pg 49 [87]
At Column 79, heating and expansion of the floor beams in the northeast corner caused the loss of connection between the column and the key girder. Additional factors that contributed to the failure of the critical north-south girder were (1) the absence of shear studs that would have provided lateral restraint and (2) the one-sided framing of the east floor beams that allowed the beams to push laterally on the girders, due to thermal expansion of the beams.
http://nasathermalimages.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment_unlocked.pdf

This deliberate distortion of the evidence can only be called fraud. Even those who have accepted the official story must acknowledge that NIST's isstatements of its own report are not mistakes. They are bending the facts to accommodate a theory that cannot, so to speak, stand up.

* "on center" - a term that means “apart”


This bit of sophistry seems to be their reasoning:

9-1 pg 15 [59]
"The structural design drawings (Irwin G. Cantor P.C., Structural Engineers 1985) specified design forces for connections and suggested a typical detail, but did not show specific connection designs; this was standard practice on the U.S. east coast. The erection drawings (Frankel Steel Limited 1985) indicated that design shear forces for the typical beam and girder connections were to be taken from the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) beam design tables for beams without shear studs, using 1.5 times those forces for beams with shear studs. However, actual connection designs were obtained from fabrication shop drawings (Frankel Steel Limited 1985a), which provided detailed descriptions of the floor connections and column splices in WTC 7."

This paragraph is discussing shear forces for floor beam and girder connections. It does not say there were no shear studs on the floor beams and girders, yet they conclude that there were shear studs on the beams but not the girders.

This paragraph can be interpreted two ways.
1) The designers made the beam and girder connections stronger because they did not use shear studs. [to cut cost]
2) The designers were making the beam and girder connections stronger than the minimum requirements by 50%. [would not add a great deal of cost]

There is no justification for assuming there were no studs on the floor girders.

* * * * *
3) NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 Pg 351
To avoid dynamic effects, the gravity loading was ramped up smoothly over a period of 1 s, as shown in Figure 8–24. Ramping of the temperatures for the beams and the girder then commenced at 1.1 s, as shown in Figure 8–25, leveling off at temperatures of 600 °C for the beams and 500 °C for the girder at 2.6 s. These temperature histories were prescribed uniformly for all nodes of the beams and the girder, respectively. The material model for the steel beams and girders incorporated temperature dependence in the stress-strain behavior and accounted for thermal expansion.
4) No thermal expansion or material degradation was considered for the concrete slab.

[Christopher7]

http://www.betadaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/beating-a-dead-horse.jpgThe fact that any fire in the north east generator room, if it existed, would not be a factor in the collapse is self evident and NIST knew that in 2004.

[UNLoVedRebel]

The fact that any fire in the north east generator room, if it existed, would not be a factor in the collapse is self evident and NIST knew that in 2004.

Refer to post #2

[apathoid]

Has anyone seen a realistice explanation for why this thread hasn't been closed?











I'm not joking...

[Christopher7]

Refer to post #2
Has anyone seen a realistice explanation for why this thread hasn't been closed?Rather than acknowledge the obvious truth, you sidestepped.

[beachnut]

...
The Bush administration systematically distorts scientific documents to further their political agenda. It only requires a few people at the top to falsify a report.

Why do you still fanatically believe and support the Bush administration?

Paranoid to the end, not a clue about WTC7, so you just lie and say Bush faked the reports. Great lie, now you can prove your fantasy. But you can’t.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Rather than acknowledge the obvious truth, you sidestepped.

No, I acknowledge this thread should be closed.

[Christopher7]

No, I acknowledge this thread should be closed.Because you cannot deal with the truth. You refuse to acknowledge this simple self evident fact.

Any fire in the north east generator room, if it existed, would not be a factor in the collapse. This is self evident and NIST knew that in 2004.

[Jonnyclueless]

By truth you mean crap that you make up. Got it.

[Klimax]

Has anyone seen a realistice explanation for why this thread hasn't been closed?


It needs for self-terry-close another 5000 posts... :cool:
(I would not expect to get there before implosion of board.Well,you can sue report function to ask for close...)

[Grizzly Bear]

The fact that any fire in the north east generator room, if it existed, would not be a factor in the collapse is self evident and NIST knew that in 2004.

Good lord give it a rest with the generator fire crap. No offense intended, but this has got to be one of the most persistent cherry-pickings I've ever seen. I commend you for your persistence but arguing it ad nauseum doesn't earn you points for evidence. You're continual reference to an older document serving as a preliminary report and not a final is serving you no better. This has been explained to you countless times. You're beating a dead horse to a pulp

[jaydeehess]

beating a dead horse to a pulp

One of the reasons why I raely post to this thread anymore. Abuse of dead critters. :lol:

[Christopher7]

Good lord give it a rest with the generator fire crap. No offense intended, but this has got to be one of the most persistent cherry-pickings I've ever seen.When faced with a reality you cannot reasonably dispute or deny, you go to the deniers playbook and pull out a catch praise.
NIST wasted a great deal of time and money on a baseless, non-scientific speculation.

I commend you for your persistence but arguing it ad nauseum doesn't earn you points for evidence. You're continual reference to an older document serving as a preliminary report and not a final is serving you no better. Here's another catch phrase "older document", as if that mattered. These reports are supposed to be scientific documents and an investigation into something that obviously had no effect on the collapse is not scientific. The investigation of diesel fuel fires continued and is included in the Final report.

[Bell]

Christopher7, this thead exists for almost two years. What have you learned from the JREF members in that time?

[dtugg]

Christopher7, do you have a theory about WTC7? Are you a magical silent explosives type of guy or a thermite type of guy?

[Christopher7]

One of the reasons why I raely post to this thread anymore. Abuse of dead critters. :lol:Will you address the fraud in the final report?

There are numerous problems with the collapse of the girder between columns 79 and 44 on floor 13.

1) The girder collapses twice.

2) NIST deleted key words from a paragraph in the NIST L report in order to claim the absence of shear studs on the girder between columns 79 and 44.

3) NIST brought the temperatures of the beams and girder up to 600 °C and 500°C respectively, over their entire length in less than 2 seconds.


4) NIST did not include the expansion of the floor slab in their calculations for the computer model that showed the shear studs on the beams failing. Concrete expands at 85% the rate of steel.

* * * * *
1) 1-9 Vol.2 pg 487 [149]
Walk-off failure of beams and girders was defined to occur when (1) the end of the beam or girder moved along the axis of the beam until it was no longer supported by the bearing seat, or (2) the beam or girder was pushed laterally until its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat.
[see pg 33 Tech Brief] http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Technical_Briefing_082608.pdf (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Technical_Briefing_082608.pdf)

1-9 Vol.2 pg 525 [187]
A girder was considered to have lost vertical support when its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in. [to the west], it was no longer supported by the bearing seat.
http://nasathermalimages.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_vol2_for_public_comment_unlocked.pdf (http://nasathermalimages.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_vol2_for_public_comment_unlocked.pdf)

1-9 Vol.1 pg 353 [397 on pg counter]
“Axial compression then increased in the floor beams, and at a beam temperature of 436°C, shown in Figure 8-27 (a), leading to the collapse of the floor system, and rocking the girder off its seat at Column 79 as shown in Figure 8-27 (b)" [to the east]
http://nasathermalimages.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_Vol1_for_public_comment_unlocked.pdf (http://nasathermalimages.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_Vol1_for_public_comment_unlocked.pdf)

Uncited Source = http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=10699
* * * * *
2) In their June 2004 report, NIST referred to the use of shear studs in World Trade Center 7. Shear studs are used to keep steel floor beams and girders in place; they impart stability and strength to buildings. But in their August 2008 final report, NIST re-worded their comments on shear studs to make it appear that none were used on the floor girders.

Trimmed for Rule 4.

* * * * *
3)NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 Pg 351
To avoid dynamic effects, the gravity loading was ramped up smoothly over a period of 1 s, as shown in Figure 8–24. Ramping of the temperatures for the beams and the girder then commenced at 1.1 s, as shown in Figure 8–25, leveling off at temperatures of 600 °C for the beams and 500 °C for the girder at 2.6 s. These temperature histories were prescribed uniformly for all nodes of the beams and the girder, respectively. The material model for the steel beams and girders incorporated temperature dependence in the stress-strain behavior and accounted for thermal expansion.
4) No thermal expansion or material degradation was considered for the concrete slab.

[Christopher7]

Christopher7, this thead exists for almost two years. What have you learned from the JREF members in that time?A great deal thank you. Gravy gave me the URL to the NIST L report and others here have posted URLs to relevant documents. I have also learned that everyone here is fanatically loyal to the OCT. Any evidence, no matter how conclusive, that undermines the OCT is rejected or ignored. You all fought relentlessly for the 10 story gouge and the diesel fuel fires only to be proven wrong in the end. Now you all refuse to admit that there was no basis for the diesel fuel fire hypothesis.

[Grizzly Bear]

When faced with a reality you cannot reasonably dispute or deny you go to the deniers playbook and pull out a catch praise.
And that is exactly what you're playing as you have for two years, long before I joined here. Please keep up with the times and understand that an investigation develops. If a theory is has insufficient evidence to back it up then they eliminate it from the list of plausible causes. Seeing as how you demand a thorough scientific investigation, your demanding that they skip the investigation because it's "so bloody obvious" appears to be quite the opposite. As semantics go, this makes you a hypocrite. You should take notes from your favorite expert authority figures at AE911truth, they excel at this sort of "unscientific work" as you put it. Is constantly cherry-picking a report that was still in-progress no less, your standard of deeming a final conclusion void? Quite grasping at straws with the semantics game.


Here's another catch phrase "older document", as if that mattered.
What? I thought the entire purpose of a scientific or forensic investigation is to gather all of the available information; eliminate faulty hypotheses, and refine those which are more valid in order to come to a reasonably concrete solution? Have you any specific criticism other than your constant cherry-picking of a document presented long before the final product and your constant bickering over a component which has been concluded ultimately to agree with your own statements?

Are you implying that any progress in a scientific investigation is grounds for criminal prosecution under Federal Law?


These reports are supposed to be scientific documents and an investigation into something that obviously had no effect on the collapse is not scientific.
Show that there is concrete evidence that this was bloody obvious at the time that the NIST L report was published then. The only thing you have presented to substantiate your case is a photograph that is only a snapshot in time. What it represents is the condition of the building at that particular time. Tell me Christopher, is this diesel fire quirk of yours the only thing you have left to argue?


Will you address the fraud in the final report?
Simple, you're playing semantics based on small edits in context.

June 2004 NIST L pg 6 [10 on pg counter]

Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced 1 ft to 2 ft on center. Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders.
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_.../appendixl.pdf

August 2008 NCSTAR 1-9 vol.1 pg 15 [59]

Most of the beams - - - - - - - - - were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced - - - - 2 ft on center*. Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for - - - - - - the - - - - girders.
http://nasathermalimages.s3.amazonaw...t_unlocked.pdf

The difference between the two appears to me to mean that they examined the design specifications more thoroughly than they had gone when the progress report was made. Christopher I have a suggestion for you; instead of playing semantics with cherry-picking choice words of context, if you have such a frantic problem with NIST's changes, then why not call the appropriate institution and inquire upon the possibility of requesting copies of the design specifications for the old WTC 7 complex?


A great deal thank you.
:rolleyes:

I have also learned that everyone here is fanatically loyal to the OCT.
Have you ever bothered to place your own authoritative sources under the microscope as much as you do the NIST Appendix L release (forget the final, you're glued to the appendix L)? Just curious is all... because judging by your numerous posts, you haven't done so; that is an astounding level of confirmation bias.

Any evidence, no matter how conclusive, that undermines the OCT is rejected or ignored.
Okay I get it... you just nuked my irony meter... I had fifty of them... and they all just exploded with the might of the Tsar Hydrogen Bomb.

[beachnut]

A great deal thank you. Gravy gave me the URL to the NIST L report and others here have posted URLs to relevant documents. I have also learned that everyone here is fanatically loyal to the OCT. Any evidence, no matter how conclusive, that undermines the OCT is rejected or ignored. You all fought relentlessly for the 10 story gouge and the diesel fuel fires only to be proven wrong in the end. Now you all refuse to admit that there was no basis for the diesel fuel fire hypothesis.What did you say?

Any evidence, no matter how conclusive, that undermines the OCT is rejected or ignored.
There is zero evidence for you to support your 9/11 truth ideas; or do you have any truth ideas? You have nothing; as in zip. Zero. 0

Please present any evidence that undermines what happen on 9/11. You can't, because you and 9/11 truth have zero evidence to support your failed, fantasy, false ideas. Nice try, but talk is not evidence.

Are you saying no fuel oil burned on 9/11? Or are you still saying there was no exterior damage? What are you saying? What was your CT on 9/11?

19 terrorists did all the damage on 9/11, and WTC7 started on fire due to the attack by terrorists. What was your big story?
There was no 10 story hole as described on ...
Are you wrong, or what? This entire thread is due to you quiblling over the damage to WTC7 from WTC1.

(NIST) -Did debris from the collapse of WTC 1 cause damage to WTC 7’s structure in a way that contributed to the building’s collapse?
The debris caused structural damage to the southwest region of the building—severing seven exterior columns—but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse. The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building’s collapse after the fires grew and spread to the northeast region after several hours. The debris impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns. The debris impact damage did play a secondary role in the last stages of the collapse sequence, where the exterior façade buckled at the lower floors where the impact damage was located. A separate analysis showed that even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 (the south tower) hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings.
So you were wrong, there was damage to WTC7, in fact the damage is where the fires started which destroyed WTC7.

So you said there was not 10 stories of damage. How many did you say there were?

[Christopher7]

If a theory is has insufficient evidence to back it up then they eliminate it from the list of plausible causes.Exactly. NIST had the data that clearly showed diesel fuel fires were NOT a factor in the collapse in 2004 and they should have eliminated that hypothesis then.

Show that there is concrete evidence that this was bloody obvious at the time that the NIST L report was published then. The only thing you have presented to substantiate your case is a photograph that is only a snapshot in time. WRONG!
I have to repeat this for each new uninformed person that joins the debate. Have any of you guys read NIST L pg 22 - 26 ?
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.
There was NO debris damage anywhere near the north east generator room.

If the louvers were open, smoke from a fire would be pouring out. If they were closed, a fire would burn out when it ran out of oxygen.

The data NIST had in 2004 was enough to determine that diesel fuel fires were NOT a factor in the collapse.


June 2004 NIST L pg 6 [10 on pg counter]

Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced 1 ft to 2 ft on center. Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders.
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_.../appendixl.pdf

August 2008 NCSTAR 1-9 vol.1 pg 15 [59]

Most of the beams - - - - - - - - - were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced - - - - 2 ft on center*. Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for - - - - - - the - - - - girders.
http://nasathermalimages.s3.amazonaw...t_unlocked.pdf

The difference between the two appears to me to mean that they examined the design specifications more thoroughly than they had gone when the progress report was made.So, you think the experts at NIST misread the design drawings in 2004 but you accept everything they say now without question.

". . . if you have such a frantic problem with NIST's changes, then why not call the appropriate institution and inquire upon the possibility of requesting copies of the design specifications for the old WTC 7 complex?" Many requests for data have been made including this one: [paragraph 6]
http://www.911blogger.com/node/17794

NIST has not released the design drawings or computer model input making verification impossible. Until their findings can be verified independently, they are NOT considered science fact. Take my word for it does not cut it in science.

[phunk]

If the louvers were open, smoke from a fire would be pouring out. If they were closed, a fire would burn out when it ran out of oxygen.


Unless of course they were open and feeding air IN to the fire.

[Grizzly Bear]

WRONG!
I have to repeat this for each new uninformed person that joins the debate. Have any of you guys read NIST L pg 22 - 26 ?
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.
There was NO debris damage anywhere near the north east generator room.
The generators were found to have lost a significant portion of their payloads. It was unknown at the time what role the fuel played in the collapse (de javu). IIRC they utilized feeder lines in between, one of their initial hypotheses involved one of those fuel lines being compromised in the impact of tower 1. Are you necessitating that the fuel tanks themselves be damaged in order for this to occur?



So, you think the experts at NIST misread the design drawings in 2004 but you accept everything they say now without question.
No christopher, I accept that the release which you continue cherry-picking was a work in progress, and that collection of pertinent information was incomplete at the time of its publication. I see no significant differences between the appendix L report, and the final release, aside from a verbally more concrete understanding of the data they had available to them. Unless your experts can offer more concrete information that such analysis is incorrect, then this is the best information available.

NIST has not released the design drawings or computer model input making verification impossible.
NIST_NCSTAR_1-9A: Chapter 2.3 (Page 10) (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9A_for_public_comment.pdf)

I'll also draw your attention to chapter 3.3.1 pages 20-21, and 22-32. which all detail connections used in the design.

Pages 36-48 show visual floor design specifications in the event you don't feel like reading the pertinent text explaining it.

Fema also released diagrammatic figures in chapter 5.2.1 through 5.2.4 of their report, of course their analysis explaining the specifics are not as thorough as they are in the NIST report.

[roundhead]

Christopher7...Very convincing beatdown

Nice job:D

[Christopher7]

The generators were found to have lost a significant portion of their payloads. It was unknown at the time what role the fuel played in the collapse etc. etc. etc.Talk about beating a dead horse. You continue to ignore these facts:

There were NO reports of fire in the NE generator room at any time.

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

A fire in the north east generator room, if it existed, would burn out when it ran out of oxygen and would not be a factor in the collapse. This is self evident and NIST knew that in 2004.

[UNLoVedRebel]

http://www.stuffiwanttoknow.com/uploaded_images/150px-Dwyer2-733446.jpg

[Christopher7]

NIST_NCSTAR_1-9A: Chapter 2.3 (Page 10) (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9A_for_public_comment.pdf)

I'll also draw your attention to chapter 3.3.1 pages 20-21, and 22-32. which all detail connections used in the design.

Pages 36-48 show visual floor design specifications in the event you don't feel like reading the pertinent text explaining it.

Fema also released diagrammatic figures in chapter 5.2.1 through 5.2.4 of their report, of course their analysis explaining the specifics are not as thorough as they are in the NIST report. You do not know what a design drawing is. Design drawings are the actual drawings used by the contractors who built the building. NIST did not release any of these. All the drawings in the NIST report are 'based on' the actual drawings. They are neither sufficient nor credible. "Take my word for it" does NOT qualify a science.

[GStan]

:xmas0642

[Grizzly Bear]

You continue to ignore these facts:

There were NO reports of fire in the NE generator room at any time.

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

A fire in the north east generator room, if it existed, would burn out when it ran out of oxygen and would not be a factor in the collapse. This is self evident and NIST knew that in 2004.


I am not going to repeat myself Christopher, reread the post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4292095&postcount=5335) you just responded to and answer the question I asked in it or concede that you have made no consideration for how the diesel tanks were set up. Your case is built substantially on hollow premise.

Regardless, I am entertained that you hold a position that agrees with the very report you baselessly call a fraud and the only argument you have left is one of semantics and a very hollow dependence on massive confirmation bias.


You do not know what a design drawing is. Design drawings are the actual drawings used by the contractors who built the building. NIST did not release any of these.

All the drawings in the NIST report are 'based on' the actual drawings. They are neither sufficient nor credible. "Take my word for it" does NOT qualify a science.

I provided the locations of the pertinent drawings. It's not my responsibility if you refused to examine the content so you could shift goalposts. Had you read the document you would have found typical sections scanned directly from the originals on page 10 of the report (62 on the PDF), and the original structural framing plan of typical floors on page 35 (87 on the PDF). They provide modeled representations of the floor connections and structure as well based on diagramatical sources. It would be nice if you at least read the content before trying to shift your goal posts.

As for the "take my word for it" complaint, NIST is clear on providing bibliographical content concerning where information is obtained. If as you claim publishing content "based on" these sources "does NOT qualify as science", then by that logic I would have to consider just about every text book I own an example of fraud because they use information hand-me-downs. You've opened up a massive can of worms there christopher.


Merry Christmas, and happy *Face PALMS (http://philipscheel.net/facepalm.jpg)* to you;

[Christopher7]

I am not going to repeat myself Christopher, reread the post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4292095&postcount=5335) you just responded to and answer the question I asked in it or concede that you have made no consideration for how the diesel tanks were set up. Please read the report again and familiarize yourself with the diesel fuel fire hypothesis. The diesel tanks were in the west end of the building. Any damage to the tanks and/or fire in the west end would have no effect on the initiating event. The hypothesis was that the feeder pipe fractured in the north east generator room at the connection box and a subsequent fire weakened column 79. The amount of missing fuel is irrelevant because there was no fire in the north east generator room.

I provided the locations of the pertinent drawings. I have read the report and have seen the drawings. They are not sufficient for a structural engineer to do an analysis as they could easily altered by simply leaving out the shear studs on the girder in question. There is no legitimate reason to withhold the original shop drawings from the public. This is not acceptable.

As for the "take my word for it" complaint, NIST is clear on providing bibliographical content concerning where information is obtained. If as you claim publishing content "based on" these sources "does NOT qualify as science", then by that logic I would have to consider just about every text book I own an example of fraud because they use information hand-me-downs.
This is NOT a textbook, it is a critical scientific document and as such it must provide all relevant source material.

Merry Christmas, and happy *Face PALMS (http://philipscheel.net/facepalm.jpg)* to you;Merry Christmas to you and all here at JREF.

[Grizzly Bear]

Will you address the fraud in the final report?

There are numerous problems with the collapse of the girder between columns 79 and 44 on floor 13.

1) The girder collapses twice.


<snipped for brevity>

Then, in this paragraph of the 2008 report, they use the "absence" of shear studs to help make their case:

August 2008 NCSTAR 1A pg 49 [87]
At Column 79, heating and expansion of the floor beams in the northeast corner caused the loss of connection between the column and the key girder. Additional factors that contributed to the failure of the critical north-south girder were (1) the absence of shear studs that would have provided lateral restraint and (2) the one-sided framing of the east floor beams that allowed the beams to push laterally on the girders, due to thermal expansion of the beams.
http://nasathermalimages.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment_unlocked.pdf

This deliberate distortion of the evidence can only be called fraud. Even those who have accepted the official story must acknowledge that NIST's misstatements of its own report are not mistakes. They are bending the facts to accommodate a theory that cannot, so to speak, stand up.

* "on center" - a term that means “apart”


This bit of sophistry seems to be their reasoning:

9-1 pg 15 [59]
"The structural design drawings (Irwin G. Cantor P.C., Structural Engineers 1985) specified design forces for connections and suggested a typical detail, but did not show specific connection designs; this was standard practice on the U.S. east coast. The erection drawings (Frankel Steel Limited 1985) indicated that design shear forces for the typical beam and girder connections were to be taken from the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) beam design tables for beams without shear studs, using 1.5 times those forces for beams with shear studs. However, actual connection designs were obtained from fabrication shop drawings (Frankel Steel Limited 1985a), which provided detailed descriptions of the floor connections and column splices in WTC 7."

This paragraph is discussing shear forces for floor beam and girder connections. It does not say there were no shear studs on the floor beams and girders, yet they conclude that there were shear studs on the beams but not the girders.

This paragraph can be interpreted two ways.
1) The designers made the beam and girder connections stronger because they did not use shear studs. [to cut cost]
2) The designers were making the beam and girder connections stronger than the minimum requirements by 50%. [would not add a great deal of cost]

There is no justification for assuming there were no studs on the floor girders.

* * * * *
3)NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 Pg 351
To avoid dynamic effects, the gravity loading was ramped up smoothly over a period of 1 s, as shown in Figure 8–24. Ramping of the temperatures for the beams and the girder then commenced at 1.1 s, as shown in Figure 8–25, leveling off at temperatures of 600 °C for the beams and 500 °C for the girder at 2.6 s. These temperature histories were prescribed uniformly for all nodes of the beams and the girder, respectively. The material model for the steel beams and girders incorporated temperature dependence in the stress-strain behavior and accounted for thermal expansion.
4) No thermal expansion or material degradation was considered for the concrete slab.

Speaking of which.... Christopher.... while searching online in doing some background checks on your claims to respond to your latest post I came across this interesting article which bears a striking resemblance -- word for word I might add -- to the above post you made. At least give credit where credit is due if the arguments you post to us are not your own:

A significant portion of the argument you copied and pasted was written by Judy Shelton and Chris Sarns (http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=10699) and that excerpt you gave was posted almost in its entirety. Should I assume the introductory portion of that post was also copied from another source, verbatim with your little touch ups to match the formatting on the forum?

When you're ready to argue with your own words... any day now.



The hypothesis was that the feeder pipe fractured in the north east generator room at the connection box and a subsequent fire weakened column 79.
Only column 79? Sheesh between you and RedIbis holy crap. Is oversimplification a pastime for you two? For the record... sir... The National Institute for Standards and Technology was not the only source to offer an opinion at the time regarding the potential role of the diesel fuel in the collapse. NIST certainly did not simplify their at the time working hypothesis down to the simple weakening of a single column, they attributed -- at the time -- such fires as playing a contributory, but not a principal role to the fires which weakened he overall structural integrity of the building. Again, hence the earlier point which you utterly ignore -- that not all of the information pertinent to the final conclusion was available at the time the progress report was released. Other groups (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02EEDD103EF933A15751C1A9679C8B 63) offered similar opinions around the same time. This article (http://propagandamatrix.com/engineers_are_baffled_over_the_collapse_of_7_wtc.h tml) obtained from the New York times (the original link access requires a subscription: LINK (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10812FF3F590C7A8EDDA80994D94044 82)) provided statements by Dr. Jonathan Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute. The article quotes him reiterating that controlled demolition is not needed to explain the WTC 7 collapse: "If the enclosures were damaged, then yes, this would be enough fuel to explain why the building collapsed." The article continues: "Others experts agreed that the diesel fuel could have speeded the collapse, but said the building might have met the same fate simply because of how long it burned. [...] A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said."

But of course we're arguing over an unfinished document when the final one is already out, after having done all of the investigation necessary to eliminate the fuel as a principal culprit to the collapse. I'm baffled as to why you continue to waste oxygen on a former report based on nothing more than shallow semantics when the final one ironically comes to the same conclusion as you, albeit through a different more refined process than simple reliance on a single photograph.


I have read the report and have seen the drawings. They are not sufficient for a structural engineer to do an analysis as they could easily altered by simply leaving out the shear studs on the girder in question.

http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/5237/300pxprojectmanagersmovmg4.jpg
Excuse me, do you need help with that? You've done this more times than I can count. You had to copy and paste your last argument, now you want to shift goal posts because I brought up a point your writers forgot to mention? Don't waste my time unless you can provide definitive proof that this happened, your credibility is shot if you can't stand to spend the time to look for this material yourself, let alone source it; and you were lecturing me on taking hearsay at face value? The hypocrisy you just displayed in your argument was insulting in of itself, I'm not kidding... It's not my intention to sound like an ass, but it really is annoying to find out that I'm responding to someone else's argument. :\


There is no legitimate reason to withhold the original shop drawings from the public. This is not acceptable.
Who said NIST was witholding them from the public? Find the appropriate archives and apply for a FOI request for them.

Neither the National Institute of Standards and Technology nor FEMA exclusively own the plans, and publications outside of these institutions are available to the public. This article published in 1985 by Engineering News-Record (http://ae911truth.info/pdf/ENR112885.pdf) scanned complements of one of the members of this forum from the Dallas Public Library is one such example of the available descriptions of the design. If you don't know where to look, then search library catalogs or go to city hall in Manhattan and see if they have the drawings available. They may not be easy to obtain or find, but the information you require for your, or rather "their" standard of proof is accessible with enough effort.

This is NOT a textbook, it is a critical scientific document and as such it must provide all relevant source material.
Oh it's a simple concept, an elementary one you failed to practice. Hearsay? It provides a bibliography sat the end of chapter 6. What do you want NIST to do submit their paper to TURNITIN (http://turnitin.com/)?
In other words, the crux point I am making is that NIST does not apply the "because I say so" card, they do exactly what you're requiring them to do, they source their material like any text book, like any research document for which they use external information that is not originally of their own work. You substantially diminished the fact that they tell you who did the original plans, who was responsible for the specifications they used, the entire shibang, and applying that same standard, it would be LIKE saying that despite all of these text books deriving their information from all of their sources, they are STILL lacking because their entire contextual basis is based on a "because they say so" rule.

[UNLoVedRebel]

C7 wants nothing more than for this thread to keep limping on. It's best to let him have the last word, and let this thread die its well-deserved death. He'll come back a month later and post an irrelevant ae911truth graphic. Let's all ignore that too, when the time comes, and just hope he finally takes a hint.

[Christopher7]

When you're ready to argue with your own words... any day now. The facts speak for themselves and it does not matter who states them. You could not dispute them without looking silly so you dodge the issue. Please respond to the facts.

No one here has responded to points 1, 3 and 4.

How can a girder collapse twice?

How could fires bring the entire area up to 500 °C - 600 °C in less than 2 seconds?

Failing to allow for the expansion of the slab in their calculations is fraudulent.

The National Institute for Standards and Technology was not the only source to offer an opinion at the time regarding the potential role of the diesel fuel in the collapse.So what? They were conducting the official investigation with taxpayer dollars and they are required to produce a serious scientific report. Spending a lot of time and money on a baseless hypothesis shows that they are incompetent.

NIST certainly did not simplify their at the time working hypothesis down to the simple weakening of a single column, they attributed -- at the time -- such fires as playing a contributory, but not a principal role to the fires which weakened he overall structural integrity of the building.Wrong! You really need to study the reports. The failure of column 79 was and still is what NIST refers to as the "initiating event". See NIST L pg 39 - 41.

Again, hence the earlier point which you utterly ignore -- that not all of the information pertinent to the final conclusion was available at the time the progress report was released.Wrong again. They knew that there were no fires reported in the north east generator room where column 79 was. They also knew that even if there was an unseen fire there it would not be a factor in the collapse due to lack of oxygen.

"If the enclosures were damaged, then yes, this would be enough fuel to explain why the building collapsed." The article continues: "Others experts agreed that the diesel fuel could have speeded the collapse, but said the building might have met the same fate simply because of how long it burned. [...] A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said."

The fuel tank was at the other end of the building and could not have played a roll in the initiating event. NIST knew this.

But of course we're arguing over an unfinished document when the final one is already outOCT loyalists would like to forget the malfeasance of investigating something that had no basis and no possibility of contributing to the collapse.

the final one ironically comes to the same conclusion as you, albeit through a different more refined process than simple reliance on a single photograph. Once again, NIST had all the relevant information in 2004. There were no fires reported on floor 5 at any time.

now you want to shift goal posts
Wrong. A scientific report such as this must be accompanied with the design drawings and not a rendering of them. Your lack of understanding and subsequent misinterpretation of the stated facts has led you to think the goal posts have been moved.

Who said NIST was witholding them from the public? Find the appropriate archives and apply for a FOI request for them. The public should not have to go through FOIA or search for the relevant documents. It is incumbent upon NIST to provide the documentation to support their conclusions.

[Grizzly Bear]

C7 wants nothing more than for this thread to keep limping on. It's best to let him have the last word, and let this thread die its well-deserved death. He'll come back a month later and post an irrelevant ae911truth graphic. Let's all ignore that too, when the time comes, and just hope he finally takes a hint.

I'm done with this thread, I volunteer time to offer an informed response and he insults me by spending more time formatting the text from a copy-pasta than writing his own content. I'm pretty sure it happens more often than I like but most others at least try to be more subtle about it.



The facts speak for themselves and it does not matter who states them.
Keep drinkin' that kool-aid brother...

[Christopher7]

I'm done with this thread, I volunteer time to offer an informed response and he insults me by spending more time formatting the text from a copy-pasta than writing his own content. I wrote that with the help of Judy Shelton.
It is not proper to ask about personal information but I am now forced to reveal my identity. No worries. [most people here already know]
The piece is NOT copyrighted. It is public domain and anyone can post it, or any part of it, anywhere they want.
I am posting here as an individual, not as a representative of any organization.

Chris Sarns


I'm pretty sure it happens more often than I like but most others at least try to be more subtle about it.You have no rebuttal for the incompetence of having the key girder collapsing twice or the fraud in excluding the expansion of the slab in the computer model so you complain about who wrote it.

These are just a few of the many misrepresentations of fact and outright fraud in the NIST final report on WTC 7.

[Jonnyclueless]

So this is another one of Chris's attempts to compare the preliminary report and the final report and accuse differences of being fraud again?

[Grizzly Bear]

I wrote that with the help of Judy Shelton.
It is not proper to ask about personal information but I am now forced to reveal my identity. No worries. [most people here already know]
The piece is NOT copyrighted. It is public domain and anyone can post it, or any part of it, anywhere they want.
I am posting here as an individual, not as a representative of any organization.

Chris Sarns

If you are one of the article's contributors then I will apologize for the misrepresentation and only comment that it would have avoided a great deal of confusion to have know about that earlier when you had posted the content and not 3 to 4 days after the fact. You as well had the opportunity to make that clear in your last response. I'm not interested in who you are, only in whether or not the content is your own.

With that said however, your argument is a different story altogether. Come up with something more substantial than expected clarifications from the progress to the final report.

[jaydeehess]

So this is another one of Chris's attempts to compare the preliminary report and the final report and accuse differences of being fraud again?

That is indeed one of the tenets of Chris' belief that NIST is an evil 1984 style arm of an evil central gov't.

He has a few others but is well known for harping away that NIST lied, NIST lied, NIST lied because they included deisel fires until the final report when they concluded that there is not enough evidence of such fires to include them.

Its pretty much the same conclusion they reached about blast events. There is simply not enough evidence of any to include them in any hypothesis. The fact that NIST reached that conclusion does not faze Chris in his quest to say that NIST lied about deisel fires any more than the lack of evidence for any blast event stops him from believeing that there was not one but several of them.

Grizzly Bear, I guess Chris expects that all debunkers know who he is. Until I asked, I thought he was a carpenter named Chris who lives in my town who is listed in the "scholar's for 911 truth". Turns out he is a different carpenter named Chris.

[Christopher7]

With that said however, your argument is a different story altogether. Come up with something more substantial than expected clarifications from the progress to the final report.There was NO explanation of the key girder collapsing twice in the final report.
There was NO clarification of the failure to include the expansion of the floor slab in the calculations that determined that the shear studs failed.

[Christopher7]

He has a few others but is well known for harping away that NIST lied, NIST lied, NIST lied because they included deisel fires until the final report when they concluded that there is not enough evidence of such fires to include them.Correct. They had the evidence to rule out diesel fuel fires as a contributing factor in 2004.

Its pretty much the same conclusion they reached about blast events. There is simply not enough evidence of any to include them in any hypothesis. The fact that NIST reached that conclusion does not faze Chris in his quest to say that NIST lied about deisel fires any more than the lack of evidence for any blast event stops him from believeing that there was not one but several of them.Subject shift noted.

This is because:

You cannot refute the FACT that NIST has the key girder on floor 13 collapsing twice.

You cannot refute the FACT that they did not include the expansion of the floor slab in their computer model that determined the shear studs failed.

[Jonnyclueless]

Wrong, they had evidence to suspect the fuel may not have been involved. They didn't rule it out in 2004. The dishonesty of Chris is amazing. And Chris, what did NIST say when you presented your argument?

[Christopher7]

Wrong, they had evidence to suspect the fuel may not have been involved. They had conclusive evidence that even if there were a fire it could not have burned hot enough to be a factor in the collapse.

They didn't rule it out in 2004.I figured it out using the information in the FEMA and NIST L reports.

And Chris, what did NIST say when you presented your argument?Which argument?

[beachnut]

http://www.stuffiwanttoknow.com/uploaded_images/150px-Dwyer2-733446.jpg
30 days for armed robbery, or was it assault?
Relax, fire did it; fire caused the failure in WTC7. Don't get upset, get help and get educated. 7 years, you could get a degree, a PhD in engineering structures and not worry about delusions of thermite and real dumb people supporting delusions about CD.

[GStan]

They had conclusive evidence that even if there were a fire it could not have burned hot enough to be a factor in the collapse.

I figured it out using the information in the FEMA and NIST L reports.

Which argument?

Hey, you're back. Glad to see that they, or I guess rather we, haven't gotten to you yet.

Have you interviewed Dr. Shyam-Sunder yet?

He'll either clear up your delusions or simply provide you with more evidence for you to use against him at trial. What are you waiting for?

[Christopher7]

Hey, you're back. Glad to see that they, or I guess rather we, haven't gotten to you yet.

Have you interviewed Dr. Shyam-Sunder yet?

He'll either clear up your delusions or simply provide you with more evidence for you to use against him at trial. What are you waiting for?Get serious.
You are sidestepping the facts by asking a ridiculous question.
There is no need to talk to Mr. Sunder because the facts are in the FEMA and NIST L reports

There were NO fires reported in the north east generator room at any time.
Therefore:
Either there was no fire or the louvers were closed.
Any fire that might have been would not have air flow and could not burn hot enough to be a factor in the collapse.

[Grizzly Bear]

Get serious.
You are sidestepping the facts by asking a ridiculous question.
There is no need to talk to Mr. Sunder because the facts are in the FEMA and NIST L reports

There were NO fires reported in the north east generator room at any time.
Therefore:
Either there was no fire or the louvers were closed.

Any fire that might have been would not have air flow and could not burn hot enough to be a factor in the collapse.

You claim that evidence "X" proves that there was no fire at all, but then you turn right around at the end and acknowledge the possibility that there was a fire caused by the spilled fuel and then fall back on the very conclusion NIST eventually came to...

So let me get this straight... the factor that makes this entire thing a criminal case in your eyes is in effect a problem with the timing in which NIST came to the same conclusion as you? Please enlighten me how your mind works with these things...

[GStan]

Get serious.
You are sidestepping the facts by asking a ridiculous question.
There is no need to talk to Mr. Sunder because the facts are in the FEMA and NIST L reports

There were NO fires reported in the north east generator room at any time.
Therefore:
Either there was no fire or the louvers were closed.
Any fire that might have been would not have air flow and could not burn hot enough to be a factor in the collapse.

So, an embarrassing NO; got it.

The closer you get to a mirage, the more apparent it will become that it is, in fact, a mirage. If your interest is in maintaining your own version of "the truth", (your mirage), rather than finding actual truth, it's probably best for you to continue to maintain your distance from Shyam-Sunder and NIST, just like with the New York firefighters. When reality looks like what you want it to look like, stop learning stuff, because knowledge might force you to adjust your version of reality. Super philosophy.

[funk de fino]

There were NO fires reported in the north east generator room at any time.

Oh dear. What is this?

Someone reporting smoke, fires and burning below floor 7 in WTC7 and someone claiming the generators were burning.

http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00136.pdf


Now, I may be silly but I believe this guy before someone who was not even there.

[Darat]

Long threads are being closed, Part II of this thread can be found here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=134954